Women, power, and kinship politics: female power in post-war Philippines 9780275960063

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
Illustrations (page ix)
Acknowledgments (page xi)
1. Introduction: Towards Engendering Philippine Post-War History and Politics (page 1)
2. Power Outside the Symbols of Power (page 29)
3. Women Politicians: Equal but Different? (page 73)
4. Women in Radical Politics (page 121)
5. Beauty Queen, Moral Guardian, Inang Bayan, and Militant Nun: Images of Female Power (page 161)
6. Conclusion: Empowering Women (page 189)
Bibliography (page 195)
Index (page 211)

Citation preview

WOMEN, POWER, AND KINSHIP POLITICS

Blank Page

WOMEN,

POWER,

KINSHIP POLITICS

Female Power in

Post-War Philippines Mina Roces

mick =o

| Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

, Roces, Mina, 1959- . Women, power, and kinship politics : female power in post-war Philippines / Mina Roces.

p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-275-96006—-4 (alk. paper)

1. Women in politics—Philippines. 2. Political culture—

, Philippines. 3. Kinship—Political aspects—Philippines. 4. Power (Social sciences)—Philippines. 5. Philippines—Politics and

government—1946- I. Title. HQ1236.5.P6R62 1998

306.2'09599—dce2] 97-35136

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available. , Copyright © 1998 by Mina Roces All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, by any process or technique, without the express written consent of the publisher. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 97-35136 ISBN: 0-275-96006—4 First published in 1998

Praeger Publishers, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881 An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.

Printed in the United States of America , The paper used in this book complies with the Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National Information Standards Organization (239.48-1984).

100987654321 Copyright Acknowledgments The author and publisher gratefully acknowledge permission for use of the following material: Excerpts from interviews conducted by Mina Roces with Fe Arriola, Carolina “Bobbie” Malay,

Sister Mary John Mananzan, Edith Nakpil Rabat, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Sister Mariani Dimaranan, Adelina Rodriguez, Helen Benitez, Rosemarie Arenas, Imelda Romualdez Marcos, and Sally Zalvidar Perez. Used by permission of all interviewees.

For my father, Alfredo R. Roces

Blank Page

Contents

lustrations 1x Acknowledgments xi 1. Introduction: Towards Engendering Philippine

Post-War History and Politics |

2. Power Outside the Symbols of Power 29 3. Women Politicians: Equal but Different? 73

4. Women in Radical Politics 121 5. Beauty Queen, Moral Guardian, [nang Bayan, and

Militant Nun: Images of Female Power 161

Index 211

6. Conclusion: Empowering Women 189

Bibliography 195

Blank Page |

[ustrations PHOTOS 2.1 Mrs. Angelita Roces, wife of Congressman Joaquin Roces, models a gown in one of the charity functions

of the Congressional Ladies Club in the 1950s. 40

5.1 Modeling a modern terno designed by Patis ‘Tesoro, Senator Anna Dominique “Nikki” Coseteng graces the

cover of Metro magazine. 170

5.2 Mrs. Rosemarie “Baby” Arenas, alleged former mistress of President Fidel Ramos, is featured on the cover of Philippine Graphic. “Vwo-and-a-half years after this cover

was published, Mrs. Arenas ran for senator. 171 5.3 Miriam Defensor Santiago’s image as commissioner of immigration and deportation and later as secretary of

Gun.” 175

agrarian reform (her appointment was not confirmed), that of a tough, gun-wielding graft buster, is aptly captured in this magazine cover labelling her “Top

x Illustrations 5.4 When Miriam Defensor Santiago began to be

, considered a possible presidential candidate, she altered

TABLES | 1946-1987 90 her image from the gun-wielding graft buster to a

“beauty queen” in scarlet dresses. 177

, 3.1 Number of Women Senators and Congresswomen, —

Number and Percentage of Women Candidates in ,3.2Recent Elections, 1978-1988 91 ,

3.3 Elected Women Candidates, 1992 Elections | | 92

Acknowledgments Let me express my utang na loob to the many who have helped in the research and writing of this book. A small grant from the Australian Research Council

launched the project in 1993, and my institution, Central Queensland University, awarded two more grants: one from the Faculty of Arts and another from the Asia and Pacific Research Center. In 1996 the Faculty of Arts funded my sabbatical leave in the Philippines between January and June. I am very grateful to my institution and my faculty for supporting my research during the past four years. Special thanks also to Dr. Maris Diokno and Dr. Maria Luisa Camagay of the History Department, University of the Philippines, for arranging my affiliation with the University of the Philippines when [ was in Manila for sabbatical leave in 1996. I owe a personal debt to Dr. Steve Mullins for taking over my teaching duties while I was on leave in 1996. The support of my kinship group in the Philippines, who not only provided me accommodation and lodging but also arranged necessary interviews with powerful women, has been absolutely critical for my work. I am grateful to Mr. and Mrs. Edgardo Pineda, Mr. and Mrs. Abelardo Mendoza, and Mrs. Leonor Montinola for welcoming me into their homes and showering me with their generous hospitality. My thanks to Marie and Jaime Pineda for the occasions when they gave up their bedrooms so that I could have my own private room. P?m obliged to Mr. and Mrs. Marcelo de Guzman, Mrs. Caridad Pineda, Mr. and Mrs. Edgardo Pineda, Mr. and Mrs. Jesus

XU , Acknowledgments Pineda Jr., and Mrs. Leonor Montinola for providing me with transportation in Manila. For arranging the essential oral history interviews for the book,

I am indebted to the following: Mrs. Annie Roces Young, Mrs. Virginia Roces de Guzman, Mrs. Inday Jopson Espadero, Mrs. Nena Diokno, Miss Josephine Roces, Mrs. Marites Pineda, Mrs. Marilou Pineda, Ms. Neddie — “Tantoco, Ms. Maya OlivaresCo, Mrs. Marietta Roces, Ms. Sylvia Roces Montilla, Mrs. Josefina Pedrosa Manahan, Ms. Odette Alcantara, Mrs. Ging Montinola, the late Mrs. Bessie Bautista Legarda, Ms. Cristina Benitez, Mrs.

Ana Roces Hernandez, and Mrs. Sally Zaldivar Perez. For insights into women in Philippine politics I would like to thank Mr. Narciso M. Pineda, Mrs. Sally Zaldivar Perez, and Mr. Alfredo Roces. For assistance in the miscellaneous activities and jobs of day-to-day research abroad I acknowledge Mr. Marcos Roces and Ms. Carmela Ledesma. My mother, Irene Pineda Roces, religiously helped me cope with all the sundry mundane jobs associated with research travel. She also kindly collected important news-

| paper clippings on Mrs. Rosemarie Arenas for me. As transcribing interviews is a most tedious job, I specially credit those who helped me convert the taped interviews into written transcipts: Miss Josephine Roces, Mrs. Betty Cosgrove, Miss Olive Ditona, Miss Alvie Galido, Miss Yali Camus, Miss Angela Camus, Miss Nora Dimagiba, Miss Cherry Madaraso, Miss Iday Marpo, and Ms. Hope Tura. Many thanks to Mr. Doug Steley for the photographs, Ms. Dodie Roden, Ms. April Har| wood, Ms. Judy Ramm, and Ms. Kerrilyn Page for administrative assistance. Librarians have been most helpful, in particular, Margie Wallin and Cathy

Dennis of Central Queensland University; Elvie Irremedio of the Lopez Museum library; Rebecca Padilla Marquez at Nursia, Institute for Women’s Studies, St. Scholastica’s College; Zenaida F. Lucas, Cultural Center of the Philippines library; and Ms. Lorna O. Quismundo, of the Bills and Index Division, House of Representatives, Congress of the Philippines. I’d like to

single out Elvie Irremedio for her priceless assistance in locating library materials for me. I’m beholden to Dr. Bernardita Reyes Churchill for lending me her personal collection of CCP documents. My intellectual debts are enormous. My gratitude to Dr. Maris Diokno of the University of the Philippines and Dr. Elizabeth Eviota of Ateneo de

, Manila University for allowing me to discuss my arguments with them and with the students of their universities. I especially thank Associate Professor Maila Stivens (University of Melbourne) and Dr. Krishna Sen (Murdoch University) for extensive editing of a few critical paragraphs I used in chapter

1. Dr. Reynaldo C. Ileto (Australian National University), Dr. Susan Yell (Central Queensland University), and Dr. Tony Schirato (Central Queens_ land University) made useful comments and suggestions to various chapters. I especially appreciate Dr. Louise Edwards (Australian Catholic University) and Dr. John Fitzsimmons (Central Queensland University) for their close reading of the entire draft of the manuscript and their comments, criticisms,

Acknowledgments xviii and collegial moral support. Louise’s and John’s comments have been very useful in the writing of the many drafts of the book. Finally, I owe a great utang nu loob to my father, Alfredo R. Roces, who not only edited the drafts but also provided helpful criticisms and many extremely valuable insights into women, power, and Philippine political culture. I am fortunate to have a parent who is not only patient and supportive but also happy to discuss many of the issues of my research with me. To all of you who participated in this project, in particular all the women interviewed who gave me their valuable time and unstinting encouragement: maraming salamat po.

Blank Page |

| Introduction: Towards Engendering Philippine Post-War History and Politics Some inspired wag described the Philippines during the martial law period (1972-1986) as the conjugal dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos.’ It underscored the co-equal status of Imelda Marcos so aptly that the label stuck. Sometimes political satire or jokes reveal more about aspects of power rather than reportage or academic dialogue. One joke that circulated at the height of martial law insinuated that the Philippines should be renamed “His and Hers,” implying that both the president and his wife owned the country. Another popular joke lampooned President Ferdinand Marcos as a leader assiduous about the issues of peace and order in the provinces. He would visit each province and announce: ‘““Uhat is my piece and that is an order!” There was a corresponding item for the First Lady. Imelda had gone into the mining industry. She surveyed the business world and told the executives of various businesses: ‘“That’s mine, that’s mine, and that’s mine!’’ While the president remained in the country, controlling the army and the legislative body, his wife, without an official position, traveled the world, per-

forming diplomatic duties in the name of the state as she visited Mao Ze-dong in China, Fidel Castro in Cuba, King Hassan of Morocco, Ghadaffi in Libya, Premier Aleksei Kosygin in the Soviet Union, and Presidents Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan of the United States. The use of the unprecedented term “conjugal dictatorship” succinctly captured the gendering of power and politics in post-war Philippines. No other

regime in the world has been depicted in this manner, revealing the rare

2 | Women, Power, and Kinship Politics status of women’s power in the Philippines. While men held official power, ~ women held power unofficially as wives, sisters, mothers, daughters, and even mistresses of male politicians. And in exercising power, albeit unofficially, women were vital political agents. As political agents, the power they

exercised, though difficult to map precisely because of its de facto and ephemeral nature, was no less significant than the official power exercised by their male kin. The implications of the epithet “conjugal dictatorship” indicated that both Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos exercised power even though their sources of power differed. His power emanated from his position as president of the Philippines, while hers derived from her status as wife of the president and her location within a powerful kinship group (the Romualdez family—Imelda is a Romualdez). In a predominantly patriarchal world where principally men exercised power (in any form), what brought about this peculiar phenomenon in which women exercised great power outside the symbols of power? Anthropologists studying gender in Island Southeast Asia have challenged us to make connections between local concepts of power and the gendering of power in Island Southeast Asia, where bilateral kinship allowed women a relatively higher “‘status.’’* In the Philippine case, local concepts of power (salakas), which saw power held by the kinship group and not just the person in office, allowed women marginalized from political office to exercise power through their kinship and marriage ties to powerful men (male politicians). Furthermore, the dominant political culture, kinship politics (kinship politics is defined here as utilizing political power for the benefit of the kinship group), was the dynamic that determined the gendering of power. As long as women were the support system in kinship politics, the proverbial go-between behind the scenes, they were relegated unofficial power rather than official

power. |

This book explores gender and power in post-war Philippines through the perspective of local concepts of power embedded in the predominant political culture, here characterized as traditional kinship politics. Since kinship politics, or the manner in which families utilize political power in order to build business empires, dominated the cultural narrative, women’s power can only be understood in the context of this dynamic. The distinctive system of kinship politics has empowered women in post-war Philippines. Since power is perceived to be held by the kinship alliance group and not just the person in office, women had access to real power. Looking at power through the local practices of the country, women emerge not only as active political agents, but as extremely powerful practitioners of kinship politics. They have

, built vast business empires for their own families (apart from their husbands) through their links with male politicians.

, , In the same way that kinship politics affects the gendering of power, so too does it construct the gendering of the images of power. Male images of power have been linked to spiritual potency acquired by them as “men of

Introduction 3 prowess.” A few sites of machismo could be readily identified: (1) the aggressive male, for instance, an investigative reporter like Senator Benigno Aquino Jr. or a vociferous exposer of political scandal like Senator Ernesto Maceda; (2) the man as war hero, or more recently as professional soldier (the military man); and (3) virility, which was identified by scholar Benedict Anderson as a sign of male power.’ Anderson, for instance, interpreted the sexual exploits of President Sukarno of Indonesia as tangible symbols of male

power.* Images of female power, on the other hand, reflected beauty and religiosity: the woman as beauty queen and the woman as moral guardian. The woman as beauty queen clearly illustrated how the beauty/power articulation could be literally inscribed in a woman’s body. Other images evoked in specific historical times portray the woman as militant (as in the case of the militant nuns) or the woman as mother Uuang Bayan). ‘These images of female power, far from being artificial, self-conscious constructions of state ideology,’ emerged also from women’s roles in the dynamic of kinship pol-

itics. The images of beauty queen and moral guardian fit snugly with women’s roles as support system in kinship politics. But as the tenor of kinship politics altered in the martial law years, so did images of female power. While Mrs. Imelda Marcos alone epitomized the almost palpable links between beauty and power, political activism bred in the atmosphere of a repressive authoritarian regime encouraged the blossoming of the woman as political activist. Militant nuns, who became the most visible symbols of political activism, represented women’s moral power in all its ambivalence—the militant woman as religious icon and feminist. The paradigm

where kinship politics articulates the gendering of power and images of power is not static but fluid and changing. As the temperament of kinship politics altered between 1945 and 1996, so too did the manner in which women exercised unofficial and official power and the images of power that these women political agents exuded. Maila Stivens in Why Gender Matters in Southeast Asian Politics discussed

the reasons why gender has not been seen to matter in the production of knowledge about Southeast Asia. ‘The two reasons Stivens isolated as responsible for encouraging gender blindness were Eurocentric models of politics that relegated women to the “private” and hence invisible sphere and Western feminist models that, while exhibiting ethnocentrism, continued to construct the Asian women as the “‘other.’’® Eurocentric feminism, for ex-

ample, failed to acknowledge the role of women in the nationalist move-

ments of Southeast Asia, movements which even predated feminist movements in the West.’ Stivens concluded her critical essay by suggesting that in order to redress androcentrism in scholarly studies about Southeast Asia, rather than merely slotting women into existing paradigms, researchers should broaden definitions of politics and question monolithic views of the state where the state inevitably emerges as effective “in securing the social

conditions of reproduction and thereby women’s subordination.’® Even

4 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics those studies that have focused on local concepts of power and images of power, the most satisfactory of which is probably Benedict Anderson’s study of Java, have snugly assumed that power was exercised exclusively by males and this only over other males.’ Anderson did not explore the possibilities

of whether power was also perceived to be held by the kinship group (the current kinship politics of the Suharto family come to mind)—a premise that would have opened the door to the possibilities of women’s power. Stivens’s critique of the literature on Southeast Asian politics could be applied to scholarly work on Philippine post-war politics and political cul- | ture. Eurocentric models continue to color interpretations of Philippine post-war political culture, while some scholars who have made valiant attempts to engender Philippine politics remain wedded to the theoretical perspectives of Western feminist theories, which are indiscriminately superimposed, unproblematized, onto the Philippine situation. Granted that the gender perspective has only been introduced into studies of Southeast Asia fairly recently (although anthropological studies have theorized gender as prestige systems in Asia since the 1970s),'° the necessity for engendering Philippine history and politics must be imbued with a sense of urgency. _ _Lamentably, women continue to be excluded from proposed models explaining political culture, thereby exposing constructions of Philippine society

that are inherently wanting. ,

, Political scientists and historians have advanced patron-client models, patronage politics, factionalism, warlordism, “bossism,” ‘‘sultanism,” and “‘anarchies”’ of families to explain Philippine political culture.'! Although some of these have provided some insightful observations about Philippine political behavior, all approaches neglected to include women as important po-

litical agents or as power holders. As late as 1993 and 1995, two books in which warlordism and political violence were prioritized as endemic and typical of the behavior of families described as “anarchies” totally ignored the role and contribution of women in contemporary political behavior. Alfred McCoy’s edited volume An Anarchy of Families, and Joel Rocamora’s introduction to Boss: 3 Case Studies of Local Politics in the Philippines'* both

propounded the model of warlordism, or a variety of it called ‘“bossism,” defined by political scientist John Sidel as a “sophisticated form of brigand, age.”'? Bossism extends the patronage model by injecting violence, patrons who “through predatory and heavily coercive forms of primitive accumulation and monopoly rent-capitalism ... expropriated the natural and human resources of the archipelago from the broad mass of the population, thereby generating and sustaining the scarcity, insecurity, and dependency which underpins their rule as bosses.’’'* Citing some case studies of well-known warlords like Mohamad Ali Dimaporo, Ramon Durano Sr., Justiniano Montano, and Juanito Remulla, both the editors of An Anarchy of Families and Boss postulated that armed force was a characteristic of powerful politicians and political families. While not subscribing to an analysis that prioritizes

Introduction 5 violence as a critical component in the discourse of kinship politics (violence,

I would argue, does exist but it is not typical of the behavior of kinship politics), I view these models as classic examples of the androcentric perspective that completely edits women and women’s contributions from the dynamics of Philippine political culture. The assumption silently endorsed by this perspective is that women have not played important roles in Philippine politics at all, nor have they exercised power, for after all there are no women warlords, no women bosses, nor any women “goons.” Nevertheless, women have been extremely powerful political agents. It is the height

of irony that these scholars introduced macho warlordism as an essential characteristic of martial law at the precise time when women’s unofficial power was obviously at its peak, epitomized by the First Lady, Imelda Marcos.

Feminist scholarship has inspired female Philippine experts to engender Philippine history and politics by studying women politicians, women in feminist movements, and a larger body of work on women in development. The Philippine literature on women’s situation initially tended to focus on either prostitution or mail-order brides or, interestingly, a supposed decline of women’s status from prehistoric times to the Spanish period, where Christianity and Spanish colonial rule is held responsible for lowering what was once a high status of women in Philippine society.” The Philippine centennial celebrations, which began in August 1996 with the centennial of the Philippine revolution, have inspired numerous studies on the role of women in Philippine history, particularly during the Philippine revolution. From women in social history (Working Women of Manila in the Nineteenth Century)

to detailed descriptive case studies of women who participated in the revolution in specific provinces like Cavite and Batangas, the plethora of women’s

history in both English and Filipino is testimony to the belief that women have played significant roles in Philippine history.'® Exciting as these studies

have been, they are just in the first faltering steps of the process of engendering the Philippine revolution. Most of these histories limited themselves to providing brief biographies and case studies of some important women who were military field officers or revolutionary leaders. But adding women’s

short biographies to the cast of characters of revolutionary participants 1s only the first process in the larger herculean task of making women visible in Philippine revolutionary history. One insightful scholar, for example, has lamented that studies so far have remained caught in a patriarchal mindset where individual women (and indeed almost all these studies were about specific individual women rather than women as a social category) were only included (or worth considering) if they were generals or if they had actually fought in revolutionary battles. She asked, ‘“Dapat bang sukatin sa loob ng parametro ng hugis lalaki ang katapangan ng isang babae [Must women be measured by the yardstick of a largely male perspective in terms of what constitutes bravery]?”!”

6 , Women, Power, and Kinship Politics Fortunately, the contributions of Filipino scholars (both men and women) working in the Philippines have stood out in the fields of women in politics,

women in feminist movements, and the cultural construction of sex and gender. Admittedly, this literature is still a meager one, but almost all studies have made contributions towards documenting women’s roles in Philippine

history and politics. Studies on women in politics, though largely descriptive, have given us good profiles of women politicians and in one case of women in the bureaucracy.'* Leonora C. Angeles’s work on feminism and nationalism succeeds in presenting a thorough discussion of feminist groups in

| post-war Philippine history with insightful criticisms on their struggle to grapple with the woman question.'? Although research on the cultural construction of gender has only just begun, Elizabeth Eviota’s work on the social construction of sexuality is a good example of a scholar who has been able to adjust Western feminist theoretical approaches to the unique Philippine cultural situation.’° Nevertheless, the literature on women and politics written to date (1997), still unquestioningly embraces Western feminist frameworks; women were not considered political agents unless they had been politicians themselves and exercised official power or unless they were political activists or participated in feminist movements.*! Take the case of Belinda Aquino, who, in an article entitled “Filipino Women and Political Engagement,” posited that when Filipino women began to participate in public life “they have been more successful {italics mine] in non-conventional or anti-establishment forms of politics, rather than in the formal arena of power, which is still dominated

by the men.’’’* Following this premise, Aquino’s paper focused on the women’s vote, women’s roles in the underground, and women as political activists, with brief abstracts on working women, women in Non Govern- | ment Organizations (NGOs) and women involved in people’s organizations. And so, in Aquino’s perspective, Philippine power and politics was dominated by men, the women participating only when they chose to become political activists. A section labelled “Strange Paradoxes” contrasted First

Lady Imelda Marcos with President Corazon Aquino, wherein the latter is seen to have been timid in her exercise of power while the former “loved it to excess.’ In trying to explain Marcos’s “insatiable taste for power, money,

clothes, jewelry, shoes, and other goods in incredible quantities,” Aquino compared Imelda Marcos with Eva Peron, using Julie Taylor’s thesis that “Eva Peron embodied an enigma of power attributed to a woman in a traditionally patriarchal society that devalues women as against men, and this power could be malevolent.”’* These arguments imply that unofficial power,

for indeed that was the brand of power Peron and Marcos exercised, was inherently somehow evil, thus subscribing to Western modern notions of legitimate and illegitimate power. Aquino in the end contradicts herself, for although she claimed that Imelda Marcos loved power to the point that she was indeed “de facto president,”*> she argued “that authority and influence

Introduction 7 has not been politicized enough to penetrate the sectors of the modern society controlled by men and raise the status of women as a whole. Jt has not translated to political power in a real sense {italics mine].”’° Trapped in the perspective of Western feminist and other modern paradigms, Aquino recognized Imelda’s power as de facto copresident, but because power was unofficially exercised, Aquino failed to recognize it as real power or actual political power. From my perspective, Philippine politics/power is mot male dominated but gendered: men generally exercise official power while women exercise unofficial power via their kinship and marriage ties to male politicians. Unofficial power however is by no means less effective, less “powerful,” or less real than official power. Furthermore, contrary to Aquino’s viewpoint that women were “more successful in non-conventional and antiestablishment forms of politics, rather than in the formal arena of power,” [ propose the opposite: women were less successful as political activists where they were confined to auxiliary roles in a male-dominated environment (see chapter 4). In post-war Philippines, unofficial power was definitely a female dominated site, allowing women to exercise an enormous amount of power.’ The Western feminist perspective has as its premise women’s marginali-

zation from power (except for the rare few who have become politicians themselves or the few feminists and political activists who have exercised some power at the fringes). The idea that women not holding political office, without the visible symbols of power, could be political agents has not yet

been explored in any detail in studies of women in the Philippines in particular and in Southeast Asia in general (but see ‘Tapales, who writes on women in the bureaucracy).’* In this sense, the argument that women were not “marginalized others” but were in fact powerful political agents challenges previous perspectives on women and power. In doing so, it implicitly problematizes further the public/private divide already critiqued by some feminist scholars who perceived the idea of a fixed and essential division into private and public domains to explain women’s subordination inappropriate in settings such as the Philippines. There is no ignoring the fact that Mrs. Imelda Marcos and other wives of politicians had very public roles as civic workers and “partners in politics.” Feminist anthropologists who have tried to adjust Western models to specific local cultures in Southeast Asia have argued convincingly that gender systems are prestige systems. In Southeast Asian prestige systems, men’s occupations were accorded greater cultural capital than women’s activities. This gendering of cultural capital implied that women were disadvantaged as accumulators of spiritual potency, the qualities sought in a leader or “man of prowess.” ‘This premise, which uses Southeast Asian constructions of gender differentiation triggered by notions of cultural capital, is a very useful analytical tool, a culturally specific paradigm explaining women’s marginalization from official power. But unfortunately, it does not grapple with the

gendering of power; neither does it explore the possibilities of women’s

8 , Women, Power, and Kinship Politics | power outside the symbols of power. By focusing on the ways women have deployed power (though women have primarily and most effectively exercised power unofficially), this book seeks to modify existing assumptions that

women have not been powerful political agents. While feminists remain wedded to the notion that women should demand equality in the realm of official power, surely in the Philippine case at least, they should investigate the possibilities of reworking the traditional practices of women’s unofficial power. Women like Mrs. Imelda Marcos have unleashed the potential scope, magnitude, and effectiveness of this de facto power behind the scenes. On the other hand, those who have tried to compete with men in the realm of _ official power, whether as politicians or as political activists, have been either relegated to auxiliary roles or have found themselves somewhat disadvan-

taged. Moreover, women who exercised unofficial power usually metamorphosed into politicians themselves, revealing that perhaps the road to official power for women is best negotiated via unofficial power. _ Finally, this book’s arguments represent an effort, admittedly a modest

one, to take up the cudgels of Stivens’s challenge to enlarge the scope of the definition of “politics.” In order to engender Philippine politics, activi-

7 ties not associated with androcentric definitions of the term must be included: for instance, women’s participation in civic work, charitable organizations, community work, beauty contests, and social activities asso-

| ciated with fund-raising or networking with other politicians’ wives need to be invariably interpreted as political actions. Entertainment activities such as social balls are used by women to network with other wives of politicians or even foreign diplomats. Not infrequently, a social event like a charity

, dance may be a site for negotiations by go-betweens—usually women. A beauty contest for Miss Philippines Red Cross can become a political activity. Shouldn’t women’s actions in formal charity organizations like the Padre Pio Lend a Helping Hand Foundation be interpreted as political work? It is, after all, precisely these activities that empower women as wives and kin

of politicians.

LOCAL CONCEPTS OF POWER AND KINSHIP POLITICS The Tagalog concept, which invokes both power and prestige and the ruthless dramatic exercise of both, is malakas, literally translated as strong (powerful). In terms of political power, a person who is malakas is one who would use that power unscrupulously to benefit his or her kinship group. To be branded mahina ka (you are weak) is pejorative, while its opposite— the ability to show one’s malakas status by using one’s position to bend the rules and benefit ones’ kinship alliance—is admired. The malakas concept extends not only to the one holding political office but to his or her entire — network of employees and close friends as well as kin. While ultimately the

Introduction 9 person holding the symbol of power carries the most prestige, the kin group, which uses its close kinship with a powerful person to influence politics or gain special privileges, is also transformed into malakas. As members of the kinship group, women therefore exercise power through their kinship ties

with male politicians and as such are perceived to be malakas. Malakas women have political agency by definition. (Bilateral kinship structures ensure that the woman’s kin group is just as significant as the man’s kin group.) Obviously, exercising power through kinship ties is a practice not confined to women only. The Lopez family, one of the most prominent families in the post-war years, was successful because one brother was active in politics and the other ran the family business. Politician Fernando Lopez held political power through his elective posts, but it was really businessman Don Fugenio Lopez who made the major decisions, while remaining “behind the scenes.” Filipinos were aware that although politician Fernando Lopez was the public figure, the consummate charming politician, it was Eugenio who

made all the critical decisions.*° While both men and women indulge in kinship politics behind the scenes, it is the women who excel at, and dominate, this indefinable “space” outside of formal institutional structures, de-

spite the undoubted economic and political power men command within kinship circles.

In contrast to those who have argued for a class analysis of power in the Philippines, I do not see an upper class, defined exclusively through ownership of capital, as having sole access to political power. Instead, I view divisions in contemporary Philippine society in terms of local concepts of malakas/mabina: those who are malakas (strong/powerful) and those who are muahina (weak). "Those who are mahina are those without access to political power or personal connections to those who are malakas. ‘Thus, malakas and mabina are not so much based on economic class standing but on access to political power, personal connections, and kinship networks. Where class structure is perceived in horizontal layers, malakas power structure is vertical, reaching down to the lowest economic level. My central premise, tied up with the dynamics of kinship politics, sees political power as the means by which a person can obtain the special privileges (tax exemptions, preferential bank loans, etc.) that allow him or her to create an advantaged and favored business empire for his or her kinship alliance group. While the wealthy in general have a much greater chance of gaining political office because they have the resources to indulge in aggressive election campaigns or dispense patronage, other members of the society can have the opportunity to gain political power through their alliances with powerful and wealthy families. ‘Take the case of President Ferdinand Marcos and most of his cronies: Marcos did not come from an old, rich, elite family; neither did many of his cronies, who became wealthy through crony capitalism (defined as the parcelling out of lucrative corporations and business interests to friends, relatives, and allies of the Marcos-

10 Women, Power, and Kinship Polttics Romualdez alliance). Later, these cronies were catapulted to elite status through their alliance with the Marcos-Romualdez family. Or take the case of the Lopez family, who lost their elite status when President Marcos destroyed their power structure during martial law; since 1986 a renewed access to political power has enabled them to make an economic comeback. As the , swinging politico-financial fortunes of the Marcos and Lopez families sug-

, gest, one’s status as malakas or mahina is never fixed. In “Kinship Politics in Post-War Philippines” I have elaborated on the reasons for the rise and fall of political families through the ebb and flow of — mualakas/mahina status.’ Far from endorsing a simplistic rendering of Filipinos operating under unchanging traditional codes, I proposed then that the unresolved conflict between two sets of values was responsible for the

cyclical rise and fall of family alliances. The colonial period introduced a new dynamic into Philippine politics with the modern “nationalist” idea that loyalty to the nation-state should be esteemed above the family. This modern discourse produces conflict with the perceived primordialism of kinship

politics. Western or modern ideas of democracy, of nationalism, of the predominance of the nation-state over the family and criticism of the sins of corruption and nepotism have on occasion even triumphed over kinship politics at critical moments in Philippine history, as in the 1986 people power — revolution. This conflict between two discourses in post-war Philippines explains the cycles of administrations where one kinship group claims power and is overthrown because of charges of graft and corruption, only to be replaced by another regime riddled with the same failings. Filipino politi-

, cians who use the clearly modern rhetoric of loyalty to the nation-state to criticize others for graft and corruption might seem eminently “modern,” and indeed, exposing graft and corruption has been a characteristic trade~ mark of politicians since 1945. Their behavior once elected, however, suggests an ambivalent engagement with modernity. Kinship politics and _ Western values are merely idioms used in the dynamics of political and social

, action, that is, as a form of rhetoric. To suggest this, however, is not to deny that Filipinos also utilize such norms as a reflection of sincerely held beliefs. In short, kinship politics and Western values are not fixed, immutable laws. Both kinship politics and Western values are symbolic messages, discourses used by individuals in the ideological context of political relations and po-

litical actions. |

; Kinship politics functions to uphold the supremacy of the kinship alliance group. Only the kinship group matters. The kin group are law unto themselves. The kin group operates under its own set of values, which include utang na loob (debt of gratitude), hiya (shame), palakasan (competition for _ -malakas status and the favors that accompany such status), and pakikisama (the act of yielding to the majority of the kin group). Each person has a role to play within the kin group: as a sister, son, mother, or daughter, cousin, uncle, godfather (ninong), ritual brother (compadre), and so on. Each role is equipped with its corresponding obligations.

Introduction I] These obligations are controlled by the social values, the two most important being utang na loob and hiya. Mary Hollnsteiner (an anthropologist who studied reciprocity in Philippine values) sees utang na loob reciprocity as an ancient Filipino operating principle. It occurs when a transfer of goods or services takes place between individuals belonging to two different groups. Since one does not ordinarily expect favors of anyone not of his own group, a service of this kind throws the norm into bold relief. Furthermore, it compels the recipient to show his gratitude properly by returning the favor with interest to be sure that he does not remain in the other’s debt. The type of debt created in the recipient is called utang na loob (literally debt inside oneself) or sense of gratitude.*?

A Filipino is expected to be aware of his or her wtang na loob obligations and although repayment cannot be measured, he or she should always at-

tempt to repay it. Failure to fulfill one’s utang na loob by repaying with interest brings hiya, or shame, on the side of the guilty party. Hiya may be translated as “a sense of social propriety.” Violation of social norms elicits a deep sense of shame, and to call a Filipino walang hiya (or shameless) is to

wound him deeply.’ Values such as utang na loob and hiya are the regulators that pressure individuals to conform to their social obligations. Family members must fulfill their assigned roles, since to label a person walang hiya is tantamount to breaking relations. In a group-oriented society, where personal relations and connections are necessary for success, ostracism from the kin group resulting from being branded walang hiya or walang utang na loob is a punishment that could severely cripple one’s standing. Since the individual’s identity in Filipino society is always perceived by one’s place within a kinship

group, to be marooned from one’s group directly affects the individual’s identity, social standing, and ability to function in society. Another corollary to this is the operating principle strengthening family solidarity through the social value of pakikisama. Vhis ‘Vagalog word is derived from the root sama, which means “accompany, go along with.” This value may be described as “the lauded practice of yielding to the will of the leader or the majority so as to make the group decision unanimous.’’** ‘This means that the individual makes concessions, or gives in, to the suggestions of the group leader. In areas of conflict, one may be told “Pagbigyan mo na siya [Let him/her have his/her way]” in order to promote smooth relations within the group. Ideally, one must observe pakikisama with one’s kin group and not with one’s enemy. If one family member is seeking the company or going along with members of the family’s rival, he or she is told to back off with the chastisement: “Bakit ka nakikisama diyan [Why are you associating with them]?’*? The tone of the question is a reprimand, which should act as a stern warning.

12 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics Palakasan, on the other hand, is the system wherein those in power compete with each other in obtaining special privileges and exemptions from

, regulations by bending the rules of law for their kinship group. For the palakasan system to function, there must be various groups of family rivals all attempting to exercise power in the pursuit of family wealth and privilege. —

Each family then tries to outdo the other in being malakas. George Guthrie defines palakasan as “competition for favors based on power.’”*° Unfortunately, athough there are some good studies written of utang na loob, hiya, and pakikisama, no study of palakasan exists. Palakasan is used not merely to bend the rules of the law but more importantly to place the kin group above the law. One who is malakas can break the law and escape punishment. And certainly, the malakas-criminal who can get away with breaking the laws is much admired, as many would want to ally with such a malakas person’s © kinship group. The palakasan system is therefore inextricably linked to kinship politics; one who is malakas uses his or her power for his or her own family’s privilege, including shielding one’s criminal kin from the law. These concepts associated with the mechanisms of kinship politics demonstrate that kinship politics is intricately bound to Philippine familial values. The obligation to one’s kinship group compels one to support his family against the rest of society. A father must protect his son even if the son is guilty of a crime. Exposing his son to the police would make him a bad ~ father in the eyes of society. Relationships of reciprocity also inevitably dictate behavior upholding the kin group. A ninong (godfather) who may be a senator feels obliged to give his aijado (godson) a job in the civil service even

if he knows the man is unqualified. A cabinet minister is asked by one to whom he owes utang na loob to bend the laws for a family business, and he feels he must grant the request. Such values reinforce the distinction between the family and the outside group and outlines the complex layers implied in

the operation of the social values, hiya and pakikisama in particular. For example kinship values may stress the principle “Do not embarass me outside

my kinship group,” but within the family, the kin members cover up the _ hiya brought about by one member. Despite the fact that the family acknowledges that the offending kin member behaved wrongly, the family it-

self would prefer to overlook it. The style of kinship politics of particular relevance to political power is the family’s use of political office to enhance its own business empire and/ or political empire. The solidarity of the family and the values that perceive the welfare of the family as paramount legitimize within the family itself all sorts of kin behavior in the procurement of family power. The outside members of society may censure such actions or label a nonkin walang hiya, but such an accusation does not undermine the unity of the family. Political power by one member of the family is used to gain tax exemptions and other

, special privileges from the government. If one is a legislator, laws could be passed privileging the family business. Internal to the dynamic of kinship

Introduction 13 politics is the kinship group’s desire to hold a business monopoly, where the absence of competition from other kin groups ensures greater profits. Access

to political and legislative power can guarantee this. Newspapers, for example, have rarely ever been profitable for the family corporations who owned them. But they were used by the kinship group to advertise their businesses, support their political candidates, and attack their kin rivals. In the republican period in particular, the print media was used by the Lopez family to pressure even the presidents of the Philippines (particularly those with utang na loob obligations) to succumb to the family’s political and business agendas.*’ Crony capitalism of the Marcos years, where specific business

corporations were parcelled out to friends and cronies of the MarcosRomualdez alliance group, institutionalized traditional kinship politics. Al-

though many of these cronies were incompetent businessmen, President Marcos bailed out inept businesses faced with bankruptcy by pouring government money into these private family corporations. Paradoxically, while malakas kinship groups are admired, so too are those who exibit the modern values of nationalism, delicadeza (noblesse oblige),

and ethics and morals. Western “modern” values were introduced to the Philippines in the colonial period from the Spanish regime (along with Christian morals and delicadeza) to democratic institutions introduced in the American period. ‘The Philippine revolutions against Spain and later America also gave birth to nationalist values, which in critical moments took precedence over family values. While ethics and morals frowned upon corruption, delicadeza stressed that one was in political office to serve and not to enjoy

personal gain. Democratic institutions were meant to prevent one group from monopolizing power, while nationalist ideals gave high regard to those who placed the nation-state above the individual or the family. In this con-

flict of two opposing sets of values, or discourses, despite the fact that at critical historical moments modern values appear to have the upper hand (like the 1986 people power revolution), by and large the traditional dynamics of kinship politics remains the dominant force that influences Philippine political culture in the post-war years. Women’s power is also a site where this contradiction between kinship politics and modern values is played out. In granting women unofficial power, kinship politics makes them vulnerable to modern criticisms that women are manipulative or scheming,’® wielding power that is illegal, undemocratic, antinationalist and unaccountable to anyone. The attacks against

the blatant use of power by First Lady Imelda Marcos, particularly in the zenith of the martial law years, and more recently the “scandal” involving the very visible influence of President Fidel Ramos’s alleged former mistress Rosemarie “Baby” Arenas, are outstanding case studies. At the other end of

the equation, the female politician’s frequent involvement in exposés and crusades against graft and corruption is doubly legitimized through both the “modern” discursive prioritizing of the nation-state and women’s traditional

14 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics gendered roles as moral guardians. Thus, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, who launched her political career as the most avid and vocal female campaigner against graft and corruption, can be seen as simultaneously a -. modern “nationalist,” “gun-wielding” feminist, and a woman performing the roles ascribed to her gender. The militant nuns who dominated the image of political activism in the martial law period represented another classic example of the conflict be-

_ tween kinship politics and modernity contested and negotiated through women’s power. [he nuns were not only strident political activists but also feminists. But their moral power was exercised unofficially. Refusing to claim

official power, the nuns preferred to act as a pressure group, lobbying politicians to initiate political and social change. Perhaps that is the reason for their being so effective: though they demanded modern ideas and full equality and empowerment for women, they did so in the traditional way women exercised power.

Globalized ideas of democracy or feminism are not necessarily the only keys to increasing empowerment for women in the realm of official power (since women already exercise unofficial power). Though the various feminisms cry out for equal opportunity for women and increasing representation of women in official political positions, it is not primarily these worldwide circulating ideas that will increase women’s official participation in politics | and make women equal to men in the gendering of power. Clearly there are

, scores of women’s organizations in the Philippines today agitating for globalized ideas such as women’s empowerment and increased representation. Be

that as it may, it is the intersection of the democratic constitution of 1986 with kinship politics that is currently opening up political offices for women. The new constitution of 1986 limits the term of office in the legislature to two consecutive terms for a senator (six years each term) and three consec-_utive terms in Congress or local office (three years each term). Restricted to serving only nine years, how does a congressman retain the family’s political privileges? Following traditional kinship politics, he will clearly have to consider asking his wife (who next to the congressman is usually the best-known

| figure among the electorate) to run when his three terms are up! Ironically, then, in democratic Philippines, women will very likely enter representational politics not due to the influence of globalized ideas of the various feminisms or through pressure for equal opportunity for women, but due to adjustments of kinship politics to the constitutional rule.

In practice, kinship politics has not remained constant throughout the _ post-war years. Three distinctive periods are identifiable: the republican era from 1945 to 1972, the martial law years from 1972 to 1986, and the post— martial law period from 1986 to the present writing (1997). In the republican

period when democratic institutions were in place, family alliance groups competed for political power. Family alliances would be voted into office (I use family alliances instead of individuals since I apply the Filipino concept

Introduction 15 of power where power is held by the kinship group), only to be overthrown at a later date due to charges of corruption. Those same families who accused others of graft and corruption unfortunately became just as culpable as their predecessors. This period showed the classic contest between traditional kinship politics and modern values, where the cyclical rise and fall of family alliances was reflected in the fact that no presidential administration was ever reelected (with the exception of Marcos). During martial law, only one family alliance—the Marcos-Romualdez family alliance—could effectively practice kinship politics, since the authoritarian regime dispensed with democratic institutions (such as elections) and a free press. The conjugal dictatorship may be seen as the supreme example of kinship politics in its most pure or most extreme form. But in 1986, this regime was overthrown by a people power revolution where individuals, in the name of democracy, risked their lives, facing armored personnel carriers sent to attack them. Since 1986, the conflict between kinship politics and modernity continues to be articulated in a reworked model of the republican period.

KINSHIP POLITICS AND THE GENDERING OF POWER In the republican period, women were seen as the support group of kinship politics, exercising power unofficially, through their kinship and marriage ties to male politicians. While the shoes of senators, congressmen, mayors, councillors, governors, and vice governors were filled by men, women performed charity work and community service in formal organi-

zations such as the Congressional Ladies Club and the Senate Ladies. Women also took charge of fund-raising, particularly at election campaigns. Those wives and female kin of male politicians who were very active in fundraising, entertaining, giving speeches, and food preparation as well as net-

working with constituents and wives of local leaders during election campaigns exercised kinship politics once their husband or male kin won elective office. As true “partners in politics,” they handled requests for employment, founded (and funded) charitable organizations, and organized community projects. Some feminists might argue that these women were probably “coerced” to become the support system during election time (running the campaign, organizing women to go on door-to-door public rela-

tions appeals, raising funds, preparing food, distributing campaign knickknacks, giving speeches, singing, entertaining) nevertheless, it was pre-

cisely this hands-on participation during the campaigns that empowered them once their husbands had become government officials. As partners in politics, these women later launched civic work projects for their husbands’ constituencies and then exercised kinship politics in their husbands’ name. At the other end of the scale, those women who chose not to actively con-

16 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics tribute to their husbands’ political victories found themselves with no power base with which to exercise unofficial power.

oe The distillation of kinship politics to its purest form in the martial law _ period had ramifications for women’s power. Mrs. Marcos during 1972-1986 pushed unofficial power to its apex, seizing the distinction of being among one of the most powerful women in the world at that time. The authoritarian

| nature of the regime enlarged the scope of her power, but certainly Mrs. Marcos’s wielding of unofficial power proved that women without official office can exercise power equal to if not greater than their male counterparts. It was more than just coincidence that Imelda Romualdez’s family built a larger business empire, reaping much more largesse from the conjugal dic-

tatorship than the Marcos family. |

Mrs. Marcos’s aggressive and very public display of her power inspired

the next generation of women. One might be tempted to argue that she opened the Pandora’s box of unofficial women’s power. Since 1986, and despite the restoration of democratic processes, women’s exercise of official

power has finally been given the nod of recognition by society. With democratic institutions now in place, it would, of course, be difficult to match the extent of power Mrs. Marcos exerted; nevertheless, wives and female kin © of politicians (even alleged mistresses), have currently turned more proactive, - more combative, more assertive, more dynamic. There are signs that unofficial power is becoming officially recognized (see chapter 2). This new spirit, wherein women now have the confidence not only to assert unofficial power

- but to display it in public, is best exemplified by the “scandal” involving Mrs. Rosemarie “Baby ” Arenas, who was charged in the press with utilizing her past relationship with the president (she was allegedly his former mis- __ tress) to interfere and meddle in politics and gain business concessions for her friends (practicing kinship politics).3? It was customarily part of the etiquette for mistresses that they remain closeted in the background, “invisi-

place.” |

ble” to the public eye,*® but Arenas has staunchly refused to “know her

In the late 1960s, student activism and radical feminism bred a new generation of female political activists. While the female student political activists were forced to go underground in the martial law period, the militant

nuns risked their lives by bravely and openly participating in the radical politics of the time. Political activism overtly criticized and challenged kin-

ship politics by objecting to political dynasties, nepotism, and corruption, openly endorsing the ideals of modern nationalism. Members of radical political movements, whether communism (also a Western import), democratic socialism, or nationalist democracy, all challenged the underlying practices of kinship politics. Interestingly, those women who became political activists failed to criticize the gendering of power where women were assigned only supportive roles. Despite the brilliance and dedication of women political activists, their ideological positions and alliance with male-dominated organ-

Introduction 17 izations kept them marginalized from both unofficial and official power. Because their modern stance, which challenged kinship politics and all it stood for, caused them to regard unofficial power as unsavory and undesirable (in fact, they aimed to rid society of it), they refrained from using it. But in the activist organizations they joined, they were given only auxiliary and subservient roles. ‘Chey nonetheless chose not to demand their due but instead to accept these positions, often without question.

After the Aquino assassination in 1983, women’s groups mushroomed. Grouping together in exclusively women’s political groups that defied the dictatorship and speaking for nationalist issue-oriented causes, they experienced official power, albeit only at the fringes. Having played a role in the downfall of the Marcos regime, in the post—martial law period these women reached out for full political office and the corresponding official power that came with it. Kinship politics also shaped images of female power. Local concepts of the images themselves are critical when investigating the links between fe-

male power and images of female power. These concepts are generally mapped in the nuances or idioms of the language. The Tagalog word maganda does not simply mean beautiful. It is also connected with what the society considers good or virtuous. Leonardo Mercado goes as far as to argue

that beauty is interchangeable with truth and good in the Filipino mind.* The word maganda is used to refer to socially acceptable behavior, while its antonym pangit (ugly) is used to connote what is evil or bad, or what is socially unacceptable behavior. A woman who is perceived to be maganda connotes a woman who exudes the virtues of her gender. Although the outward trappings of this beauty (makeup, manicured nails, fashionable dresses, trim figure, neat and fashionable hairstyle, high heels, jewelry, perfume, etc., which may be required of a Philippine woman) are measured within the globalized standards epitomized by beauty contests and fashion magazines, my study suggests that female beauty can, and frequently is, mobilized by women in the Philippines in quite different, culturally specific ways. Moreover, the relation between beauty and power is dialectical: beauty can be a source of power, but closeness to power is also a source of beauty. A woman who abides by certain codes of appearance and behavior can be perceived as beautiful, whatever her physical attributes, as long as she is associated with political power. ‘Uhus, beauty queen titleholders often won political positions or married politicians, and by this arrangement, exercised

de facto power. Even a woman like Miriam Defensor Santiago could be constructed as beautiful the moment she became a strong presidential candidate. In the republican era, beauty and religiosity (the woman as beauty queen and moral guardian) were associated with powerful women. Consequently, it was almost mandatory that women as wives of politicians become active in civic work and community service. Those few women who became poll-

18 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics ticians in the 1945-1972 period were, for example, very closely associated _ with charity work and social welfare. In 1972, however, the authoritarian regime gave rise to the new image of the woman as militant. While Mrs. , Marcos alone carried the torch for the power/beauty articulation, the mili~ tant nuns whose religiosity evoked moral power became the new symbol of female power, while two former beauty queens Maita Gomez (Miss Philippines) and Nelia Sancho (Queen of the Pacific) who joined the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) actually took to the hills. The fact that in the 1986 snap elections the widow-in-yellow Mrs. Corazon Aquino, dubbed by Mrs. Marcos as “an un-made up unmanicured non-beauty,”*” triumphed over the Marcoses revealed the extent to which “beauty” as epitomized by Imelda lost its prime place as an image of female power in this era. Corazon Aquino was never redefined as beautiful. It may be argued that she came to power at precisely the moment when all that was associated with Mrs. Mar-

| cos was under challenge—and that Cory Aquino was elected because she was the antithesis of everything Mrs. Marcos stood for, including the powerbeauty articulation within her public identity. It is worth pointing out, too, that when Cory became president, she remained comparatively powerless throughout her reign despite her possession of the institutional symbols of her office. Since 1986, the images of female power have shown that there was a tendency to rework pre-1972 images of beauty queen and moral guardian. The militant nun, however, is still with us.

The image of Inang Bayan, or the mother country often depicted as suffering, is more nebulous and ephemeral. While it is much sought after by women

in power, it remains elusive, for it is an image of female power that can be identified as another contested site where traditional kinship politics and mod-

ern discursive practices battle for dominance. To be a “good” mother, a woman has to help her kinship group, but that very action negates any chance she might have of being the mother of the country who protects the nation’s interests from the abuses of kinship politics. Throughout the post-war years, the female in power has not measured up to this image of mother country. Even when women succeed in gaining political office and are able to exercise official power like the men, they still have to negotiate gendered prac-

tices that are culturally specific. Women politicians still have to function within a predominantly male political arena; whether in the Congress, the Senate, local politics, party politics, or patronage politics. Disadvantaged because of their small numbers, women use carifio and lambing (both terms refer to mannerisms of endearment) or charm to lobby for their bills among their male colleagues or to raise funds for their constituents. In local politics, where most women politicians begin their political careers as wives of politicians and as women immersed in civic work, their gendered approach to local problems has transformed aspects of patriarchal politics in the local areas. Apart from stressing cleanliness, beautification, and culture, they add a civic-work orientation and personal flair to the duties of a politician. While

Introduction 19 women politicians may be seen as equal to men, the inevitability of gendered practices continues to stress difference in the exercise of official power.

The various chapters in this book discuss the different ways power has been deployed by women: unofficial power, moral power (which is also unofficial), official power, and political activism, or rebel power. The second chapter focuses on the traditional gendering of power, where women hold unofficial power as wives, sisters, mothers, daughters, and even mistresses of male politicians. Chapter 3 analyzes women’s exercise of official power while taking into account how gendered practices emphasize difference between men and women politicians. The differences between female exercise of official and unofficial power is addressed in these two chapters (2 and 3), stressing the contrast between Mrs. Marcos’s marshalling of unofficial power and Corazon Aquino’s own timid exercise of official power despite being a pres-

ident on whose lap fell vast revolutionary powers. Chapter 4 looks at the woman as political activist and feminist. Here two types of political activists are identified: the militant nuns and the women in radical politics who joined

male-dominated organizations. The need to condense the discussion of women in radical politics into one chapter has forced me to rely on case studies of individual women political activists who have been members of a plethora of ideologically based groups like the Communist Party of the Phil-

ippines (CPP), social democrats, human rights groups, urban terrorist groups, and traditional opposition politicians, some of whom were in exile abroad. Finally, chapter 5 examines four images of female power: beauty

queen, moral guardian, Inang Bayan, and militant nun. LOCATING MYSELF: SOURCES AND METHODOLOGIES Research for this book was conducted between 1993 and 1996, with field work in the Philippines in January-February 1993, January—February 1994, January-February and June—July 1995, and January—June 1996. Since kinship

politics permeates much of Philippine society, I had to rely on my own kinship alliance network to help me arrange interviews with powerful women. Despite limiting myself to my kinship connections and their friends, I was successful in interviewing most powerful women, with examples from local, national, and radical politics (cutting across many ideological lines). Obviously, as is typical with many Filipino families, kinship alliance networks cut across ideological and political lines. Since interviews were critical as a source for this book, access to women became a priority. “Chankfully, my kinship network ensured I had this access, and most women were very open

to me about their experiences, comfortable that the go-betweens (mostly women again) who had arranged the interviews were people they knew well. In general, many women believed that writing women’s history was a worthwhile cause and were very eager to help me out. Quite understandably, my

20 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics university (Central Queensland University, or CQU) required that I follow their standards of ethical procedures (it was tied to my grant), and so infor- mation sheets were handed out to all interviewees, despite my misgivings that it was rather unethical to impose Australian ethics on Filipinos. In any case, many interviewees saw the information sheet as somewhat superflous,

, since they agreed to see me not because I was a historian from Central Queensland University but because I was related to, or was a close friend of, their kin friend who arranged the interview. My kinship connection was a sufficient guarantee that their rights would be protected. Attitudes could best be summarized by Sister Mary John Mananzan, who looked at the information sheet and, before I could explain it, exclaimed, “Are these my rights?” and then proceeded to discard it without showing the slightest in-

terest in reading it.

The main methodological problem faced by historians of women’s history is that of primary sources—particularly written ones. For this study, interviews with women politicians, wives of politicians, militant nuns, activist women, and women kin of politicians yielded the richest information and

| provided the most insights. Unfortunately, the nature of the study—exploring women’s exercise of unofficial power—problematized oral history, since

women were naturally reluctant to admit that they played critical roles as _ political agents behind the scenes. Apart from the fact that interviews were

marvelous opportunities for women to reinvent themselves in a culture where women’s power was unofficial, women hesitated to claim for the record credit for themselves, making a point of stressing that they were only acting in support of their husbands. Most of the wives and kin of politicians balked at the thought of being on the record as claiming credit for whatever

work they had done. It is in the nature of unofficial power. For instance, Mrs. Judy Roxas, whose many foundation activities in Capiz (now renamed Roxas City) led to the perception that she indeed was responsible for the electoral success of two of her sons (the late Congressman Dinggoy Roxas

and Mar Roxas), described her role in the words, “I’m really just extra there.” Very few confessed they had exercised kinship politics at one point _ or another. To deal with this methodological problem, I made it a point to ask them whether they would be willing to speak to their husbands, to lobby for a valid request made by a constituent. All the women interviewed conceded that they appealed to their husbands, often in the privacy of their bedrooms, an important “‘site” of powerful negotiations. At the same time, women were enthusiastic about discussing unofficial power exercised by other women. Oral histories, of course, tend to project the cultural constructions of defined roles, and the perceived role of women has been the focus of my research. While participating in many of their activities, I noticed the contradictions between women’s statements and their own actions, exibiting again their ambivalent reactions to the contest between kinship politics and modern values. I found myself attending openings of civic work centers,

Introduction 21 dancing as a substitute “wife” in a rehearsal for the Congressional Spouses Foundation Inc. Valentine’s Ball, networking with ZONTA women, listening to the speeches of politicians’ wives, sitting among the audience at the congressional and Senate sessions, visiting a nun in the urban slum area of Leverisa, and chauffering Sister Sol Perpifian to the hospital, and in the process being kindly treated to many insightful lunchtime conversations with a number of women who exercised some form of power in post-war Philippine history. Printed sources exist on women’s involvement in civic work, often reported in the print media. The life and career of Mrs. Imelda Marcos is well documented in both secondary and primary sources, which include newspapers and magazines, while the scandal involving President Fidel Ramos’s alleged former mistress Rosemarie “Baby” Arenas made headlines in the Philippine Daily Inquirer and was much debated in the periodicals of that year. Women’s magazines like Metro and Lifestyle Asia, not generally consid-

ered periodicals that discussed politics in the traditional sense, often had feature pieces on many wives of politicians and sometimes women politicians

reinvented as glamorous women. There is a smattering of information on the Congressional Spouses Foundation Inc. (CSFI) and other civic organizations, like the Philippine Red Cross. Sources on women politicians were more numerous, including not only periodical literature but campaign material (which was very revealing in terms of images of female power), speeches, biographies and autobiographies, essays, cartoons, and personal papers. Newspapers and speeches were particularly relevant for an investigation of the perceptions of power exercised by President Corazon Aquino. I have also used graphic images: photographs and magazine covers as sources for the images of female power. The Bills and Index Division of the Congress of the Philippines generously provided me with a disk copy of all bills authored by women congressmen since 1986 and the archives of the Batasan yielded material on congressional

debates such as the debate over the Sexual Harassment Bill. The office of Senator Edgardo Angara furnished me with the equivalent list of bills written by women senators. The Philippines Free Press and the Weekly Graphic for the years 1945-1972 and 1986-1996 featured women politicians (particularly since the 1960s, when women began to appear more regularly), but I had to rely mostly on oral interviews for material on women in local politics (insufficiently reported in the periodicals of the time) and on gendered practices in politics (a topic not addressed in any type of printed literature). Material for women in political activism, the underground, women in the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), and the militant nuns, though available, was not only scarce but uneven. A far better source for this area is oral history, and I have made the most of this by focusing on case studies of individual activist women. Some literature from the underground exists, and here I was able to get access to CPP newspapers like Ang Bayan and

- 22 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics Liberation, and some party documents kept in private collections (such as Senator Jovito Salonga’s Bantayog ng mga Bayani, Armando Malay’s personal collection now stored in the University of the Philippines Library, and the private collection of Dr. Bernardita Reyes Churchill) proved helpful. In newsletters like the Pahatid Kapatid, women were still perceived to be auxiliaries and therefore only appeared as wives of political detainees. Although the militant nuns and the Task Force Detainees had their own newsletters and flyers, being self-effacing, they never focused on themselves, choosing instead to report on the political detainees. Consequently, there was hardly any literature written about the militant nuns, who in effect really were among the most active political activists of the martial law years. (Sister Mary

John Mananzan had several scrapbooks that collected newspaper clippings

| about her, and a similar scrapbook with Sister Christine Tan as the subject was compiled by her godchild at the Women’s Desk, Association of Major Religious Superiors of the Philippines.) Apart from interviews with the nuns about their roles, I have used one well-known film, Sister Stella L., in which a nun symbolized political activism in the martial law period. The film was produced in 1981 and played to packed audiences, who cheered at critical moments. (I recall attending one of the premiere sessions in the now extinct Rizal Theatre in Makati in 1981.) One advantage of oral history is that it allows women’s voices to emerge,

letting women “speak” for themselves. Juxtaposing these voices with women’s actions reveals the ambivalences and contradictions in the way | women negotiate gender and power, and also the conflict between kinship politics and modernity. For instance, while Attorney Marichu Tinga (wife of Congressman Dante ‘Tinga of Tagig-Pateros) told me quite emphatically that she always separated her public identity from that of her husband, an hour later as president of ZONTA (an international professional women’s organization dedicated to civic work), she prefaced her speech to the local university of her husband’s district by saying that she was not just the pres-

, ident of ZONTA but their congressman’s wife. Moreover, in the latter capacity, she reminded them, she was there to take their appeals directly to him.

~ In grappling with gender and power, I have underscored the many complexities and ambivalences women have to negotiate in their daily confrontations with being powerful yet not officially powerful (wives and kin of male politicians), being officially powerful but marginalized (women politicians), being morally powerful but subservient to a male hierarchy through vows of

! obedience (militant nuns), or being political activists with neither official power nor unofficial power. The observation that “engendering cultural con-

flict is a process fraught with ambivalence’ is not unique to the Philippines. Aithwa Ong, Michael Peletz, Suzanne Brenner, and Evelyn Blackwood have all focused on gender contradictions and multiple discourses of masculinity and femininity in Indonesia and Malaysia.* If the very cultural constructions

Introduction | 23 of femininity and masculinity are daily contested, where hegemonic discourses on gender are confronted by contradictory paradigms, certainly women’s power (and men’s) reflect these same complexities. Michael Peletz

shows how men can be perceived to be represented as “reasonable” and women are constructed as “passion” in the official cultural discourse, while in economic matters the opposite perception occurs: men must not handle finances because they are too “passionate” and are expected to spend their money whoring or gambling, while women are seen to be “reasonable” in money matters.*° ‘To get to understand women’s power in post-war Philippines is to see women negotiating these contradictions and ambivalences. While the choices are culturally and historically specific, one must resist the temptation, largely originating from the various feminisms, to see women’s empowerment tied only to notions of formal power or to the so-called liberating features of modernity. I am zot endorsing kinship politics or women’s unofficial power as the ideal form of power women must strive for, since the case of Mrs. Marcos illustrates how it is certainly open to misuse. But in the context of the battle between the two discourses (kinship politics versus modernity), where neither has full control and where kinship politics has the

upper hand, women must make use of its potential rather than choose to ignore it. The challenge for feminists is precisely to grapple with the contradictions in the traditional gendering of power, where women are given

future. ,

enormous power, albeit unofficial, and to rework these traditional methods of empowerment into new approaches toward women’s empowerment in the

NOTES 1. Primittvo Miares, The Conjugal Dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos I (San Francisco: Union Square Publications, 1976). 2. Jane Monnig Atkinson and Shelly Errington, eds. Power and Difference: Gender in Island Southeast Asia (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990). 3. Benedict Anderson, ‘“Che Idea of Power in Javanese Culture” in Culture and Politics in Indonesia, edited by Claire Holt (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1972).

4. Ibid., p. 18. 5. Studies concentrating on images of women apart from women as victims explore how the state artificially constructs images of women, for instance, woman as

mother or woman as worker. See, for instance, Esta Ungar, “Gender, Land and Household in Vietnam,” Asian Studies Review 17, no. 3 (1994); Viviane Lowe, “Women in Arms: Representations of Vietnamese Women at War 1965-1975” (paper presented at the Workshop on Southeast Asian Women, Monash University, Melbourne, September 29, 1994); Beverley Hooper, “Women, Consumerism and the State in Post-Mao China,” Asian Studies Review 17, no. 3 (1994); and Krishna Sen, “Indonesian Women at Work: Reframing the Subject,” in Gender and Power in Affluent Asia, ed. Maila Stivens and Krishna Sen (London: Routledge, 1998). 6. Maila Stivens, “Introduction,” and “Why Gender Matters in Southeast Asian

, 24 , Women, Power, and Kinship Politics Politics,” in Why Gender Matters in Southeast Asian Politics, Monash Papers on Southeast Asia No. 23, ed. Maila Stivens (Melbourne: Center for Southeast Asian Studies,

, Monash University, 1991), pp. 2 and 10. 7. Ibid., p- 21. 8. Ibid., p. 18.

9, Anderson, ““The Idea of Power in Javanese Culture.” , 10. See, for example, Michelle Zimbalist Rosaldo, “Woman, Culture and Society: A Theoretical Overview,” in Woman, Culture and Society, ed. Michelle Zimbalist Ros-

aldo and Louise Lamphere (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1974); Michelle Zimbalist Rosaldo and Jane Monnig Atkinson, “Man the Hunter and Woman Metaphors for the Sexes in Ilongot Magical Spells,” in The Interpretation of Symbolism ed. Roy Willis (London: Malaby Press, 1975); Michelle Zimbalist Rosaldo, Knowledge and Passion, Ilongot Notions of Self and Social Life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980); and Sherry Ortner and Harriet Whitehead, eds., Sexual Meanings: The Cultural Construction of Gender and Sexuality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981). {1. For literature on patron-client models, patronage politics, and factionalism see Carl Landé, Leaders, Factions and Parties: The Structure of Philippine Politics (New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asian Studies, 1965); Jean Grosholtz, Politics in the Philippines (Boston: Little, Brown, 1964); Mary Hollnsteiner, The Dynamics of Power in a Philippine Municipality (Quezon City: Institute of Philippine Studies, Ateneo de Manila University, 1963); Alfred W. McCoy, “Politics by Other Means: World War II in the Western Visayas, Philippines,” in Southeast Asia under Fapanese Occupation,

ed. Alfred W. McCoy Monograph Series No. 22 (New Haven: Yale University | Southeast Asia Studies, 1980); Alfred W. McCoy, “Yloilo: Factional Conflict in a Colonial Economy, [Iloilo Province, Philippines, 1937-1955” (Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1977); and Benedict Kerkvliet, The Huk Rebellion (Quezon City: New

Day Publishers, 1979). For studies that endorse the cacique democracy or elite democracy model, see David ‘Timberman, A Changeless Land: Continuity and Change in Philippine Politics (New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1992); and Benedict Anderson, “Cacique © Democracy in the Philippines: Origins and Dreams,” New Left Review 3 (May-June,

1988). For “sultanism,” see Mark R. Thompson, The Anti-Marcos Struggle (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995). For “bossism,” see Joel Rocamora, “Introduction,” in Boss: 3 Case Studies of Local Politics in the Philippines, ed. Jose F. Lacaba (Metro-Manila: Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, Institute for Popular Democracy, 1995). And finally, the “anarchy” model is presented in Alfred W. McCoy, ed., An Anarchy of Families (Madison: Univeristy of Wisconsin, Center for

Southeast Asian Studies, 1993).

12. McCoy, An Anarchy of Families, and Rocamora, “Introduction.” I would like to stress that the model of “bossism” was endorsed only by Joel Rocamora and not necessarily the contributors to the volume, who all presented case studies of local | politicians. While one or two of these case studies may have made conscious links with Sidel’s model (for instance, Sheila Coronel on Cavite’s Juanito Remulla), none of them have extrapolated their observations to claim that these local dynamics were typical of Philippine political culture in the way Rocamora does in his introduction. This same qualification applies to the McCoy book. 13. John Sidel quoted in Rocamora, “Introduction,” p. xxii.

, 14. Ibid. , ,

Introduction 25 15. Mary John Mananzan, ed., Essays on Women (Manila: Institute of Women’s Studies, St. Scholastica’s College, 1987); Carmen Guerrero Nakpil, Woman Enough and Other Essays (Quezon City: Vibal Publishing, 1963); Cristina Blanc Szanton, “Collision of Cultures: Reformulations of Gender in the Lowland Visayas, Philippines,” in Power and Difference, ed. Atkinson and Errington. 16. See Ma. Luisa Camagay, Working Women of Manila in the Nineteenth Century (Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press and the University Center for Women’s Studies, 1995); Ma. Luisa ‘I’. Camagay, “Women through Philippine History,” in The Filipino Woman in Focus: A Book of Readings, ed. Amaryllis 'T. Vorres (Quezon City: University of the Philippines Office of Research Coordination and University of the Philippines Press, 1989); Albina Peczon-Fernandez, ‘““Why Women Are Invisible in History,” Myrna S. Feliciano, “The Filipina: A Historical and Legal Perspective,” Zeus Salazar, “Ang Babaylan sa Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas,” Romeo V. Cruz, “Ang Pilipina sa Panahon ng Himagsikan at Digmaang Pilipino-Amerikano,” Carolyn Israel Sobritchea, “American Colonial Education and Its Impact on the Status of Filipino Women,” and Mary Grace Ampil ‘Tirona, ““Panuelo Activism,” all in Women’s Role in Philippine History: Selected Essays (Quezon City: University Center for Women’s Studies, University of the Philippines, 1996); Fe B. Mangahas, ‘“‘Ilang

Tala Hinggil sa Teorya O Perspektiba sa Papel ng Kababaihang Pilipino sa Rebolusyon,” Lilia Q. Santiago, “Ang Salaysay ng Babae, Pagkababae at Kababaihan sa Rebolusyon ng 1896,” Victor C. Ramos, “Ang Babaing Rebolusyonaryo ng 1896 Bilang Huwaran ng mga Kuwentong Pang-Mass Media,” Luis C. Dery, “Woman Power: Notes on the Power and Influence of Women in Pre-Colonial Philippines,” Regino P. Pawar and Augusto V. de Viana, “Women Katipuneros’ Counterespionage Activities,” Lydia G. Garcia, “Ang Kababaihan ng Bulakan at Ang Rebolusyon,” Ma. Milagros C. Geremia, “Ang Babayi at Babaylan sa Panrebolusyong Maragtas ng Panay,” Isagani R. Medina, “Ang Kababaihan ng Kabite sa Rebolusyon ng 1896,” Ma. Luisa T’. Camagay, “Ang Buhay Pampamilya Noong Panahon ng Rebolusyon,” and Teresita G. Maceda, “Imahen ng Inang Bayan sa Kundiman ng Himagsikan,” all in Kumperensya °93 Ang Papel ng Kababathan at Katutubo sa Rebolusyong 1896 (Baguio and

Benguet: University of the Philippines Kolehiyo sa Baguio, and Benguet State University, 1995); Carmelita C. Corpuz, “Women in the Katipunan,” and ‘Teresita Arce-

Herrera, “Filipino Women: Transcending Their Marginalization in History,” in Filipinas in Dialogue, ed. Erlinda H. Bragado (Manila: De La Salle University Press, 1995), and Rafaelita Hilario Soriano, ed., Women and the Philippine Revolution (MetroManila: Printon Press, Kaanak ’96, 1995). — 17. Santiago, “Ang Salaysay Ng Babae,” p. 32. 18. Proserpina Domingo Tapales, “Filipino Women in Politics and Public Affairs:

Activism in the Patriarchal System,” Carmencita T. Aguilar, “Filipino Women in Electoral Politics,” Proserpina Domingo ‘Tapales, “Expanding the Public Domain: ‘The Bureaucracy as Mechanism for Women’s Political Participation,” Luzviminda G. Tancangco, “Voters, Candidates and Organizers: Women and Politics in Contemporary Philippines,” Proserpina Domingo Tapales, “Women’s Political Participation in the Philippines: The Cultural Dimension,” and Carmencita T. Aguilar,

“Epilogue: The 1992 Election: Women Candidates and Incumbent National Legislators,” all in Proserpina Domingo Tapales, ed., Filipino Women and Public Policy

(Manila: Kalikasan Press, 1992); Luzviminda G. Tancangco, “Women and Politics in Contemporary Philippines,” in Women’s Role in Philippine History: Selected Essays

| 26 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics (Quezon City: University Center for Women’s Studies, University of the Philippines, _ 1996); Lita J. Domingo, et. al., “Women in Political Affairs: A Study of Women Councillors in 1990,” Ma. Cecilia Gastardo-Conaco (issue editor), Gender Issues in Philippine Society: Philippine Social Sciences Review, 52, nos. 1-4 (January-December 1995); Carmencita T. Aguilar, “Profile of Women Politicians in the Philippines,” Proserpina Domingo-Tapales, “Is There a Women’s Vote?” and Alicia A. Herrera, “Filipino Women’s Political Agenda,” all in Review of Women’s Studies, 2, no. 2

(1991-1992). ,

19. Leonora Calderon Angeles, “Feminism and Nationalism: The Discourse on the Woman Question and Politics of the Women’s Movement in the Philippines” (M.A. thesis, University of the Philippines, 1989). 20. See Elizabeth U. Eviota, ““The Social Construction of Gender and Sexuality,” in Sex and Gender in Philippine Society, ed. Elizabeth U. Eviota (Manila: National

, Commission on the Role of Filipino Women, 1994). |

21. See, for instance, Delia D. Aguilar, The Feminist Challenge: Initial Working Principles Toward Reconceptualizing the Feminist Movement in the Philippines (Metro-

Manila: Asian Social Institute and World Association for Christian Communication, 1988); Delia D. Aguilar, ““Toward a Reinscription of Nationalist Feminism,” Review of Women’s Studies 4, no. 2 (1994-1995); Sofia Logarta, ‘““The Participation of Women

in the Huk Movement,” Aurora Javate De Dios, “Participation of Women’s Groups in the Anti-Dictatorship Struggle: Genesis of a Movement,” and Socorro L. Reyes, “Public Policy Advocacy in a Democratizing Society: Tactics and Strategies for Women’s Groups,” all in Women’s Role in Philippine History. — 22. Belinda A. Aquino, “Filipino Women and Political Engagement,” Review of Women’s Studies, 4, no. 1 (1993-1994), p. 33. 23. Ibid., p. 48. 24. Ibid., pp. 48-49.

- 25. Ibid., p. 49.

26. Ibid., p. 51. | 27. I am not personally condoning Mrs. Marcos’s use, abuse, or exercise of un-

official power. ’'m merely asserting that the possible range, impact, and potential of unofficial power that could be exercised by women has been illustrated by her career.

28. Tapales, “Expanding the Public Domain,” pp. 39-50. 29. See Jane Monnig Atkinson and Shelly Errington’s “Introduction,” in Power and Difference, ed. Atkinson and Errington. 30. Maria Natividad Roces, “Kinship Politics in Post-War Philippines: The Lopez

31. Ibid.

, Family, 1945-1989” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1990). _ 32. Mary Hollnsteiner, “Reciprocity in Lowland Philippines,” in Four Readings in Philippine Values, ed. Frank Lynch and Alfonso de Guzman I, [PC Papers, No. 2 (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1973), p. 73.

33. Ibid.

34. Frank Lynch, “Social Acceptance Reconsidered,” in Four Readings., ed. Lynch

and de Guzman II, p. 10.

35. Personal communication with Alfredo R. Roces, Sydney, August 1988. 36. George M. Guthrie, The Psychology of Modernization in the Rural Philippines, in IPC Papers No. 8 (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1970), p. 44. 37. See Roces, “Kinship,” chapter 4.

Introduction 27 38. Interview with Dr. Patricia Licuanan, psychologist and vice president of Ateneo de Manila University, who became president of Miriam College in January 1998, Quezon City, Metro-Manila, January 19, 1993. 39. Marites Danguilan-Vitug and Glenda Gloria, “Past Relationship Impinges on

Present Affairs of State,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, October 11, 1993, pp. 1, 12-13; : Glenda Gloria and Marites Danguilan-Vitug, “Socialite Seeking Legitimacy,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, October 12, 1993, pp. 1 and 10. 40. Julie Yap Daza, Mtiquette for Mistresses (Metro-Manila: n.p., 1993). 41. Leonardo Mercado, The Filipino Mind (Manila: The Council for Research in Values and Divine Word Publications, 1994), pp. 88-89. 42. “Our Opponent Does Not Manicure Her Nails,” Mr. and Ms, Special Edition, January 17-23, 1986, pp. 1-2.

43. Interview with Mrs. Judy Roxas, Quezon City, Metro-Manila, February 7, 1995,

44. Aihwa Ong and Michael G. Peletz, “Introduction,” in Bewitching Women, Pious Men: Gender and Body Politics in Southeast Asia, ed. Aihwa Ong and Michael Peletz (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), p. 4. 45. Ibid., and Michael Peletz, “Neither Reasonable nor Responsible: Contrasting

Representations of Masculinity in a Malay Society,” Suzanne Brenner, “Why Women Rule the Roost: Rethinking Javanese Ideologies of Gender and SelfControl,” and Evelyn Blackwood, ‘Senior Women, Model Mothers, and Dutiful Wives: Managing Gender Contradictions in a Minangkabau Village,” all in Bewitching Women, Pious Men, ed. Ong and Peletz.

46. Peletz, “Neither Reasonable nor Responsible,” pp. 88-113.

Blank Page |

2

Power Outside the Symbols of Power Unofficial power has been the “field of power” that so far has proved to have given women maximum empowerment in the Filipino cultural context. In this realm women’s activities in their roles as wives, sisters, daughters, mothers, and mistresses of male politicians provided the power base from which to exercise power and practice kinship politics. What were these supportive roles and how does fulfillment of these roles empower women? Kanship politics dictates that women function as a support system for the male politician. But this supportive role becomes absolutely crucial to the success of their husband’s or male kin’s political career. Women organize other women in special women’s brigades in election campaigns. They are responsible not only for fund-raising but also for entertainment, food preparation, and the tedious door-to-door campaign. In the case of beauty queens or movie stars married to politicians, the wife’s physical presence at election campaigns or the celebrity woman’s media exposure practically guaranteed election victory. Once their husbands were elected, the wives would launch civic projects and immerse themselves in charity work for the benefit of the people of their husband’s constituency, in practice shouldering some, if not the bulk, of the civic work responsibilities of the politician husband. Incidentally, this role of the politician’s wife is now institutionalized: the Congressional Spouses’ and the Senate Ladies’ main roles are to specialize in various forms of civic work. Partners in politics, wives naturally practice kinship politics; and here is where women have been revealed to exercise

, —630 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics real power. The fact that the women of the Congressional Spouses Foundation Inc. (CSFI) take an oath of office (beginning October 29, 1992) in front of President Fidel Ramos highlights their ambiguous “political” position.' This taking of the oath of office can be interpreted as the president’s or the country’s formal recognition of unofficial power. ~ Ultimately, it was of course the woman’s choice: whether to be actively involved and therefore licensed to exercise unofficial power or to remain aloof from all activities in the election campaign and/or civic work and consequently forfeit the right to political agency or opportunity to practice kinship politics. In any case, an active wife or a female kin was generally necessary for the success of the male politician. Apparently, the public voted

| for a politician and a “partner in politics,” so in many an election campaign the profile of the candidate’s wife could make or break his career. A male candidate whose wife or female kin refused to become involved in the political campaign appeared less successful. Several such candidates lost the elections and faded from the limelight. While it was not necessary for the wife to assume the duties of civic work and community service (along with

the myriad other responsibilities such as networking, entertaining, helping | constituents, fund-raising, crowning beauty queens, cutting ribbons, launching beautification projects, concern for the arts and culture, feeding constituents, listening to problems, and organizing women for the campaign), it was definitely expected that a female (whether a wife or kin) perform this role. For instance, Senator Benigno Aquino’s wife Corazon Aquino, confined to serving coffee and maintaining housewifely duties, never really fulfilled any of these roles. It was the senator’s mother, Dofia Aurora Aquino, who actively ran his campaigns and involved herself in the charity work expected of the politician’s female kin. The point however, is that the woman who performed the duties expected of her as support system was the same woman who, as political agent, exercised power. Plugged into kinship politics, she

became malakas. | It is easy enough to look into the roles of women as wives and kin of

politicians: what is difficult to map precisely is unofficial power. While women’s roles in civic work are quite public, their practice of kinship politics is more difficult to document. There is, however, at least one case study of the most powerful wife of a politician to date that can present official doc-.

umentation and empirical evidence on the potential and fulfillment of women’s unofficial power—that of First Lady Mrs. Imelda Romualdez Marcos. A case study of Mrs. Marcos’s career, along with some documentation

of other women, including sister-in-law of President Corazon Aquino Mar-

| garita ‘““Tingting” Cojuangco, who practiced kinship politics during the Aquino administration, and the controversial malakas woman of the Ramos administration, his alleged former mistress Mrs. Rosemarie “Baby” Arenas, offer empirical evidence on the weight of unofficial women’s power. Finally, the duties and activities of the CSFI, the Senate Ladies, former First Ladies,

Power Outside the Symbols of Power 3] and the wives of senators, congressmen, mayors, and governors provide abundant raw data from which to draw many insights about women’s roles, women’s activities, and the practice of kinship politics.

THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN ELECTION CAMPAIGNS The organization, fund-raising and electioneering work that goes into election campaigns was largely shouldered by the women (this is even more pronounced if the candidate was a woman). While the male politician focused on delivering speeches and networking with local leaders and other male political colleagues, his wife and female kin were key players in organizing supporters essential for the campaign trail. An early example of a national organization conceptualized for a major election campaign was the Women’s Magsaysay-For-President Movement (WMPM) in 1953, chaired by Pacita Madrigal Gonzales (who later ran for senator herself ).’ According to Gonzales, Ramon Magsaysay himself accompanied by Raul Manglapus approached her and personally asked for her help in the campaign’ (as the

daughter of business shipping tycoon and treasurer of the Liberal Party, Vicente Madrigal, she had access to considerable influence and connections,

although Magsaysay was a Nacionalista). Both the Catholic Women’s League and the Girl Scouts campaigned for Senator Maria Kalaw Katigbak in 1961;* while the Philippine Women’s University campaigned for Senator Helen Benitez in 1968. In the early 1950s Mrs. Angelita Roces organized the wives of local leaders in the congressional district of Manila into a group called the Checkered Ladies for Roces (so named because their uniform was the traditional Filipino dress called the Kimona, which was usually made from checkered material).° Women usually formed an advance party sent to attract the crowds (most often people were curious to see the wives of politicians, most of whom were known for their beauty), while their husbands or male kin candidates followed later. But it was Mrs. Imelda Marcos who really tapped the potential of women’s groups for election campaigns when she conceived of the Blue Ladies for her husband’s first attempt at the presidency in 1965. They were composed of elite women from prominent families. Attired in their blue uniforms, they accompanied Mrs. Marcos on the campaign trail all over the provinces, distributing campaign literature and knickknacks as well as gifts. Formidable Blue Ladies also organized civic work projects prior to the elections, like handing out free medicines or giving medical aid.’ In response to the strong pressure of the Blue Ladies, the incumbent First Lady, Mrs. Eva Macapagal, formed her own group of women called the Lakambinis. ‘Che rivalry between the groups was intense; the Blue Ladies referring to the opponents in female jibe as “Lakambinis 1865,” implying that that was the year most of them were born.° Women’s groups organized for campaigns proved extremely effective.

32 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics Many a spouse or kin of a politician harnessed this valuable asset at election time. In 1969, also in competition with the Blue Ladies (and the Bluzettes, or the younger Blue Ladies), Minnie Osmefia, the daughter of presidential candidate Sergio Osmefia Jr. (who was the prominent figure of her father’s campaign), named her women’s support group the Osmefia Pearls. ‘The older women for Osmefia were called the Osmefia Women’s League, or OWLS. When Mrs. Consuelo Puyat-Reyes was appointed campaign manager for her brother’s campaign for Councillor of Manila, she formed the Yellow Belles of Lito Puyat, whose distinctive yellow uniforms became their trademark in

the public plazas. Mrs. Gretchen Cojuangco organized the GLAD ~ (Gretchen Ladies Auxiliary for Danding) for her husband’s presidential campaign in 1992, and although he lost, Mrs. Cojuangco reported that the ladies were often asked to grace public occasions because they were perceived to be more attractive than the men.!° Not to be outdone, Mrs. Cristina Ponce

Enrile founded the Pink Ladies for her husband’s senatorial campaign in 1992," Among women candidates, the most outstanding group was Cory’s Cru-

saders, coalesced for the snap elections of 1986 and composed of women from all different levels, including teachers, professionals, students, and even nuns. Pressured by the need to obtain funds, these women, in an unprecedented move, sold some campaign materials for a small fee. Cory T-shirts, visors, pins, buttons, dolls, and yellow hats were sold as well as videotapes of the Aquino assassination. ‘These women also volunteered the use of their

| homes as campaign headquarters.'* A special brigade of women called the SHA Women’s Movement for Senator worked to network various women’s organizations, particularly at the grass roots for diplomat Leticia Shahani’s senatorial campaign in 1987.'? These women’s organizations did all the legwork for the campaign: visiting the local markets in all the provincial towns and barrios, speaking to constituents and potential voters individually, often going on door-to-door campaigns in lieu or on behalf of the female candi-

date as well as a male candidate. !

Women excelled in fund-raising. The Blue Ladies of Mrs. Marcos were very successful fund-raisers; after all, they themselves came from wealthy _ families and had the business and other necessary connections with which to snare financial resources for an election campaign. Some women conscripted into political campaigns were veteran fund-raisers for charitable or, ganizations; among them were Mrs. Consuelo Puyat-Reyes, fund-raiser for the Philippine Tuberculosis Society for twenty-five years,'* and Mrs. Edith Nakpil Rabat, wife of a governor (Davao Oriental), who later became an assemblywoman at the Batasan Pambansa and was not only a former Miss Philippines but a major fund-raiser for the Philippines Red Cross.'* Even current president Fidel Ramos’s alleged former mistress Rosemarie “Baby” Arenas was a major fund-raiser in the campaign that made him president, a fact that partly explains her strong political influence behind the scenes when

Power Outside the Symbols of Power 33 he became president.'® Prior to the campaign she was a major fund-raiser (and continues to be) of her own charitable organization, the Padre Pio Lend a Helping Hand Foundation." Women were also heavily involved in the entertaining of crowds at campaign rallies, an essential ingredient at elections. ‘They continue to be one of the leading stars in the performance ritual of the rallies: wives and female kin of male politicians sing and sometimes dance for the crowds, openly wooing them to vote for their male candidate. In this respect, a good singing voice is a definite asset. Mrs. Marcos certainly charmed the voters with her lilting soprano; in like manner, Mrs. Rosemarie Arenas, a classically trained singer (the daughter of the diva Remedios Jimenez Bosch), also sang for President Fidel Ramos’s 1992 presidential campaign.'® Mrs. Cristina Ponce Enrile, though a Spanish mestiza, charmed the crowds with her kundimans (traditional love songs in Tagalog). Her singing was in such demand that she confessed that while on the campaign trail, whenever someone tried to wake her up during the eternal tedious bus rides, she would immediately break into song like a wind-up doll.'? In their desire to gain precious votes for their husbands or male kin, even women who were not inclined to sing in other circumstances sang for the public. Mrs. Annie de Guzman, a pianist by training, said she felt compelled to sing “Buhat” for her husband’s congressional campaign.’? Mrs. Gloria Angara sang “The Greatest Love of All,”

naming that as her husband’s theme song when he ran for the senate in 1992.71 Consuelo Puyat-Reyes sang in the campaign for her brother Lito Puyat for Councillor of Manila.2? Some women candidates lacking vocal skills danced instead; for instance, Senator Gloria Macapagal danced with husband Mike Arroyo for her senatorial election in 1995,’° and Senator Leticia Shahani danced to the music of the specially composed Sha-sha-sha campaign jingle.* To provide vote-getting entertainment for the crowds, other women candidates (and some male candidates) who could afford to hire entertainers on the candidate’s behalf did so. Mrs. Gretchen Cojuangco brought professional entertainers with her on the campaign trail, while Senator Helen Benitez, who was president of the Philippine Women’s University, the home of the Bayanihan Philippine Dance Company, invited the company to dance for her in her campaign sojourns.*° Since the importance of entertainment and the media in election cam-

paigns cannot be ignored, it is not surprising that movie stars who are spouses of politicians were extremely valuable vote-getters. Although the appeal of movie stars was not gendered (male movie stars along with basketball stars have made it to the senate and the vice presidency), the identification of wife with politician husband deserves to be understood. A movie star married to a politician can appeal successfully to her fans on behalf of her husband. ‘Three examples from recent politics readily come to mind: Gloria Diaz (former Miss Universe of 1969 and a famous movie actress), who campaigned for her husband Bong Daza when he ran for councillor of

34 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics | Makati; Vilma Santos, a well-known movie superstar, whose husband Rafael Recto was allowed to have ballots written in as Mr. Vilma Santos counted in his congressional election; and Alma Moreno, another famous movie star, whose husband (also a movie star) won as mayor of Parafiaque. Gloria Diaz herself admitted that it was her name and her appearance in all his rallies that won her husband his councillorship.’° Beside his beauteous wife, husband Bong Daza was an obscure public figure. ‘Two tedious but important aspects of the campaign were the food prep, aration (handled by all the women) and the door-to-door campaign. Women did all the cooking, a massive job, when one considered the vast amount of voters and leaders that had to be fed on a daily basis, particularly for local positions. When Mrs. Annie de Guzman’s father-in-law Eulogio de Guzman

Sr. ran for reelection as governor, the women in the family had to cook lunch for fifty people per day, and Mrs. Gina de Venecia, wife of Speaker of the House (since 1992) Jose de Venecia, has catered breakfast, lunch,

, merienda, and dinner for up to two hundred people per day!”’ Although male candidates were also required to go on door-to-door campaigns, women usually took over the harrowing legwork in order to free the men for more pressing tasks, such as networking with prominent local leaders or addressing larger crowds. In most cases wives and female kin walked the streets and visited the houses of their voters or constituents, particularly for local elective office and congressional positions. Consuelo Puyat-Reyes went on a door-to-door campaign in lieu of her brother (whom she claimed did not have the patience to go house-to-house), who ran for councillor of Manila in the early 1960s. ‘The importance of women in the Puyat campaign could not be ignored, as one rival confessed to Lito Puyat: “Lito, we can’t beat you, we go to an area, there’s your sister, we go to another area, there’s your mother, then we go to another area, there’s still your [other] sister.”’® Her role was given due credit by her brother, who upon winning the elections presented her with a New York dress with a note: ‘““Thank you for my councillorship.””°

Mrs. Angelita Roces narrated that she did all the door-to-door campaign- ing for husband Joaquin Roces, who ran for congressman of Manila (2nd district) from the 1950s onwards. Congressman Roces served five straight terms as congressman (he never lost a reelection), but he never personally went on a door-to-door campaign. It was his wife who visited the voters, going from house to house, visiting the five markets (Sta. Cruz, Binondo, _ - Bluementritt, San Nicolas, Quiapo) of the district each week buying her weekly food supplies personally from the vendors (usually she bought alternately each week from each vendor to ensure that she gave everyone equal opportunity), and entertaining ward leaders in her house. According to her, her husband was busy teaching law at Far Eastern University and did not have the time to attend to all this essential campaign spadework. He was also not the sort of person who would go around backslapping. That char-

Power Outside the Symbols of Power 35 acter flaw was a major criticism of the candidate when he first ran for office—

that he was from a prominent wealthy family not used to dealing with the lower classes. Mrs. Roces, who was from the lower classes herself (she came from a very poor family in a squatter area and had very little education when she married at 15 years of age), volunteered to do all these activities. Thus, she claimed that the role of the wife was absolutely critical in the successful election of a candidate. Mrs. Roces cited two instances where the wives of candidates refused to fulfill the roles expected of candidates’ wives and the candidates lost. In one case, the candidate’s wife refused to allow a group of

Educational Superintendents into the house because the candidate was asleep, and in the other case the wife shouted at the only local leader in Binondo, who happened to be an old, old man reminding him that he had already visited earlier and eaten pan de sal (bread).’° Such behavior, she believed, was suicidal for both candidates, who lost the elections. Wives were expected to be charming and accommodating to leaders at all times. In some cases the women actually carried on the campaign for a husband who was sick or incapacitated or, in one case, had even died! Mrs. Gloria Angara and her husband’s sister, lawyer Bellaflor Angara-Castillo (who became a congresswoman in 1995), had to take over the campaign when the senate candidate himself was incapacitated due to sickness.*! These women gave speeches in lieu of their husbands or male relatives. Magnolia Antonino stepped in when her husband died on the eve of election day and was elected senator in his place. Wives and female kin are therefore so closely identified with the candidate that as alter egos they are seen to be their logical successors in political office.

WOMEN’S ROLES AS WIVES OF POLITICIANS, 1945-1965 When my husband, Ferdinand Marcos, was elected president I asked him: “Darling, now that you are president, what is my role as First Lady?” He said: “I will build a strong house for the Filipino people. You make it a home.”

President Ferdinand Marcos here in this instance defined what was perceived to be the role of the First Lady, and by extension the role of all wives of politicians: to make the house a home, to be a homemaker. An examination of the previous roles and duties of the First Ladies from 1945 to 1965 would show that they were usually quiet homemakers expected to refurbish and redecorate the halls of Malacafiang Palace, entertain and socialize with dignitaries and the influential, and most important, be involved in civic projects and community service. In the early days of the republic up until the term of Mrs. Marcos, the First Ladies, though gracious, were not assertive

36 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics and remained quiet and unobtrusive, not overtly aggressive about their roles but definitely cognizant of their necessary duty to become heads of charity groups to project a high profile of civic activity. Prior to the 1960s, civic work meant involvement with established, reputable charities such as the Philippine Red Cross, the Community Chest, the Girl Scouts of the Philippines, the Catholic Women’s League, Boys’ Town, and medical organizations such as the V. Luna Memorial Hospital, the Tuberculosis Society, and various disaster relief agencies. The Philippine Red Cross, for example, became almost synonymous with official duties of the First Lady: in 1954 then—First Lady Mrs. Luz Magsaysay invited the Production Workers of the Red Cross to hold office right in the Malacafiang

| Recreation Hall. Mrs. Magsaysay further associated the Red Cross more closely with the activities of politicians’ wives when she organized wives of cabinet members and government workers to become production workers themselves.*? The daughter of former President Ramon Magsaysay (19531956), Mila Magsaysay Valenzuela, observed that although her mother was a traditional housewife who confined her activities to domestic duties, both

mother and daughter were active not only in the Red Cross but in fundraising events for the Community Chest anti-tuberculosis campaign, Catholic Charities, and Christmas gift-giving projects, activities Mila defined as “the civic side of being First Lady.’’** _ The succeeding First Lady, Mrs. Leonila Garcia (1956-1961), was equally active in the Red Cross, often dressing up in her uniform to join the other

, women production workers across the Pasig River. From the Garcia administration onwards, the production workers in the palace came to be known as the Malacafiang Unit of the Red Cross Production Service, further instttutionalizing the relationship between the Red Cross and the office of the First Lady. Following Garcia, subsequent First Lady Mrs. Evangelina Macapagal (1962-1965) increased the number of government wives in the Red

, Cross when she asked each cabinet lady to organize government wives in the departments of their respective husbands, assigning each department a special day in which to work. Even wives of members of the diplomatic corps _ were tapped and were scheduled to work on the same day as wives of officials

of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Mrs. Macapagal’s own personal contribution to the history of the Red Cross was the creation of a new Production Service Unit.*’ A First Lady was therefore expected to be involved in civic work and be identified closely with the Red Cross, whose Production Unit was located almost inside Malacafiang Palace itself. Civic work, symbolized by deep personal involvement with the Red Cross, was the paramount duty of a First Lady until around 1965. Aside from civic work, she was also expected to cut ribbons and crown beauty queens, be a godparent at weddings and baptisms, and entertain foreign visitors as well as important local officials at the palace

Power Outside ihe Symbols of Power 37 in style. Hence, the refurnishing and redecorating of the palace itself was also a yardstick with which to measure the worth of the First Lady: People who don’t care for Mrs. Macapagal admit that she has done wonders for Malacafiang, acquitting herself with honor as a housewife. ‘The Palace has been pol-

ished to a shine; the furnishings now show intention and taste; the carpets on the floor, the paintings on the walls, irradiate their pristine colors; and doors have been thrown open, so that a visitor stepping into the ceremonial hall sees at a glance the whole public portion of the Palace.*°

Mrs. Macapagal received public praise for not moving into the palace until it was thoroughly cleaned and for personally supervising the rehabilitation of the rooms.*’ Most press clippings on Mrs. Macapagal downplayed the fact that she was a qualified doctor of medicine; instead, her activities as housewife were given much more emphasis. ‘The ambiance of the palace premises

itself was important up until Mrs. Marcos’s term as First Lady. The first praise received by Mrs. Marcos, and in fact the first duty she attended to, was the redecoration of the palace. Although overtly it may seem a trivial task to redecorate the palace and entertain guests, in fact the entertainment of important politicians, wealthy businessmen, and foreign dignitaries was a valuable form of networking for funds, followed by the tapping of resources and personal contacts, necessary to exercise power. Women, wives of politicians and First Ladies in particular, enjoyed an advantage over their politician husbands on this level, for men left the job of entertaining to women, even when the networking set up the vital connections for future sources of funding, in effect, leading to direct links with the powerbrokers. Increasingly, over time, the First Ladies were asked to become more involved in the civic work directly linked to the husband’s role as politician— for instance, providing jobs for the unemployed, requests for money or aid in the form of building wells or hospitals, requests for the payment of hos-

pital bills, and even a request for tenure in a government position. Since President Ramon Magsaysay was the first president to formally open the palace doors to the common tao, or the common farmers, peasants, and workers, Mrs. Magsaysay, seen as an extension of her husband’s identity, was also inundated with letters requesting personal aid. Many sought to present

their requests to her personally, while the majority wrote her letters of appeal. She received pleas for presidential pardons from jail sentences, requests for clemency to prisoners, requests to stay the deportation of aliens, and requests from back-pay claimants and for loans from tenants who could not pay rent.** She was regarded as an emissary, a powerful go-between who could present and argue a person’s case with special empathy to the president, and an ally who could champion their cause behind the scenes. Mrs. Magsaysay answered the letters, forwarding all requests to the respective departments concerned. ‘The First Lady’s job description does not require

38 - Women, Power, and Kinship Politics her to handle any of these problems specially, since there is no accompanying

salary to compensate her for her work, but she was definitely expected to

| deal with these many requests. This was all part of the perception of the public, the electorate, and even the politician’s wives themselves—the idea that they were not just wives of politicians but “partners in politics.’’*? Journalist Leon O. ‘Ty described this phenomenon succinctly: “The president’s wife is not a public official and she is not paid even a centavo out of public funds for the work she does as First Lady of the land. And, yet, she shares the tasks, the endless worries and manifold problems of her husband.”*° A quick look at the making of a politician’s wife clearly brings into sharp focus the link between her role as civic worker and as partner in politics. Margarita ‘““Tingting” Cojuangco was only 18 years old when she married

Jose “Peping” Cojuangco, at that time already a congressman of Tarlac. Since she was a very young bride, her mother-in-law groomed her and gave her training for her role as congressman’s wife. Mrs. Demetria Sumulong (also from a political family) took her to Philippine Red Cross meetings, introduced her to the Catholic Women’s League, and brought her to the different barangays (smallest political unit), exposing her to the constituents of ‘Tarlac. Her main duties at that time were to be involved in civic work

~ and to make contact with her husband’s voters, to assure them that they could approach her for personal help or aid.*! The wives of congressmen in the 1945-1972 period were organized into an informal group called the Congressional Ladies Club who took their oath

of office to the Speaker of the House. They were led by the wife of the Speaker of the House and were responsible to the First Lady. Because they were nonpartisan, their projects did not in any way reflect the partisan politics or personal politics of the two parties in power (the Nacionalista or the Liberal). Instead, the wives were united in the commitment to fulfill the projects initiated by the First Lady. With the First Lady as their acknowledged leader, they concentrated exclusively on civic and charity work. ‘The women of the Congressional Ladies Club were responsible for raising funds for the First Lady’s various projects, which usually involved helping victims

of natural disasters like typhoons, earthquakes, floods, fire, and volcanic eruptions. The primary charitable organizations linked to the Congressional Ladies Club were the Red Cross, Boys’ Town, and the Anti-Tuberculosis Society. A traditional charity event was the annual Christmas gift distribution

to the poor and the prisoners at the Bilibid. Operation Puso (heart) was conceived by First Lady Mrs. Leonila D. Garcia for the purpose of helping victims of natural disasters. “The Congressional Ladies Club was unique because its activities were both nonpartisan and national in scale, very distinct from the localized interests of their congressman husbands, who were interested by and large only in their own local constituents. Working together under the aegis of the First Lady, the activities and potential roles of

Power Outside the Symbols of Power 39 congressional wives stood to be colored by the personality and vision of whoever was First Lady. On the other hand, another organization, the Senate Ladies, during the same period of 1945—1972, concerned itself with al-

most purely social activities.* The Congressional Ladies Club was responsible for raising its own funds.

One popular method (apart from the typical raffles) was to hold fashion shows and beauty contests. ‘Chese beauty contests were far from being apolitical, as wives of congressmen lobbied for their own contestants. Mrs. Roces, an active fund-raiser, usually patronized a daughter of a local leader in her district as beauty contestant.** ‘The criteria for winning was not actual beauty and talent but skill in obtaining funds for civic work, making these

beauty contests a lucrative source for funding the Congressional Ladies Club’s charity projects. In later years Mrs. Edith Nakpil Rabat, wife of a governor who eventually became an assemblywoman herself, utilized beauty contests (Miss Philippines Red Cross) to generate funds for the Red Cross (she was governor of the Red Cross).* Fashion shows were also very effec-

tive, especially when the more attractive wives of congressmen modeled some of the designer clothes. Mrs. Roces, the youngest congressional wife (and arguably the most attractive wife) in the 1950s (until Mrs. Marcos married Congressman Ferdinand Marcos on May 1, 1954) was a very popular choice for mannequin, usually asked to model the fashion show’s finale (see photo 2.1).*° The presence of many politicians’ wives in the fashion shows was the main attraction for ticket sales. Fashion shows and beauty contests

associated with the activities of congressional spouses reinforced the link between beauty and female power, a topic discussed more fully in chapter 5. Apart from these two activities, congressional wives also held tea dances with their own performances of hula dancing (especially choreographed for them by the Aldeguer sisters), as part of the fund-raising activities. Political involvement of First Ladies and other wives of politicians in the 1945-1965 period was generally confined to performing the duties of civic work and electioneering, gracing lunches and openings, cutting ribbons, crowning beauty queens, and attending town fiestas. Most of these wives, although already performing the role of go-between, interceding between the constituency and the politician, concentrated on civic work and kept a traditional low profile. ‘This did not mean, however, that they refrained from exercising unofficial power or kinship politics.

MAPPING WOMEN’S POWER FROM 1965 TO 1996: CASE STUDY, MRS. IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS Imelda Marcos took the role of First Lady as civic worker and patron to unparalleled heights. In the wake of her reign as First Lady, women as wives of politicians have developed into such aggressive civic workers and patron-

. ; Se poe Se 7 | eee rn 0 SSS : Pee po ee Be —rree ee bea, St : . jE Ee = ee eae Oe Soe To ae HS ae: one, eee .elie mEee eee beetle cee el On . : EES ee

. 7 USERS Pe ea eee Carre ny eee SETAE CEES : :

ES SEE am SSPare Poe Shee SR eSSME es ee eeTt, qee ni, falta SESS SE SRST aOR SN OO ges: ET - - : - LF ne ee.. .Lali Se tesSpann SERS SRO ER SESE Se ee Eeeaon eee eae Re eee oak Nearer akeOr URS Sie cae eeSNE eh Tas Peers. a.. peureserreannt es Men I ES SR Ra RO PORES ROU SERS Neer PRE Sr et ees Dek ne See . . oa 2 ORES ee eee Sati Buu een erent meen ee Eee eee ernie BESS RT a Ee . . | : 7 Ys TERE eePRReae rrOARESS SRE : 23 Ee SNE NST acerBes ana ae anonSeas SERN aera Sees eo RS Mathes ire TE TEeet ;

. a eee ee ee ey BS Se es Ets SoS soe a

- 1A SEE SESEORS Uceerone ESS ait SUR ee ee NR Heer one a ge Se ae : a ee eee . SSERM Races LES eeRON eC BSOO EtGSER et ee

. Bem eee eee Se ee a EE Ee ee | Ga woe - !

. oS SEE ee ears Pace reNane Sone aes Suen ane conten iene mee socrunmeern ea rete eee eae gee ome Sechee Cates SEE ae SEE Ss SEL nett :

Oe ee aePSION ersten none eeneia cans arene SE TRESS aoe SotSe eee ene Soe tare eaeano Se seinen cuernnastrens SSE SS ee - . s . . LESS eesA atRSS en OS RI en Rea REI ORneeSR aSeana NeSCORE aRBlane” a Sea : Cu Se SOO SAPOICR NR Ee oe TA Ra OeLe OL ED Se ROR eeSiren eee ipenremrtotine tnnts seme oS eae ETON eS

Petes ee ee ——rrr———*SCr*tC Ue ee -- “SEE Uo).Ee1EE EEE RE aera Rcee. een eC aEane SO Se ee ee oeceeAEP ee ae. :. 7 | ee iiaeon eeearses Prien mee Se ee oe Sepa eee ES OS Re SRR CR ap case ee SC ee

— — r—“ rr Son ee «4 Ue Ramet eten cree tee eeeBee 7.;: . : 1h Eee ea ee i Sa Soe - | .UE Sa Ee ee hse. ee ert od ce Oe EL Rene Ee ee Spee Bee: SO oeae fsBREST ee |eee~— ac EANDa a; : ee SOR cn Be si == ==éé4= 7

: 2 eae eS eS Sa Soe Bi tptuete oem race a eee eae Senne auneeme e e reenter ee CCN Oe SSO ae ae 2Ree : : . . FOES EE ee ee ene Beso ER ae soheeseatennseanc nce SEU Re Ee SSR aa So eee RE RE Th

— FF . s — ——“—“‘“_sO—O—O—O—OS—O—OS BR ee see

6 DOE eeecoro See e rane pee osones SSS UES ous POSES ee eee needhnaoMicereeneite mae ESS cote ennce EeNex Sige oe ih ont ie :SN Seah ; | Ee oe a: eer BSS SaatGeSee ORO RRS sparc tatee : ER:ee sca, ER OE BE SSR Semeea Seinee einSR SRconcent RE SAU ee SAC a neweeee

MISES gt ene “ee a —ORE RACSR sno=a:ea . , Pee(WU GEER eS =eeSo een . P easel Beer es ee NRE *BETA ee SS seme 2 EERE SEEeeSEE TRG eeeSe a - ee Pesee eege ee ;es -_ | : 0. TESS Se ES ae cm ae SRE aR ORC REREE DS BES eR a menienac nee Nec peer tan Se aa Bee. 7 L .a. ::Oo O27 eee eee : Seer ieeRee acres Racine oe. . . oo SEE Se Pee —“i—OCO—s—C—CSCC Sees Buca or ee 7 eee ko EEE | ERS naeROR eeUe ae shea res RE SS SsSee a CU :Ao ory-.i ee eee eeeeee Be See.ee ee eS Ort ane acess aE ea

. ere 6h lc ll — ee eo : ae ee 7 ees EO eee : . WP vn PS ee ee ee Oo a .

OLY SSS ee .oeBS SSScand Seana aS enaREane ee eee Se eee eeeeree SSE so a : : Uoor, Ucn EE SRE eeeESSe :SER BESS scone Stace cue ananmtnneaeme Mno eeone za Savon ae 20 0a, Roeestan Reactant nes BR Ce paene pear ON a eee ee cen " 1 JESU See Basson cen nese SOR RSE eR roma E ESeR Siete enero mays Seta arco Ramone Sa ; . Sieg 7 Lhe ee Rhee pen hea TERRE semen SERRE BRED CED prgeeen ciatcnsree ee yo eee ee Sn rite Peese SexCE Beas ee SS SSS SoeRE SRSineamame OR S NS Bone BERR rs Sie SSE pee :ee oe7B: : : REE ie asO00. Ee,ND] ET SEL Pecres “eae eecieae ir SR ens CR RE oeeesone

: : : v0 TESRE ee eet ESSA ae eas ates sacra enrensee nan BERR reeee SOSSS Ea a es invert etaie eiseae at eee ETS S . SSR OSBoye Boon on amatotem ming nano Sees a eE See me eScaatntic Be : . FOE RPS ee . ERS RAeaSanaa asaeSearrin tirecn ay ReaeSoa noma aeecoer gre ogORE tecne creeteeSESS .: eo oN BeeDe Daten srGeanauaemr enone SEE ae te | ~ fg eS Se FE OO Raa a *i CEES Rane Raponren en ee ee mann STS IRURRC RAE SRIeeORR ORAS nena toh ERROR SaSahay eee ee De eeeaern : -:

. OSS ee Be er eee poe Le ee Bee Po 2 . aeeae Seeee “eeSeee aezs; ) RE ey ee eeeee BSee Ee Ce Se oe

| : : ph ine SE Ree ea Sc ikUe EN ee rguennnoaeecncee RUNS Sa eer et oans aol : pares este ea Rae—rrr—“‘i“_O—CSs— RBS SRR SRC gece rere LR “TEER ceasee Se erie RRSeee SeaRee ae eR ae erie ERRees RSScie SO RO Soethrs : : |RSS RRR Seto SESE Sect ce “SC Sn BR SitsSRR oS aE

. Sere “TSRae ata emo see Spear ten Sane “EEREOc Re eee epee aR oa oie manne ORcanes A Aee Sein Rees Pe Ee ee7PE: oe : . en -.ge “2 RSS ee cer eee ssoaevereee SEER eee ee eee rea . .Deena es Se aeieee enone ener Bere ee TEE erent cn San Aca one pe BStstenc crm oanmemen ee uma ceRRS ee Siete eRe eae tee Sees SE . : : TSS Resear cane Seren. oe oa RR Se eee Neacatenenenseeee faster Se veoasrraen Baoan So teiee ee LoL. ;TAREE TEESE Sosa re saticaiteiptesiee ee DATSen a rea TERS ee x Boeeee artena ee oe ee galanin at eR ae OeGeese OLR ROESe a” eee ee Gee Sean Ren ESSE : Bs :RRSSS ee Siete nee eo eee RS a .]. . 7 RR Copeman. Ra canaaN yry RO Seen trea Se NES Rossen SSN Peete ts Rete eo concn para enter anae anni Sie Th,

a . "Re Se see EST RRE sen eee eS RR ee: Eesae Sere SE | aa .SS ee ARCS? ea ee ae nee SAC oy eee ea Ee.: |j ; ae eS US eeraanae eranena eats eauae ean pip scorer ee ea ec ois SESS a ieee aBee Seeee SeBei SS RO Benoa Bea SennNS Ra SOU Serene an SSR aes ene ae eee Becne scene es nyMonee eeeeeean neaesernora cs ten aa RES ay Bee

. oh2een. See 2 non ee ee eae Bs ee eee EEO cas ESaera ee ee — .EE: : S17 2Racca SiR SSL Becontree ten een onion AS eeener naar sites ES . arate eeBoies ee BR ean aanpn oe een ee eet ina aQo ce Pe eee no ee . . : SRR Sona aR7BS RSS Speen See eRRR *; Sentara rene ACD aoe gr ee aBet . = . _- RR eee ea ee cucu ace z SENECA GSuiceennb areca om rey coat ee =Bete ooeee SER eee Pit nat reece n agaa TREO Seen ean seen BSS Sreees recta ceceteay . . 77 RRR eeeeae Se ST ee atapenee - SRE Se eae pena aiaeae sianneg mentee ye eatonean enema eeniareetrie i” SR eee 7 : : Missoni ines aeae oes Ra eats TERE ope a Sethe BR eat hh nana once RE EER Seaeparen ee eeraSoo See — r—t———— When she noticed that one school had only one dilapidated toilet for 1,000 students, her immediate reaction was to provide the school with two or three more toilets.*° Having confessed to holding very high standards of cleanliness, she was apalled when on her first trip to Guimaras as governor, she observed the

litter of plastic bags in the streets. Her first project was to donate 1,000 pesos to reward the children who volunteered to clear the garbage (they were given pencils). In one month’s time, the rubbish disappeared. She was even more meticulous when it came to hospitals; when hospital staff claimed they did not have the budget to guarantee a clean hospital she retorted: “You don’t need a big budget, you just need soap and water. And make your utility

people work 8 hours a day and it’s going to be clean.” So I changed the chief of hospital to a woman, and in less than one month’s time it was very clean.*?

Eventually, the hospital (Guimaras Provincial Hospital) received a grant of 120 million pesos from the Asian Development Bank because it had the

94 , Women, Power, and Kinship Politics honor of being the cleanest hospital in the country.** It is worthy of note that the appointment of a female chief of hospital was in her mind, a necessary step in ensuring that her instructions on cleanliness would be punc- _ — tiliously observed. Health was also a top priority for lady politicians. Governor Lopez set up the mobile clinics that travelled around the province dispensing health care,

launched the medical insurance program that provided cheap coverage to pay for doctors and medicines, and improved existing barangay health centers. She personally inspected every mobile clinic in Guimaras.®*’ Her handson governing style which took her regularly to all the areas of her province,

has earned her the epithet ““[he Roving Governor.” Women in local politics also declared that their gender was compatible - with the requirements of local office, because women were “more detailed,”

paying greater attention to the miniscule activities of mundane living.”! Mayor Adelina Rodriguez was obsessed with clearing her paperwork everyday so that her desk never exhibited a huge pile of unsigned documents, even if it meant that she had to take work home with her in the evenings. She developed this habit in childhood, when she always did her homework

early; it was an attitude she claimed was gender based.*? Councillor Nini Licaros and Governor Emily Lopez also pointed out that women politicians differed from men because they paid greater attention to the details of every-

day life.”* , ,

, The prioritizing of health issues was closely associated with the women’s previous activities in civic organizations like the Red Cross. Governor ‘Tingting Cojuangco’s Tingnapay project (discussed later), where she provided

, _ bread while the Red Cross provided milk, was linked to the Social Services and the Health Departments, which performed periodic weight checks on the babies of the province. She has a deworming project, and she also sup- —

plied medicines to those who did not belong to the SSS (Social Security Service) or the GSIS (Government Services Insurance System). She particularly cited as her special venture the teaching of sign language to the deaf and dumb children of ‘Tarlac province.’* Clearly the focus on health and women’s achievements in these endeavors could be explained by the experiences of women in civic organizations and their success in gaining funds for health projects. As fund-raisers for civic organizations, their connections with these agencies enabled them to tap resources that most male politicians would usually have access to only through their wives. A number of women local politicians had already exercised power, albeit unofficially, as wives of politicians. As active politicians’ wives, they had immersed themselves in civic projects, community service, and charity work, providing the services for the needs of their husbands’ constituents. In this sense, their activities as wives of politicians were not much different from their new responsibilities as state officials. Their experiences as wives of

politicians not only introduced them to the duties and responsibilities of

Women Politicians 95 political life, it also empowered them. The next step in the evolution of women’s empowerment was to seek official power and a position in local office.

Out of five women local politicians interviewed (Vice Mayor Charito Planas is discussed in chapter 4), three had been wives of politicians prior to their appointment or election into office. Mayor Adelina Rodriguez was the wife of Rizal Governor Isidro Rodriguez (1955-1986) prior to her term as mayor of Quezon City. In her view, her roles as wife and later on as

mayor were very similar: ,

Any difference [between] my role as wife and as a politician? Not much, because I’ve been very busy, even as wife of a politician. Except that as a mayor, you are already,

IT mean, you are responsible already and it is a duty. While in civic work... you belong to a nongovernmental organization if you want to, if you don’t want to you can ano |whatever].””°

Governor Emily Lopez, well known for her civic work when she was the wife of a congressman, continued to see herself as a social worker even after two terms as governor of Guimaras: “In fact, up to now, I feel I’m more of a social worker than a politician. I’m not really a traditional politician.” In some cases the women politicians who had husbands in politics sought advice from their husbands when they first assumed their official duties.” At any rate, these women local politicians were already successful organizers of charitable foundations. Governor Emily Lopez was appointed governor of Guimaras Island in 1992, when the island was declared a separate province from Iloilo. A fashion model and a real estate broker with a higher degree in German, hardly glowing qualifications for governor by Western

standards, Mrs. Lopez was initiated into the political arena as the wife of Congressman Alberto Lopez. The Lopez family has been a prominent political and economic family in the post-war era, and could be cited as a classic example of a family that exercised kinship politics.’> Fernando Lopez was

mayor (1945-1947), senator (1947-1949, 1953-1965) and vice president (1949-1952, 1965-1972). As Fernando’s son, Alberto in 1987 ran for political office for the first time. Mrs. Emily Lopez campaigned for her husband, and when he received the electoral mandate, worked as his chief of staff, focusing

on Guimaras (then considered a part of Iloilo province, the Lopez political bailiwick). She placed her real estate business on hold and began a number of civic and livelihood projects. She founded the Taos Puso (heartfelt) Foundation, a female-dominated organization (it has 50,000 members, 40,000 of whoim are women).”’

Even better groomed and positioned was Governor Margarita “Tingting”’ Cojuangco, who had been closely advised by her mother-in-law Demetria Sumulong when she married Congressman Jose “Peping” Cojuangco in 1962. She would sometimes give financial aid or help procure employment

Oo 96 Women, Power, and Kinship Polttics for those who approached her looking for work. She was also involved in civic work as a member of the Red Cross and the Catholic Women’s League. As a congressman’s wife (with the aid of her mother-in-law Demetria Sumulong), she attended to the day-to-day needs and requests of her husband’s constituents in Tarlac. Although she’d worked behind the scenes in the period before martial law (1962-1972), it was the late martial law years (1983-

1986) that transformed her briefly into a political activist. Having experienced women’s empowerment through political activism, she then sought official power herself when in 1992 she ran for governor of Tarlac. Her experiences organizing other women in the parliament of the streets (she founded AWARE, or Alliance of Women for Action ‘Toward Reconciliation), which was sparked off by the assasination of Senator Benigno Aquino - (her husband Jose Cojuangco is the brother of President Corazon Aquino), politicized her in a new way. Mayor Adelina Rodriguez discovered that it was relatively easy to fulfill her vital duty (to provide the people with the basic services, particularly in the depressed areas) because of her earlier involvement with civic organizations (she was chairperson of the Tuberculosis Society, the Cancer Society,

and the Rizal Chapter of the Red Cross) when she was still the wife of a governor. Her personal ties with these organizations facilitated her requests for funding (e.g., from the Soroptimist and Zonta Clubs as well as the Sandigan Foundation) for the Christmas gift-giving drive (something all wives of politicians handled) and her own project of building day-care centers. ‘The

Eagles Organization and the Lion’s Club financed her vision of creating Barangay Sta. Lucia, a small rural community that was developed by removing the squatters and resettling them in Novaliches. The resettlement included new roads, a clinic, a day care center, a playground, a school, a - nursery, and even plants and trees. The entire project was subsidized by the nongovernmental organizations known for patronizing civic work.'°°

, Women in local politics did not confine their activities only to civic work and community service. Local politicians were expected to oversee the construction of infrastructure (building bridges, paving roads, digging wells),

encourage agriculture, industry, and tourism, and resettle squatters. All | these, including the writing of resolutions, were relatively new responsibilities, now shouldered by these women. And women politicians embraced these occupations with gusto, often adding a unique “civic” work flavor to such mundane chores. Among Mayor Rodriguez’s first duties was to build a small bridge, which the grateful barangay named the Rodriguez Bridge."”' | Governor Tingting Cojuangco’s projects included the distribution of seeds (asparagus, palay, lettuce, tomato, etc.), road maintenance, and the installation of water pumps. She was also responsible for apprehending those guilty of illegal logging activities in her province. Those tasks that involved civic work, like livelihood projects and food distribution, were given a particularly gendered flair by the lady governor. The feeding program where milk (cour-

- tesy of the Red Cross) and bread (donated by Tingting) were dispensed to

Women Politicians 97 the needy was christened “Tingnapay,” coined after her name and the ‘l’agalog word for bread (tinapay).'® If it were a male local politician, the acronym would sound corny but in Tingting’s case, it became a catchphrase (one congressional candidate labelled it “cute’’),'”’ almost like an advertising slogan. Makati Councillor Nini Licaros’s past involvement in civic work also col-

ored her political foci. Though Licaros was not married to a politician prior to running for office, she was a major leader in a number of all-women civic

organizations. She was a member of the Catholic Women’s Club, the Friends of the CCP (Cultural Center of the Philippines), the Binibining Pilipinas Charity (Miss Philippines charity, since Licaros was a former beauty queen titleholder herself), and the Love 14 Foundation. Love 14 was a group of fourteen civic-minded women who raised money yearly for spe-

cific causes like street children, depressed tribal groups in the mountain provinces, the Philippine General Hospital, invalid children, and slum dwellers in the Makati district. As councillor, she carried the unique practices of women’s civic organizations into the world of local politics. She founded the Katulong sa Kabuhayan Foundation (Helper in Livelihood Foundation). Its aim was the segregation of garbage (organic from nonorganic) in the hope of selling recyclable items. Money from these sales was then used for livelihood programs in the depressed areas. The project was both environmentalist and civic work—-oriented. Even her techniques for implementing the tasks of the foundation revealed the woman’s perspective as housewife or as head of the domestic household. She and her associates went door-to-door and spoke to the katulong (helpers—domestic servants or maids), lecturing them on what constituted “wet” and “dry” garbage and identifying the recyclable items such as plastic, tin cans, plastic bottles, and aluminum.'**

Infusing the woman’s unusual style of organizational skill into the machinery of local politics via civic work has not only transformed political practices, it has also enhanced the success rate of local politicians. ‘These women can claim landmark achievements in their local areas. Governor Tingting Cojuangco altered Tarlac politics with her personal touch. Her husband, who was also congressman of ‘Tarlac, usually expected the mayors

to come to Hacienda Luisita (his family hacienda) to receive his orders, which he dictated “like a cacique.”!® His wife, the governor, on the other hand, would personally see the mayors individually, like a doctor doing rounds. The local politicians and constituents loved this personal style, and

its popularity has compelled her husband to adopt the same method.'°° Tingting was also well known for her cultural projects, for instance, her plans to build a museum for Tarlac and pursue research on the history of Tarlac province. These cultural endeavors were very highly gendered. Male politicians do not as a general rule pay much attention to cultural projects, and would probably be considered weak were they to do so. Women local pol-

98 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics iticlans therefore introduced a variety of new foci: that personal touch associated with their civic work and a flair for cultural projects. Mayor Adelina Rodriguez was also perceived to have been a successful mayor (she of course served during martial law and was appointed by President and Mrs. Marcos). Some evidence of her attainments could be gleaned

, from a comment made by one of her husband’s local leaders (her husband was governor of Rizal): ‘““You know, the only one who will defeat you is your wife!’”’!°? Governor Emily Lopez was officially awarded with the title of Most

Outstanding Lady Provincial Governor of the Republic of the Philippines in 1994, while her province, Guimaras, recetved the honor of Most Outstanding Province for 1993 by the Progressive Alliance of Citizens for Democracy. Guimaras was named the Cleanest and Greenest Province in Western Visayas in 1994. She deserves to be personally credited for much of the improvement in Guimaras, particularly since she was responsible for winning important grants from major funding agencies locally and abroad. She has chosen to highlight the mango industry in Guimaras, with amazing results, since the Guimaras mango was the only Philippine mango to pass U.S. export market tests. She also hoped to inspire Guimaras cultural identity and instill ethnic pride in a new province that has always perceived itself as a mere appendage to Iloilo province. For instance, she commissioned a Guimaras hymn. ‘echnical schools were converted into colleges in order to provide the education necessary to uplift the employment hopes of the Guimarasnons. [hese two projects were conceived because she wanted to alter

the present image of Guimaras as a province that supplied domestic help (at is difficult to send youth to [Iloilo to get a post-high school education).' Through their application of gendered practices and priorities associated with the role of housewife and mother (cleanliness, orderliness, personal concern for constituents, motherly concern, health, and culture), women have transformed local politics in small but telling ways. And yet a majority

of these women were merely transposing their former duties as wives of politicians into the realm of official power. ‘Thus, the lines separating the exercise of women’s official and unofficial power, at least at the level of local politics, are hard to distinguish. ,

WOMEN IN NATIONAL POLITICS Women in national politics had an advantage over women in local politics

because as lawmakers, they had the critical weapon necessary not only to practice kinship politics, the power to author bills that could privilege businesses, but also to initiate policy that could introduce changes in the society, culture, and politics. As lawmakers, they were positioned to alter or at least attempt to alter patriarchal structures, break down women’s inequality, and even enhance women’s power. Interestingly, women politicians as lawmakers

, from 1945 to 1986 did not target women’s issues in their legislative focus.

Women Politicians 99 In this sense, women’s record as lawmakers, or the authoring of bills and resolutions as women congressmen and senators, did not exibit any gendered

outlook. One could, in fact, propose that neither male congressmen and senators nor female congressmen and senators showed a gendered bias in their legislative record throughout the post-war years. Appointments to legislative committees tended to be made based on the interests and expertise of the legislator. Women senators in the 1945-1972 period were usually made chairpersons of committees on education and culture or assigned memberships to committees that dealt with social welfare and health. Senators Eva Estrada Kalaw and Helen Benitez, for example, were given chairs in the Senate Committe on Education. After martial law, women’s expertise spanned wider fields, including diplomacy, economics, and law; consequently, women’s participation in legislative committees reveal a nongendered pattern. Senator Leticia Shahani, who had a distinguished diplomatic career prior to election in the Senate, headed the Committee of Foreign Relations'®” and now chairs the Committee on Education, while Senator Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, an economist and academic, led the Committee on ‘Trade and Commerce,''® and Congresswoman Lorna Yap was chairman of the Committee on Finance and Budget and vice chairman of

the Committee on National Defense and the Committee of Foreign Affairs.''' Senator Anna Dominique “Nikki” Coseteng, a former women’s activist, was given the leadership of the House Committe on Human Rights when she was congresswoman,''* and Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, a lawyer and trial judge, was given charge of the Committee on Constitutional Amendments. Reading the titles and abstracts of bills authored by women congressmen (filed in the Bills and Index Division of the Batasan) and women senators

(through the office of former Senator Edgardo Angara) did not reveal a marked predisposition toward women’s issues, either. Most of the bills authored by congresswomen were typical of their district’s expectations: roads, bridges, sea walls, barangay halls, hospitals, public schools, health centers, public markets, and agricultural improvements like developing seedlings and prioritizing food products. A tabulation of the number of bills in any of these areas would reveal schools, health centers and hospitals, and roads as the most prominent concerns. ‘The senators’ bills were different from those of the congresswomen, since they concentrated on national issues rather than on local ones, but instead of reflecting a gendered pattern, they showed a bias toward the legislators’ own interests or expertise. For example, Senator Santanina Rasul demonstrated a predisposition to legislate over issues on minorities and Muslim women. She was herself a Muslim, from an area peopled by Muslims and minority groups.''? Senator Leticia Shahani was concerned about environmental issues,''* and Senator Gloria Macapagal usually focused on the economy, banking and finance, industry, trade, and commerce.'!* This did not mean, however, that they did not legislate on specific

100 , Women, Power, and Kinship Polttics women’s issues. All five female senators (Leticia Shahani, Santanina Rasul, Nikki Coseteng, Gloria Macapagal, and Miriam Defensor Santiago) who served from 1986 onward (Defensor Santiago is the newcomer, becoming senator only in 1995) had at some point or another authored a bill or resolution that was pro-women. But, a close scrutiny of the senate’s Committee

on Women and Family Relations revealed that most bills that privileged women or addressed gender inequality were authored by male senators!''® _ And the person best remembered for initiating the largest number of prowomen legislation was Senator Raul Roco, a male senator, who for his devotion to women’s causes was named “an honorary woman” by no less than the National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women (NCRFW) and

| the Soroptimists.''’

Bills that were pro-women and authored by women congressmen and senators dealt with issues that either were disadvantageous to women or revealed unjust exploitation of women. These included adultery, concubinage, pornography, domestic violence (in the literature specifically identified as wife beating), rape, discrimination in the workplace or general discrimination because of sex, mail-order brides, equal opportunity and equal pay, protection of domestic helpers, and sexual harassment. There were also bills that encouraged women or laid the foundations for the future empowerment of women: bills for women in livelihood, establishment of day-care centers, fostering the representation and participation of women in nation building, women’s day, women’s month, women’s history month, the founding of

, women’s commissions in the government and bureaucracy (like the Philippine Commission on Women), aiding solo parenthood, and allowing women

to retain their maiden names upon marriage.''* Though the legislators addressed the issues of male adultery, they stopped short of addressing divorce.

, In a society where a man’s infidelities were tolerated, where the role of the mistress was accepted, one could argue quite convincingly that the absence , of a divorce law (divorce is not legal in the Philippines) was oppressive to women. The society’s privileging of a “macho culture” meant that the

, woman had to endure her husband’s infidelities. On the other hand, it encouraged complacency among men, who knew for certain that despite their transgressions (women’s infidelities were frowned upon), the wife had no

choice but to put up with them. | |

And yet no woman legislator has ever considered drafting a proposal to

introduce divorce. The many bills so far proposed gravitate perilously close to preventing women’s oppression within a marriage but stop short of even

| hinting at divorce. This was despite the fact that the church allowed annulments, and legal annulments were now valid. I bring out this point only to support my argument that the authoring of bills did not reflect a gendered pattern. Otherwise, women senators would initiate some policy on divorce, if only to protect women from oppression within the marriage, as part of their overall concern with equality in the Philippine cultural context. Why

Women Politicians 101 this has not yet been addressed is still a mystery. One could propose a number of possible explanations, all still speculation at this point. Is the fear of reprisals from the Catholic church or the fear of challenging the church’s view on divorce so formidable because the society still heeded church views on these issues? Or is women’s resistance to divorce still linked to the Filipino cultural construction of the woman as wife and mother?!''!? Another reason could perhaps be linked to traditional views of exercising women’s power. Do these women feel that holding power behind the scenes as the legitimate wife grants them power over the husband? The last possibility would be interesting to explore, since it grapples with the contradictory aspects of women’s power as wife. Although the absence of divorce laws limits women’s power in marriage, do women as wives still perceive that loss of

wifely status means loss of their power over a man and therefore loss of power wielded in his name? Since 1986, the influence of the women’s movements and the spread of global ideas on empowerment for women have stirred the interests of women legislators. ‘'wenty-one congresswomen of the Ninth Congress (1992) have formed a bloc called POWER (Philippine Organization of Women Elected Representatives) for the sole purpose of promoting pro-women legislation. '”° POWER was the women’s response to the fact that they were still working

within a male-dominated Congress. Grouping together as a power bloc might be an effective method with which to lobby for pro-women legislation

within the context of a male-dominated group. This caucus of women became essential for the passage of some women-issue laws, such as the Sexual Harassment Act (RA 7877) authored by Representative Lualhati Antonino, which generated opposition from some male members in the House. Those who interpellated the bill’s principal author in the house were men.'?!

GENDERED PRACTICES IN NATIONAL AND LOCAL POLITICS Political practice was of course inevitably gendered, proving both an advantage and a disadvantage to women. In the areas of election campaigns, patronage politics, media, and in the lobbying for the passage of bills in the Congress and Senate, women’s actions differed from men’s. At election campaigns, for instance, political speeches and exposés of the graft and corruption of other political rivals were intrinsic to the male political panache. The Bomba (defined as bombastic, loud, blatant exposés of rival politicians) expected in every campaign rally was always launched by the men, and women candidates refrained from these attacks in public, with the exception of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago.'’* Congressional candidate Sally Zaldivar Perez confessed that provincial election campaigns were peppered with attacks on rivals; a practice she refused to succumb to:

102 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics They wanted me to Bomba, Bomba, they wanted me to rake the scandal in the family of Exequiel. But I refused. Like the mother was crazy daw [they say]... . I don’t want to be swallowed by the culture of the province, ma yung [that is], attacking. Attack

| _ and attack in the most personal way. ... Their drinking, their bad habits, their mistresses, everything. Oo [yes]. They will even make stories up. Politics in the province are really like that. The more bombastic ka diyan [you are], the more they like it.!”°

On the other hand, women sang and danced during election campaigns. Although some men did sing, they were a minority. Senator Leticia Shahani danced her Sha-sha-sha jingle, and Senator Gloria Macapagal Arroyo danced with husband Mike Arroyo. Senatorial Candidate Marietta Primicias Goco danced to her trademark song ‘‘Pretty Woman” in 1992.'2+ Mrs. Imelda Marcos, who sang for her husband’s campaign, also sang for her own presidential and congressional campaigns, while Mrs. Rosemarie Arenas also sang

for presidential candidate Fidel Ramos as well as for her own attempt to

a gain a senate seat. However, there were candidates who neither sang nor danced but who instead hired professional entertainers to come with them

in their campaign sorties around the Philippines. | | While there were some practical disadvantages to being a woman candidate for office, for instance, a women could not go drinking with political

, leaders in the provinces, be seen escorted by men all the time, or even go to remote areas, most women candidates interviewed saw their sex as an advantage. Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago candidly confessed that being a woman allowed her to appeal to audiences’ emotions during her presiden-

a tial campaign in 1992. She could end her speeches reciting a passage from William Ernest Henley’s “Invictus” (“In the fell clutch of circumstance,I have not winced or cried aloud. Under the bludgeonings of chance, my head

is bloody but unbowed....I am the master of my fate, the captain of my soul!”’)'*° and narrate stories she described as “lachrymose.”’ If a man made those speeches, they would at best be percieved as corny, and at worst, he could be perceived to be binabae (homosexual).’*° The two stories she used involved her role as mother. The story is always about my children. At first it was the story of when I was Immigration Commissioner and I always went home at one o’clock in the morning. One time I received a death threat against my children, and then I went home at one o’clock in the morning and I looked into their bedroom and they were fast asleep. _ And so the story ends by saying I looked at the face of my little eight-year-old boy, and I said to myself, “I am not going to let this little boy down; I will never let the

_ people of the Philippines down, no matter what the cost!” Right, so that’s very emotional. And then right after my highway collision, I almost died, [so] the speeches _ always end in this way: “I was lying on the operating table at the emergency room _... totally disfigured and... covered in blood. I was at the threshold of death, and because they were all in panic [and] they thought I was going to die, they brought me my little son, who was at that time already ten years old. And they sent everybody

Women Politicians 103 out of the room because they were now going to start sewing me up, but the little boy refused to leave, so they wouldn’t start. So although I was in huge pain and shock, I had to talk to him, I wanted to find out what was holding things up. He was holding the door and he was waiting for me to look at him and when I looked, although he was weeping he said: “Mother, never give up! Mother, never give up!” And so I turn to the audience and say, “So I promise you, no matter what they do to me, I will never give up!” That is always good for about 5,000 people weeping. (laughter) So, if I were a male [ would not have the emotional wallop that it does coming from a mother.'’’

Batasan Pambansa member Edith Nakpil Rabat, a former Miss Philippines, also used an emotional angle, one that would have more appeal coming from a woman than a man. Like in my case, when I campaigned, I was actually a recent victim of a grenade blast. I almost died, so with that, I would tell them that this is the cross (a cross-like scar etched on my knuckles due to the accident) that saved me and it will always remind me that I have a mission to fulfill. You know you have to touch their hearts, especially in the rural areas, where the Filipinos are very emotional and caring.'’*

A woman’s physical appearance could also draw more crowds to her rallies simply because the people were curious to see if she was pretty, well dressed, or charming. Even Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, who started off her career as Immigration commissioner with the image of a no-nonsense crime buster who wielded a handgun, completely altered her image (she called it reinventing herself), wearing makeup and scarlet dresses. Because I am female, I could electrify the audience better than a male. You know, if you are a male and you arrive at a campaign rally, how excited do you think the public can get over you? But if I am a female, you know, and I was always dressed up, my hair [was well coiffed] (I had to have a professional hairdresser with me), so when I appeared on the scenes, the effect was electric. My mere appearance was sufficient to throw the crowd into hysterics.!?°

Women candidates, particularly those who took the trouble to make themselves look attractive, had the advantage over men in gaining the attention of the people at campaign rallies. Male candidates usually wore loud, brightcolored shirts so that they would stand out in a crowd, or be distinguishable from the throng of bodyguards around them. Often, they arrived borne on the shoulders of their male supporters. Women did not have to use these tactics to call attention to themselves. ‘Their sex and physical appearance, plus the fact that women candidates are a minority, sufficiently identified them as “the candidate.” In chapter 5, links will be made between beauty and power in the gendering of the images of power in post-war Philippines.

104 | , Women, Power, and Kinship Politics

vations: | ,

| Assemblywoman Edith Nakpil Rabat confirmed Defensor Santiago’s obserYou know, most Filipinos look up to one with a star image—like that of a movie star.... They would like to associate themselves with somebody who is well-dressed. I always made myself presentable, so they get curious. That is how you can attract them and then... that’s when you come in. You touch their hearts and emotions through your sincerity, charm, and, of course, the right approach.’

An important strategy used by some women politicians to lobby for their

| bills in a male-dominated Congress or Senate was the use of female charm,

, sometimes referred to as carifo or lambing (both words refer to mannerisms of endearment). The use of a specifically female charm, like carifo or lambing,

by women politicians in the male-dominated legislative bodies reflects the gendering of political tactics. Men also have their own version of carino

behavior. They go drinking together, put their arms around each other: “walang personalhan, trabaho lang tyon’’ [let’s not take things personally, it’s

all part of the job]."°! I mention this to stress that cariwo behavior is also gendered. Although some women insisted adamantly that they would never , resort to this behavior,'** and in fact, some assertive women (Senator Sha_ hani, for example) were known to shy away from this method of lobbying for their policies,'*? it nevertheless was a powerful weapon. After all, even though women had gained official power, they were still working in a maledominated context where they needed the support of male colleagues for the passage of their bills or resolutions. The case study of Mrs. Marcos in chapter 2 has already shown the potential of a woman’s charm in the exercise of power in the example where she used tears to charm Fernando Lopez. Even feisty senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, whose diatribes hurled at rival politicians were even more cutting than the Bomba of the men (see chapter 5), admitted that she used carino and lambing to soften the blows of

her virulent retorts:

, , But because I am female, if I have aggravated somebody, particularly in an Asian context, that is to say, if I have caused him to lose face, which is otherwise unforgiveable ... (but you must analyze this in an Asian context; this never happens in a Western country), . . . itis very easy for me to pour oil on troubled waters. You know, if in front of TV cameras for example, in the heat of the moment I am able to score a point off a politician, of course he would never forgive me. For no matter how valid it might be, ...I am able to give a repose, .. . so I score points in [the] media, but I earn the enmity of this person. Because I am female, it makes it easier for me

to return [at] a more quiet time, invite him to lunch, and say, “I did not mean it that way.” It’s easier for me to repair damage as a female. If you are a male, how are you gonna hold the hand? You know, you pat the hand of the person and say, “Please, I am sorry, I did not mean it in a personal way, it’s just that I was so focused [on] what I was trying to [do], you know. How can he say no? In my confirmation hear-

Women Politicians 105 ings, I did this. I did my rounds of the members of the Commission on Appointments, and in effect I appealed to them from a very feminine point of view. Now, | should be ashamed of myself... . {laughter] But I thought that it was justified, because in the first place, I didn’t want the job, so if I was doing it, it was because J wanted to carry out an assignment that had been given to me by my president... and if it takes feminine practices to achieve your objective, ’'d never shy away.'3*

While some feminists might argue that women should strive for equal behavior with men, that is, be judged by merit, abstaining from the use of gendered practices, in practical terms, at least in the current Philippine cultural context, this may be less effective; after all, women in political office

still had to function in a male-dominated field. In a context where men expected women ot to upstage them, a woman politician had to tread carefully so as not to damage her colleagues’ amor propio (self-esteem). When it came to the nitty-gritty, she still needed the support of her male colleagues, even if only as essential votes to pass her bills into law. The congresswomen had grouped themselves into the Philippine Organization of Women’s Elected Representatives (POWER) precisely to lobby for women-centered legislation. Congresswoman ‘Tessie Aquino Oreta recalled how the congressmen laughed at their Sexual Harassment Bill (authored by Congresswoman Lualhati Antonino): “Oh boy, the men made mincemeat out of us, they laughed at us. But we stood and fought for it.’”’'*° POWER also insisted on nongendered language in congressional deliberations.'*° Interestingly, despite Oreta’s stance on women’s equality with men, when asked why POWER was formed, her reply again reinforced the ideology of the traditional gendering of power in the Philippine context: ““We just wanted to be indirect power.”!?’ While these women have already acquired official power, it seemed that even with this victory, women politicians were more effective in exercising power if they sublimated it, or at least presented it in female terms, tempered by carino or lambing. In fact, one woman who works in the Senate as a “roving troubleshooter” observed that the use of dambing and carino was much more effective than aggressive tactics: That’s why ako [I or me] with the politicians I always pretend to be cariio ng carino, but behind my back I knew what I was going to do. ...A woman is always expected to be a woman. She is very competent, but she must never try to be a man. Now, there were two senators, Shahani and Rasul. Shahani wanted to compete, wanted to show that “I’m smarter than you!” So she could not get what she wanted. The men hated her... . She is very aggressive, she is very strict, and she will let you know that “Tam more superior than you!” And men don’t like that. Rasul, with her nice clothes and her pretty face and all that. She is not as bright as Shahani, pero meron sinasabi rin [but she also has her own merits]. ...She would go to you and make /ambing to you and...she got what she wanted all the time! Sz, Leticia [Shahani] was hated by the men! But now they are all afraid of her because she is President Ramos’s sister.

106 | Women, Power, and Kinship Politics ... Pero [but] that’s why I learned from Rasul. I’m very effective, but you know you

, make lambing, lambing there and before you know it, they said yes to everything you want.... [he carino, but just remain a woman; ... you are expected to be soft in our

, society anyway. So in our culture, like that, the woman always gets her way as long as she knows how to cater, like, you must never hurt the ego of the man, patabain mo parati ang puso niya {keep him happy]. Even if he is a dumbell, you praise, you look for his good qualities, because the reality is there are more men political leaders

than women.'*® ,

This use of carito and lambing as women’s weapons appealed to the culture’s ethos of male gallantry. For instance, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago had a reputation for attacking President Ramos in all her speeches. Eventually, each time she got up to speak, she was ignored. No one asked

her questions, no one interpellated her, no one looked interested in her points, and consequently, no issues she raised received media attention. Noticing that the senate was alienating her (the men, after all, had their own boy’s club and thus had assigned interpellators for each speech), she approached then-Senate President Edgardo Angara and pleaded: ‘Ed, _ 1-interpellate mo naman ako after my speech, after all this is a cause that you support” (“Ed, please interpellate me after my speech. ..’’)'®? Angara’s response was not lost on his troubleshooter, Sally Zaldivar Perez, who regis-

tered the Senate president’s reaction: , , And of course Angara, when asked by someone like Miriam or any female senator, , will oblige. And so, his intelligent questions add to her, because she gives intelligent _ answers also. And then...some other men also will question her because Angara already started it. See, he cannot refuse if someone like Miriam, for example [says],

, “hey you interpellate me, ba [okay]?’’'*°

her bill. ,

A male senator acting in the context of male gallantry would concede to a woman colleague’s request. A female senator, therefore, working in the context of a male-dominated Senate, could use her feminine charm to lobby for

, Although women may feel compelled to resort to carifio or lambing or

| charm as a powerful weapon in an otherwise male-dominated political arena, charm was a definite advantage in fund-raising. It was easier for a woman

politician (or wife of a politician, for that matter) to obtain funding for projects in a constituency or province than it was for a male politician. For

| Filipino macho culture or male gallantry made it difficult to say no to a woman. Mrs. Marcos’s success in obtaining funds for her myriad projects stemmed from both her malakas status and her charms as a woman. Congresswoman Lessie Aquino-Oreta claimed it was primarily her feminine ap_ peal and her gifts of ripe mangoes to a Dutch official that won for her an ~ P80 million grant from the Dutch government.'*! (Interestingly, her charisma also succeeded in winning over a non-Filipino, but gallant, male.) Ifa

Women Politicians 107 woman handed out gifts of mangoes, the male recipient was not likely to take offense, perhaps even feeling personally touched by the gesture. On the other hand, it might seem less acceptable from a male, for it could be interpreted as a bribe. While it might have been advantageous to be a woman in the area of fund-raising, women were definitely at a disadvantage in the world of patronage politics. In 1986, an all-women political party, the Kababaihan Para sa Inang Bayan (KAIBA), or Women for the Mother Country, was born, fielding its own women candidates for Congress and the Senate. KAIBA, however, failed to win political positions for its candidates, with some minor exceptions like Congresswoman Nikki Coseteng in 1987. But even Coseteng

eventually shifted allegiance, joining forces with the political network of presidential candidate Eduardo “Danding” Cojuangco in 1992 when she ran for the Senate, precisely because of KAIBA’s limitations. Scholar Leonora Calderon Angeles explained KAIBA’s failure in terms of women’s relative isolation from patronage politics. The patron-client system of politics disadvantaged women because it implied that women had to rely on the maledominated network to win. Angeles pointed out that women candidates lacked political experience. It was also Angeles’s contention that “feminist

principles in generating support were not compatible with the leaderoriented nature of Philippine political dynamics.”!** In order to survive, Angeles argued, the party had to appeal to a constituency that was broader than just women voters.'*? Certainly the patronage networks set up since 1945

have been male-dominated, with women only functioning in the support system of kinship politics. Successful women candidates were linked to the patronage system through kinship politics networks established by both the

woiman’s political family and the family of her husband. In the case of KAIBA, a novelty because the entire party was composed of women only, not only its late start and short life but its gender bias meant that they stll had to build patronage networks, a sure disadvantage when other parties had already developed political machines over the years. It did not help KAIBA that it was closely associated with women’s issues or feminist concerns. Identifying with feminism in a country where the women’s vote was still in its infancy (even women politicians state that there still was no women’s vote)!** lost them critical votes. Feminism could still be classified as an F-word today, since it was associated with the radical

feminists of the 1960s and the image of women as bra burners. All the women politicians interviewed, for example, hesitated to associate themselves

with this ism (see chapter 4), since to be branded a feminist was still pejorative. At the same time, because the dominant dynamics of Filipino politics was still kinship politics rather than issue-oriented politics, a commitment to women’s issues went against the aphorism, attributed to former Nacionalista Party President Eulogio “Amang” Rodriguez, that “politics is addition.”’ KAIBA, with its stress on women candidates and women’s issues,

108 , Women, Power, and Kinship Politics isolated sectors that feared feminism, while not focusing on a program that

would cultivate the women’s vote. |

Activist/journalist Doris Nuval (Baffrey) linked the demise of KAIBA with the defeat of candidate Maita Gomez, whose disillusionment and eventual retirement from politics meant that KAIBA lost a prime leader.'*? KAIBA

_ Secretary-General Ceres Alabado believed otherwise, pointing out that Maita dissociated herself from KAIBA even during the elections, preferring to coalesce with the established parties who already had working networks

, around the country. Maita, at one point in the campaign, demanded that the banners of KAIBA be removed from her campaign rally, afraid she would displease the members of another party she hoped to join in the future.'*° If a major leader of a party was embarrassed to be seen with its banners, it —

implied a lack of confidence in the party itself. Women disadvantaged in the area of patronage politics resorted to the media. Media exposure was a powerful alternative to a solid party foundation. Historically, families used the media as a tool of kinship politics; for instance, newspapers were purchased by families as a weapon against political rivals,

and celebrities with no family patrons and who originally had no plans for a political career used their media image to launch successful careers in politics. Since 1986 there have been an unprecendented number of movie stars — in local and national politics. Vice President Joseph “Erap”’ Estrada, Senators

Vicente “Tito” Sotto and Freddie Webb (basketball star), Ramon Revilla,

and Mayor Joey Marquez are the more obvious examples. None of these superstars had come from established political families, nor had they been

linked to alliances with major political families. They acquired votes generally through their stature and exposure in the movies or because of their image as celebrities. (That they were voted as screen personalities became the norm for these fortune-blessed popular idols. Ramon Revilla, for ex-

ample, ran for senator in 1987 using his real name Jose Bautista and lost

badly. In 1992 he ran for senator using his screen name and won. | The 1992 elections had the most number of movie stars and celebrities running for office. There were around fifteen showbiz personalities, who were enlisted by various political parties to boost their vote-gathering ma- | chines. Sotto, Webb, and Revilla were in Speaker of the House Ramon _ Mitra’s party (Mitra was among the seven candidates for president), and screen comedian Augusto “Chiquito” Pangan was with Mrs. Marcos’s KBL party. Where previously movie stars and celebrities were hired or solicited by candidates to draw crowds in rallies, by 1992 these stars were themselves __ running for office.'*”? Candidates saw the potential of these movie stars and celebrities as vote-getters: instead of these star candidates needing to access patronage politics, those who had access to patronage politics invited them to be part of the party machine. The presence of stars and celebrities in politics indicates some shifts in the dynamics of patronage politics, since the candidate exploited media-created personality rather than relying on the kin-

Women Politicians 109 ship alliance networks or family-owned media enterprises to invent the candidate’s image only after he or she launched a political career. Women, who had no access to the patronage network machine for election campaigns, tapped the media. ‘The best case study for this phenomenon was the political career of Miriam Defensor Santiago. She herself admitted that

she was a creation of the media, that it was the media that made her a celebrity. Her superstar status was one reason why she almost captured the presidency (she came in a close second in 1992) without backing from a political family or practicing patronage politics.’** A lawyer by training and then a judge, she first tasted political office when President Corazon Aquino appointed her Commissioner of the Commission for Immigration and Deportation (CID). As CID commissioner, she energetically employed a program to remove graft and corruption in the department. She relentlessly pursued alien criminals, arrested them, and deported them. Her success in prosecuting alien criminals and alien criminal syndicates called media attention to herself, for she appeared regularly on television whenever there was an arrest. In the first autobiography she published, Cutting Edge: The Politics of Reform in the Philippines, she entitled one section “the media invents me.”’!*? "The media blitz, which began in January 1988, did not die down until after the 1992 presidential elections. Almost each evening, starting with the six o’clock newscast, I was on the T’V screen, leaving the viewer with memorable freeze frames. ...My television appearances— both in the news footage and in the talk shows—eventually became innumerable.

Whenever there was no news to chase in town, the T'V crews would go to BID [Bureau of Immigration and Deportation] and simply follow me around, even to my speaking engagements, in the hope that I would say something that would make the viewer jump out of his skin....I became a favorite caricature on ‘T’V sitcoms. I was commonly presented as Brunhilda in boots, speaking rapid-fire in multi-syllable English, a juggernaut of massive inexorable will who advanced irresistibly and crushed all the crooks, criminals, and politicians in my path.'*°

Media exposure buttressed by her audacious personality made her popular. Philippine Graphic summarized the “Miriam magic” well: Miriam was often on the front pages, and on ‘TV, where she projected a strong image

of a fearless crusader against crime and corruption, berating in public repulsivelooking foreigners suspected of white slavery or pedophilia, and fencing verbally with politicians whom she accused of abetting corruption, calling them “fungus-faced” or “brain-damaged.” Her penchant for the devastating verbal insult further endeared her to the public.'?!

She was featured in radio interviews and graced at least twenty-eight magazine covers in the span of three years, from 1988 to 1991:'°? “You know, for about six months I was called the ‘media darling’ and everyone was

110 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics paying me compliments.”'!*’ It was this media exposure from her sensation-

- alized prosecution of criminals and her crusade against corruption in the | CID, combined by the impact made by a picture of her in a swimsuit showing her beautiful legs (discussed more specifically in chapter 5), that made her a household name almost overnight. She was appointed CID commissioner by President Corazon Aquino in 1988-1989. She resigned to become secretary of agrarian reform in 1989, but her position was not confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. By 1992 she finished a close second in a hotly contested presidential election. Her exposure in the media meant that she did not need a sophisticated party machine or an established pa-

| tronage network to proclaim her merits. This was a clear advantage at election time, especially when seven candidates were running for president. Her popularity further increased when in a series of televised debates between presidential contenders, her quick, intelligent responses overshadowed her male and one female (Mrs. Marcos) opponents. Miriam’s case aptly demonstrated that it was possible for women to win elections despite the absence

of an established political machine. | Female aversion for violence was a gendered practice that clearly distin-

guished the political style of both sexes. Women politicians have largely | abstained from violent behavior. They have not been known to surround themselves with bodyguards, “goons,” or the private armies that have been — the trademark of a few local politicians or local politician’s sons. Despite

their nonviolent, nonintimidating stance, some have defeated male candi_ dates with formidable reputations as tough, macho provincial warlords. For instance, in Cavite, a province with a reputation for political violence, Helen _ Benitez (running as an independent candidate) defeated “warlord” Juanito Remulla’s handpicked candidate at elections for the Batasan in 1984, during the martial law period, a time when political terrorism would have remained

unreported (in a censored press) and unpunished (in an authoritarian re- | gime). True, Benitez had the last option of calling in the Philippine army if necessary (President Ferdinand Marcos gave her a verbal guarantee that she could call on the army if she was in any way intimidated by violent tactics), but there was no reason for her to resort to this option.'** If violence were indeed a dominant force in Philippine political dynamics, Benitez would not have stood a chance running against the handpicked candidate of the most prominent warlord of Cavite province. Despite the fact that in 1984 Governor of Cavite Juanito Remulla was the government, and despite her rival’s _chauvinist claims that a woman should not run for office, it was unarmed women who in the end guaranteed the Benitez victory. Benitez claimed that

, women’s protection of the ballot boxes saved her: , So when Emma, my cousin, came in with them, [in Trece Martires] sabi niya daw sa mga tao ni Remulla “‘O ano?” sabi niya, “panalo ba kayo?” “Talo ho kami dito.” “Bakit naman?” sabi niyang ganoon. ‘““Paaano ho kami mananalo, yung pinsan ho

Women Politicians 11] ninyo, si Senadora, ang watcher ho dalawang babae. Ang isa ho hawak flashlight, ang isa ho rosaryo. Paano kayo lalaban dun?”’!*> [She asked Remulla’s henchmen ... “O what?” she said. “Have you won?” “We

lost here.” “Why?” she asked. “How can we win, your cousin, the Senator, her watchers are two women. One of them holds a flashlight, the other a rosary. How can one fight that?’’]

In the crossfire between warlord tactics and women’s nonviolent moral power, symbolized by the rosary (a topic discussed in chapter 4 in the section on militant nuns), it is possible for women’s moral power to triumph at the polls even if the odds seem against them—in terms of military might, for instance. In the Benitez case, even President Marcos had warned her that Remulla’s man would probably win, having the capacity to cheat her. But as in the 1996 people power revolution, armed macho military might can be turned back by unarmed women with rosaries. Benitez’s reputation was as an educator and a promoter of Philippine traditional culture and the arts. Though at that time she was closely associated with the Marcoses, Mrs. Marcos in particular, at no point in her political career was she even remotely linked to violent behavior. In the 1945-1972 period, while Senator Eva Estrada Kalaw was a national champion for rapid-fire pistol shooting,'*® she was never associated with violence. On the other hand, Mrs. Floro Crisologo, wife of an assasinated “warlord” congressman, tried to cope with violence in the provincial politics of her district (Ilocos) by wearing a bullet-proof vest. No woman has really been linked to violent behavior in this era, and Mrs. Crisologo comes closest to an exception. Since 1986, there were two women politicians who had been known to carry weapons. Miriam Defensor Santiago, whose reputation as a fearless crime buster was epitomized by a magazine cover of her brandishing a pistol, with the headline ““Top Gun” (she was known to carry a handgun), and Congresswoman Lorna Yap, who was dubbed the Uzi Lady, were the two women linked with the use of guns. Despite their nicknames, they were not perceived as women who used weapons to intimidate others. The guns were always presented as weapons for self-defense. Yap earned the rating of sharpshooter as a member of the UP Rangerettes and was trained by retired General Benjamin Vallejo on how to handle submachine guns, including the Uzi and the Galil,’°’ and it was this skill which earned her the epithet Uzi

Lady rather than a reputation for actually brandishing the weapon to threaten others. Furthermore, while “warlords” like Ali Dimaporo, Floro Crisologo, and Justiniano Montano were notorious for carrying firearms and/or surrounding themselves with trigger-happy bodyguards or private armies, neither Yap nor Defensor Santiago developed similar reputations. Instead, both women emanated contradictory images: tough images were juxtaposed with images of beauty, sexuality, and charm. Apart from the title Uzi Lady, Yap was also known as the Lambada Dancer or Lambada Queen,

112 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics _ because it was alleged that her husband got angry with another man who dared to dance the seductive lambada (considered a scandalous dance) with —

her, and Husband Grabber, both images projecting brazen sexuality (she was also remembered for her beauty).'°? Defensor Santiago (discussed in more detail in chapter 5), in her many reinventions, has images ranging from a sober judge, to a tough, no-nonsense crime buster who wielded a handgun, - to a swimsuit-attired lady with beautiful legs and a pretty woman wearing scarlet dresses. As neither of these women were known to actually use their firearms, their images as tough, aggressive women were counterbalanced by contradictory images of beauty, and in Yap’s case, sexuality and “carifiosa ” (flirtatious communication) behavior.!5°

Women politicians were a minority in a culture where official power was

still considered a male domain. Clearly they were disadvantaged in an environment where the men still made the rules and had stronger links with established political party machines and patronage networks. That women in official power are still marginalized is obvious from the fact that the congresswomen had to form POWER to lobby for the passage of women-

centered legislation. A reading of the deliberations over the Sexual Harassment Act clearly shows the bias toward men. Congresswoman Lualhati Antonino was asked to step down during the interpellations in favor of a male colleague, since some congressmen were reluctant or uneasy about discussing definitions of “sexual acts” and “lasciviousness” with a woman.'° Women were not just a minority in the grand circles of official power, they also claimed this power through identities with male relatives (either as wives

of politicians, or as daughters and other female kin of politicians). The failure | of KAIBA also attested to women’s difficulties in competing with established political party machines led and manned by male politicians and staffed by

~ mate local leaders. |

_ But women’s marginalization in national and local office also stems from |

oo the ambivalent or contradictory nature of male-dominated politics. While women are welcomed as politicians, the male politicians and the male political leadership are somewhat reluctant to give women official power. Tra-

| ditional attitudes about the gendering of power that assign women power | only in the unofficial realm persist, and women are expected not to upstage men, particularly in the legislature. On the other hand, women are not barred from running for office, in fact, male politicians encourage their wives —

to run for office not only to preserve the dynamics of kinship politics, but

| also to facilitate the enactment of policy from the national level to the local ~— level (with one in national office and the spouse in local office, as is often the case). Such ambivalent attitudes toward women’s participation in elective office, be it local or national, have blunted women’s efforts as politicians.

For instance, it was only in 1994 that the Philippines had their first woman

Women Politicians 113 Senate president pro-tempore (Shahani).'®! There has never been a woman Speaker of the House or Senate president. Furthermore, the presence of gendered practices in politics implied that though both sexes exercised official power, their rendering of it would inevitably be different. Women politicians have used the gendering of political practices to their advantage by choosing to use charm (carifo or lambing) in order to acquire much-needed funds for civic and community projects or to lobby for their bills in the halls of the legislature. At the same time, women in local politics have transformed political dynamics at the local level precisely through their greater attention to beauty, cleanliness, health, sanita-

tion, civic work, cultural projects, and their motherly approaches to the personal problems of constituents. Despite the fact that local politics has continued to be male-dominated, women local politicians have been extremely effective administrators even in areas that were not traditionally perceived to be “women’s fields,” areas such as economic development, crime, and infrastructure.

A contrast between the presidency of Corazon Aquino and the reign of Imelda Marcos as First Lady introduces the component of women’s personality as a factor in analyzing women’s exercise of power, be it official power or unofficial power. In the popular movie Nicholas and Alexandra, Alexander Kerensky is given the line: “You had all the power and no laws, I have all the laws and no power.” ‘This statement can be used to contrast Mrs. Marcos’s use of power in an authoritarian regime and President Aquino’s official power in a regime where democratic institutions were restored. In the end, whether she exercised official power or unofficial power, it was the personality of the woman that became the barometer for measuring the nature of power wielded. This point has important ramifications for feminists, who

can explore both unofficial and official power as vehicles for increasing women’s political agency. While unofficial power does not receive cultural capital, prestige, or legitimacy in modern discursive practice, women politicians are greatly outnumbered (11 percent were women in 1992).'° Compelled to function in a male-centered world, their efforts are often blunted or they may find themselves isolated from the mainstream power wielders, as Senator Defensor Santiago experienced in the Senate.

NOTES | 1. Women and Politics, primer (Manila: National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women, n.d.) p. 17. In an answer to the simulated question “Is there a

woman’s vote?” the primer says, “Although more women vote than men, there is no

women’s vote to speak of. See also Proserpina Domingo-Tapales, “Is There a Women’s Voter” Review of Women’s Studies, 2, no. 2 (1991-1992). 2. Interview with Ceres Alabado, who was secretary-general of the KAIBA allwomen’s party, Quezon City, Metro-Manila, January 25, 1996.

114 , Women, Power, and Kinship Politics 3, Personal communication with columnist Ninez Cacho Olivares, Makati,

Metro-Manila, March 29, 1996. , | 4, See Alfred W. McCoy, ed., An Anarchy of Families (Madison: University of , - Wisconsin Center for Southeast Asian Studies, 1993), and see Jose Lacaba, ed., Boss: 3 Case Studies of Local Politics in the Philippines (Metro-Manila: Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, Institute for Popular Democracy, 1995). 5. See Leonora Calderon Angeles, “Feminism and Nationalism: ‘The Discourse on the Woman Question and Politics of the Women’s Movement in the Philippines”

(M.A. thesis, University of the Philippines, 1989), p. 201. , 6. John MacBeth, ““Time for Toughness,” Far Eastern Economic Review, Decem-

ber 21, 1989, p. I1.

7. Cesar M. Carpio, “Carma Chameleon,” Philippine Graphic, November 5, 1990, p. 44. 8. Robert Reid and Eileen Guerrero, Corazon Aquino and the Brushfire Revolution (Baton Rouge and London: Louisiana State University Press, 1995), p. 15.

| 9, Isabelo T. Crisostomo, Cory, Profile of a President (Quezon City: J. Kris Pub, lishing Enterprises, 1986), p. 24. 10. Ibid., p. 46. 11. Interview with Congresswoman Tessie Aquino-Oreta, daughter of Dofia Aurora Aquino and sister of Senator Ninoy Aquino, Greenhills, Metro-Manila, January 31, 1994. See also Miguela Gonzalez-Yap, The Making of Cory (Quezon City: New

Day Publishers, 1987), p. 24. | ,

12. Lucy Komisar, Corazon Aquino: The Story of a Revolution (New York: George Braziller, 1987), p. 81.

| 13.14. Ibid., p. p. 80.81. Oo} |, Ibid.,

, 15. Reid and Guerrero, Corazon Aquino; Lewis E. Gleeck Jr., President Aquino: , Sainthood Postponed (Metro-Manila: n.p., n.d. [post-1993]); Jose V. Abueva and Emerlinda-R. Roman, eds., Corazon C. Aquino: Early Assessments of Her Presidential Leadership and Administration and Her Place in History (Quezon City: University of the , Philippines Press, 1993); The Aquino Admunistration Record and Legacy (1986-1992):

, President Corazon Aquino and Her Cabinet, vol. 1, UP Public Lectures on the Aquino Administration and the Post-EDSA Government (1986-1992) (Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 1992); Jose Abueva and Emerlinda Roman, eds., The Aquino Presidency and Administration (1986-1992): Contemporary Assessments and “The fudgement of History,” vol. 2, UP Public Lectures on the Aquino Administration and the PostEDSA Government (1986-1992) (Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 1993).

| 16. Corazon C. Aquino, “Reflections on Our Democracy,” in The Aquino Administration Record and Legacy (1986-1992): President Corazon Aquino and Her Cabinet, vol. 1, UP Public Lectures on the Aquino Administration and the Post-EDSA Government

(1986-1992) (Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 1993), p. 5. 17. Isabelo T. Crisostomo, “Is Cory Aquino a Weak or Strong President?” threepart series, Philippines Free Press, January 14, 1989, pp. 10-11 (part 1), January 21, 1989, pp. 8-9, 45 (part 2), and January 28, 1989, pp. 8-9 and 42. 18. Ernesto M. Macatuno, “Cory’s Image Problem,” Philippines Free Press, May

13, 1989, p. 8. , ,

Women Politicians 11S 19. Michael Duefnas, “The Miracle of Cory’s Survival,” Philippines Free Press, May 27, 1989, p. 10. 20. Corazon C. Aquino, “Reflections on Our Development,” speech delivered at the Peninsula Hotel, June 23, 1992, in In the Name of Democracy and Prayer: Selected Speeches of Corazon C. Aquino, by Corazon C. Aquino (Metro-Manila: Anvil Publish-

ing, 1995), p. 105.

21. Aquino, “Reflections on Our Democracy,” pp. 5-6. 22. John McBeth, “Spirit of 1986,” Par Eastern Economic Review, July 5, 1990, p. 18.

23. Interview with Justice Cecilia Mufioz Palma, Quezon City, Metro-Manila, July 11, 1995; Komisar, Corazon Aquino, p. 130. 24. Andrew Gonzalez, ““Vhe Legacy of President Corazon C. Aquino: The Return to the Democratic Structures of Democracy,” from Philippine Panorama, July 5, 1992, reprinted in The Aquino Presidency, vol. 2, ed. Abueva and Roman, p. 22. 25. Jose Galang, “Ambiguous Direction,” Mar Eastern Economic Review, February L1, 1988, p. 49. 26. Nayan Chanda, “Decision Applauded by U.S. Administration,” Mar Eastern Economic Review, December 4, 1986, p. 14. 27. Rodney ‘Vasker, “A ‘Uhousand Days,” Far Eastern Economic Review, December 1, 1988, p. 37. 28. John McBeth, “Conspiracy Confirmed,” Far Eastern Economic Review, October, 11, 1990, p. 11. 29. Antonio C. Abaya, “A Modest Success: ‘The Country Grew in Political Grace and Economic Strength,” in The Aquino Presidency, ed. Abueva and Roman, p. 34. 30. Rigoberto Tiglao, “Big Bird Talks,” Far Eastern Economic Review, August 17, 1989, p. 28. 31. Reid and Guerrero, Corazon Aquino, p. 219. 32. Gonzalez, ““Che Legacy of President Corazon C. Aquino,” p. 22. 33. James Clad, “Tightening the Cabinet,” Far Eastern Economic Review, December 18, 1986, p. 14. 34. Nayan Chanda, “Decision Applauded,” p. 14; James Clad and Rodney ‘Tasker, “Factions and Confusion,” Far Eastern Economic Review, August 28, 1986, p. 28. 35. Raymund Bonner, Waltzing with a Dictator: The Marcoses and the Making of American Policy (New York: ‘Times Books, 1987), p. 257. 36. Imelda Marcos, The Ideas of Imelda Romualdez Marcos, 2 vols., edited by Ileana Maramag (Metro-Manila: National Media Production Center, 1978). 37. Bonner, Waltzing, p. 142. 38. Komisar, Corazon Aquino, pp. 132-133; “Paralyzed Politics,” Far Hastern Keonomic Review, December 4, 1986, p. 13. 39, “Paralyzed Politics,” p. 13. 40. Ibid. 41. John McBeth and Rigoberto ‘Tiglao, “Avoiding Action,” Far Eastern Economic Review, January 11, 1990, p. 8. 42. Quoted in Reid and Guerrero, Corazon Aquino, p. 152. 43. Jose Galang, “A Room with a Coup,” Mar Eastern Economic Review, July 17, 1986, pp. 14-15. 44, Interview with Brigadier General Ramon Montafio cited in Reid and Guerrero, Corazon Aquino, p. 65.

116 | Women, Power, and Kinship Politics 45. Komisar, Corazon Aquino, p. 159. , , 46. Ibid., pp. 195-196. 47. Chanda, “Decision Applauded,” p. 14; James Clad, “Marching Orders,” Far

Eastern Economic Review, December 4, 1986, pp. 10-11. | 48. James Clad, “Rumors in a Hothouse,” Far Eastern Economic Review, November 20, 1986, p. 16

pp. 100-2. , , a ,

49. Amando Doronila, “Executive Direction and Coordination, Highlights of a Secretary Drilon’s Lecture,” in The Aquino Presidency, vol. 2, ed. Abueva and Roman,

50. Far Eastern Economic Review, December 18, 1986, p. 14. , ,

51. Far Eastern Economic Review, December 4, 1986, p. 14. , ,

53. Ibid., p. 100-2. 54. I[bid., p. 102. 52. Doronila, “Executive Direction,” p. 101. |

55. Ibid.

March 10, 1988, p. 20. ,

56. James Clad, “Growing Presidential Timber,” Far Eastern Economic Review,

a 57. Rigoberto Tiglao, “Salt in the Wound,” Far Eastern Economic Review, August 24, 1989, p. 27. 58. Duefias, “The Miracle of Cory’s Survival,” p. 32. — 59, Cited in Komisar, Corazon Aquino, p. 184.

60. Cited in McBeth and Tiglao, “Avoiding Action,” p.9. |

tober 4, 1990, p. 19. , , 61. Cited in Frank Jiang, “Over the Rainbow,” Far Eastern Economic Review, Oc-

62. Cited in ‘““No Fears Nor Favors?” Philippines Free Press, November 28, 1987, p. 6.

| 63. Cited in ibid.

1988, p. 39. , , 16, 1992, p. 15. — ,

64. Cartoon, “Cory’s Millstone,” in ibid. See also Danilo-Luis M. Mariano, “All the President’s Kinsmen: Asset or Liability?” Philippines Free Press, September 24, — 65. Rigoberto Tiglao, “Machine Politics,” Far Eastern Economic Review, January

66. Quoted in “No Fears Nor Favors?”’ p. 6. |

67. Michael Duefias, “No Favors, No Excuses, No Special Treatment,” Philippines Free Press, November 28, 1987, pp. 16-17, 39-40. 68. James Clad, “Still All in the Family,” Far Eastern Economic Review, March 26,

1987, p. 70. |

, 69. “Cory, Coups and Corruption,” Time, January 15, 1990, p. 30.

70. Mariano, “All the President’s Kinsmen,” p. 39. - ,

71, Cited in “ ‘Chino’s’ Warning,” Philippines Free Press, August 27, 1988, pp. 2 and 4.

72. Mariano, “All the President’s Kinsmen,” p. 2.

73. Ibid., pp. 2-3, 39-40. | | |

, 74. For a detailed examination of kinship politics, see Maria Natividad Roces, “Kinship Politics in Post-War Philippines: The Lopez Family, 1945-1989” (Ph.D.

dissertation, University of Michigan, 1990). 75. Quoted in Stanley Karnow, In Our Image: America’s Empire in the Philippines

, (New York: Random House, 1989), p. 426. ,

Women Politicians 117 76. Aquino, In the Name of Democracy and Prayer.

77. Corazon C. Aquino, “Prayer Power,” speech delivered at the UNIV Conference, Rome, Italy, April 5, 1993, in ibid., p. 146. 78. Louise Williams, “Cory Muddles Through,” Sydney Morning Herald, December 1, 1988, p. 15. 79. Duefias, “The Miracle of Cory’s Survival,” p. 10. 80. Interview with former Congressional Candidate.and Senate Troubleshooter Sally Zaldivar Perez, Manila, Metro-Manila, June 18, 1996. This section of the interview was not recorded on tape, since it was communicated to me during a lunch conference. The more “formal” part of the interview was tape-recorded.

81. Interview with Sally Zaldivar Perez. , 82. Interview with Governor Emily Lopez, Makati, Metro-Manila, May 11, 1996. 83. Interview with Mayor Adelina Rodriguez, Mandaluyong, Metro-Manila, January 26, 1995. 84. Ibid. 85. “The Lopez Touch Transforms Dirt-Poor Guimaras,” Astaweek, August 10,

87. Ibid.

1994, reprinted in Guimaras Report, October 1995, p. 4. 86. Interview with Governor Emily Lopez.

88, Ibid., and ““The Miracle Worker,” Asia Magazine, January 6-8, 1995, p. 17. 89. Interview with Governor Emily Lopez. 90. “The Miracle Worker,” p. 17. 91. Interview with Governor Emily Lopez; interview with Councillor Nini Licaros, Makati, Metro-Manila, January 27, 1993; interview with Mayor Adelina Rod-

riguez.

92. Interview with Mayor Adelina Rodriguez. ,

93. Interview with Councillor Nini Licaros; interview with Governor Emily Lopez.

94, Interview with Governor Margarita “Tingting’” Cojuangco, Makati, MetroManila, February 5, 1994. 95. Interview with Mayor Adelina Rodriguez. 96. Interview with Governor Emily Lopez. 97. Interview with Mayor Adelina Rodriguez. 98. See Maria Natividad Roces, “Kinship Politics in Post-War Philippines.” 99. Interview with Governor Emily Lopez. See also “The Lopez Touch,” p. 4. — 100. Interview with Mayor Adelina Rodriguez.

101. Ibid. ,

102. Interview with Governor Margarita “Tingting” Cojuangco. 103. Interview with Congressional Candidate Sally Zaldivar Perez. 104. Interview with Councillor Nini Licaros. 105. Interview with former Congressional Candidate and Senate ‘Troubleshooter Sally Zaldivar Perez. 106. Ibid. 107. Interview with Mayor Adelina Rodriguez. 108. Interview with Governor Emily Lopez; Guimaras Report, October 1995, pp. 1-11. 109. Manuel Almario, “Flashpoint,” Philippine Graphic, June 7, 1993, p. 11.

p. LO. ,

118 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics 110. Quijano de Manila, “I Feel Fulfilled,” Philippine Graphic, October 1, 1993,

111. Angel I. Irlandez, “Lorna Verano-Yap Acting ‘Tough, ‘Talking Sense,” PAz/ippines Free Press, April 18, 1992, p. 14. — 112. Celine Marie F. Buencamino, “Nikki Coseteng: Of Men, Human Rights and the Nation’s Future,” Philippines Free Press, February 18, 1989, p. 5. 113. Senate, “List of Senate/House Bills and Resolutions,” Republic of the Philippines, Senator Santanina Rasul as author, as of February 21, 1996, and as of October 5, 1993; computer printout provided by the office of Senator Edgardo Angara,

: former Senate president. | , , 114. Senate, “List of Senate/House Bills and Resolutions,” Republic of the Phil- | ippines, Senator Leticia R. Shahani as author, as of February 21, 1996, and as of — October 5, 1993; computer printout provided by the office of Senator Edgardo Angara.

115. Senate, “List of Senate/House Bills and Republic of the Philippines, Reso-

, lutions,” Senator Gloria Macapagal as author, as of February 21, 1996; computer | printout provided by the office of Senator Edgardo Angara. 116. “List of Senate/House Bills and Resolutions,” Republic of the Philippines, Senate, Committee: Women and Family Relations as Primary, as of June 18, 1996;

computer printout provided by the office of Senator Edgardo Angara. | 117. Lydia Castillo, “An Honorary Woman,” Starweek, the Sunday Magazine of

the Philippine Star, March 6, 1994, p. 8. , , 118. House of Representatives, “Bills and Resolutions Authored by Women Congressmen,” as of February 1996; Republic of the Philippines, disk contents provided by Lorna O. Quismundo, Bills and Index Division, House of Representatives, Congress, the Philippines, Senate, “List of Senate/House Bills and Resolutions,” Republic of the Philippines,” Senator Santanina Rasul as author, Senator Nikki Coseteng as author, Senator Leticia Shahani as author, and Senator Gloria Macapagal as author, as of February 21, 1996, computer printout provided by the office of Senator Edgardo Angara. The equivalent information for Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago was not available at the time (June 1996), since she had just joined the Senate in 1995. 119. For the effects of Filipino cultural constructions of the woman as wife and

mother propelling mail-order brides, or the migrants for marriage phenomenon where Filipino women marry Australian men they hardly know and then endure oppression in the marriage, see Mina Roces, “Kapit sa Patalim (Hold on to the Blade): Victim and Agency in the Oral Narratives of Filipina Women Married to Australian Men in Central Queensland,” Lila Asia Pacific Women’s Studies fournal, no. 7 (1997). 120. Women and Politics, p. 14.

121. House of Representatives, Information Pack on RA Act 7877, House of Representatives, Legislative Archives.

Manila, February 2, 1993. 123. Ibid. ,

122. Interview with Congressional Candidate Sally Zaldivar Perez, Makati, Metro-

, 124. Interview with Senatorial Candidate Marietta Primicias Goco, Quezon City, 7 Metro-Manila, February 2, 1994. , 125. Interview with Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Quezon City, MetroManila, January 27, 1993; Dana Batnag, “Campaigning with Miriam,” Philippine Graphic, March 23, 1992, p. 10.

Women Politicians 119 126. Interview with Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago. 127. Ibid. 128. Interview with Assemblywoman Edith Nakpil Rabat, Mandaluyong, MetroManila, February 7, 1994. 129. Interview with Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago. 130. Interview with Assemblywoman Edith Nakpil Rabat. 131. Personal communication, Dr. Steven Rood, May 1997. 132. Interview with Senator Nikki Coseteng, Manila, Metro-Manila, February 16, 1993.

133. Interview with congressional candidate Sally Zaldivar Perez, who worked behind the scenes in the Senate with the office of (former) Senate President Edgardo Angara. 134. Interview with Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago. 135. Interview with Congresswoman ‘Tessie Aquino-Oreta. 136. Ibid. 137. Ibid.

138. Interviewee who requests anonymity, Makati, Metro-Manila, February 2, 1993.

139. Interview with former Congressional Candidate and Senator Edgardo Angara’s troubleshooter in the Senate, Sally Zaldivar Perez. 140. Ibid. 141. Interview with Congresswoman Tessie Aquino Oreta. 142. Leonora Calderon-Angeles, “Feminism and Nationalism,” p. 201. Interestingly, Angeles suggests that instead of pushing for an all-woman’s party, would-be women politicians should run in the established parties and push women’s issues through their participation in mainstream politics. 143. Ibid.

144. Interview with Congressional Candidate Karen ‘Tafiada, Quezon City, Metro-Manila, February 7, 1996; interview with Doris Nuval, Quezon City, MetroManila, February 4, 1996; interview with Vice Mayor Charito Planas, Quezon City, Metro-Manila, July 5, 1995; interview with Senator Helen Benitez, Manila, MetroManila, January 25, 1996; Women and Politics, p. 17; Tapales, “Is there a Woman’s Vote?” 145. Interview with Doris Nuval (Baffrey). 146. Interview with Ceres Alabado, secretary-general of KAIBA. 147. Rodney ‘Tasker, “Reel-life Politicians,” Kar Eastern Economic Review, May 14, 1992, p. 18; “Stars in Politics,” Philippine Graphic, March 16, 1992, pp. 8-11. 148. Interview with Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago. 149. Miriam Defensor Santiago, Cutting Edge: The Politics of Reform in the Philippines, (Metro-Manila: Woman ‘Today Publications, 1994), p. 119. 150. Ibid., pp. 121, 123, and 125. 151. Manuel F’. Almario, “Can Miriam be Stopped?” Philippine Graphic, December 17, 1990, p. 37. 152. Miriam Defensor Santiago, Te Miriam Defensor Santiago Dictionary (Makati:

Movers Youth Movement for Responsible Public Service, 1991), section entitled “Magazine Covers on Miriam,” center of the book, no page numbers. 153. Interview with Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago. 154. Interview with former Senator and Batasan Pambansa member Helen Benitez.

155. Ibid. |

120 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics , 156. Monina Allarey Mercado, “Women in Congress,” Weekly Graphic, January 19, 1996, p. 12. 157. Cesar T. Mella, “Lorna the Lionhearted,” Philippine Graphic, November 11, 1991, p. 16. 158. Ibid., pp. 14 and 16; Angel I. Irlandez, “Lorna Verano-Yap Acting Tough, Talking Sense,” Philippines Free Press, April 18, 1992, pp. 12 and 14. | 159. Mella, “Lorna the Lionhearted,” p. 16. 160. House of Representatives, Information Pack on Republic Act 7877, HB No.

p. l. , , , 09425. , 161. “First Woman Senate-President-Pro-Tempore Leticia Ramos Shahani,”

| cover, Philippine Panorama, Sunday Magazine of The Manila Bulletin, March 6, 1994, 162. Women and Politics, p. 9 (see Table 3.3).

4-

Women in Radical Politics Women’s activist groups have harbored a contradictory or ambivalent relationship with the dynamics of kinship politics. On the one hand, they did not subscribe to the way kinship politics allocated power to women. Being

issue oriented, they rejected the overall raison d’etre of kinship politics, which rests on the use of power for the benefit of the kinship group. Some of these women activists, particularly the militant nuns, had no desire to

claim power. On the other hand, neither did they overtly challenge women’s roles in kinship politics or the way kinship politics assigned women merely supportive roles in the gendering of power. In fact, women continued to hold only supportive roles in the activist movements. For instance, although in theory the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) offered an alternative to kinship politics, women in the CPP were usually given auxiliary roles and supportive positions.’ Furthermore, there have been no major women theoreticians in the CPP. Despite the fact that many women risked their lives for the struggle, few have been rewarded with

leadership positions.

Primarily engaged in radical politics (not feminist politics) and obviously

not from the same mold as the women who exercised power behind the scenes or women politicians, these women nevertheless failed to challenge both women’s traditional access to power and the supportive role assigned to women in the gendering of politics. In effect, they were activists who happened to be women. As females they were “different,” in the sense that

122 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics they did not believe in exercising unofficial power and did not apply family

dynamics, choosing instead to risk their lives over issues as individual ~ women, not as spokespersons for leaders who were male kin or marriage partners. The scholarly literature on women’s organizations in the Philippines concentrates on the tensions between feminism and nationalism, the discourse

on the woman question, political activism, feminist perspectives, and descriptive accounts of the various women’s groups.’ The consensus among these scholars is that in the tension between feminism and nationalism, the priority of national liberation downplayed women’s issues and prioritized other issues of social injustice, dictatorship, class struggle, democracy, violence, and revolution. Primarily interested in women’s activism in groups, and concentrating on the tension between feminism and nationalism, these ] scholars chose to focus only on groups that at one point or another may have grappled with the woman question.’ Hence, apart from women in the CPP, other women radicals who were members of radical groups composed | of both sexes have not been examined from a gender perspective. Exclusively - women’s organizations were the ones prioritized in the scholarly research, regardless of whether these groups utilized feminist perpectives or not; what mattered was that they had been associated with political opposition or with radical politics.

Thus the militant nuns, because they were not officially organized, were

not given the prominence they deserved in the scholarly literature on women’s organizations or activist women. This could be explained partly by the fact that they do not have a unified organization with a name, and partly because the common perception was that they were dismissed as mga madre lamang, just nuns. But they were very, very visible in the protest politics of the martial law era up to the 1986 revolution, and they continue to agitate for issues of social justice today. The nuns were remarkable for their consistent and brave support for the victims of martial law; they supported all victims regardless of ideological position or religious and political beliefs, so long as they were victims of social injustice or violations of human rights. And contrary to other women political activists, the nuns harbored absolutely no political ambitions or desire to claim power.* In this sense these nuns represented the very antithesis of kinship politics, although it must be said that some of the mundane methods of networking through which nuns were

recruited for radical politics followed kinship ties. The fact that a movie, _ | — Sister Stella L. (1984), used a nun as the symbol of political activism revealed how visible they were in agitating for social justice. The controlled press under martial law prevented reportage of the nun’s activities. They themselves wrote only about political detainees, not their own activities, in the underground periodicals published by the Association of Major Religious Superiors. The publications of the ‘Task Force Detainees

(TFD), the organization set up to speak for the political detainees, along

Women in Radical Politics 125 with the underground periodicals, often discussed society’s victims rather than the nuns’ activities. Their conspicuous absence in the printed sources did not give an accurate picture of their persistent presence in all protest movements in the entire martial law period. Nuns’ convents were raided. Nuns were imprisoned. Nuns risked their lives helping political detainees, collecting documentation on torture victims. Nuns protected other women radicals who had to go into hiding (for example, Karen Tafiada, Justice Ce-

cilia Mufioz Palma, and Charito Planas), and nuns were invariably approached by groups victimized by martial law who solicited their physical presence in any protest against the government or establishment. In fact, the president of the ‘Task Force Detainees was a nun (Sister Mariani Dimaranan), and the president of GABRIELA to this day is a nun (Sister Mary

John Mananazan). The nuns risked their lives and protected men—those who were victims of martial law, political detainees, laborers on strike, and members of minority ethnic groups threatened with loss of their ancestral lands. Moreover, it was the nuns who developed a feminist orientation ahead

of the other “radical” women’s groups. |

The political activist nuns metamorphosed into the first real feminists. Although they did not challenge how power is gendered or concern themselves with the dynamics of kinship politics and women’s roles in this dynamic, they showed some signs of questioning and criticizing the cultural narrative that was oppressive to women, using the experiences of living with the poor or supporting poor communities and society’s victims—prostitutes, mail-order brides, rape victims, pregnant teenagers, and juvenile delinquents. A nun (Sister Mary John Mananzan) founded the first academic women’s center at St. Scholastica’s College. A group of progressive or feminist nuns have even been brave enough to challenge the sexist church bureaucracy that placed the nuns under the leadership of men to whom they were bound by vows of obedience, an extremely bold stance in a country that is conservatively Catholic and where the Catholic hierarchy of priests is very powerful.

The women’s groups identified by scholars on the women’s movement were the MAKTBAKA of the early 1970s, which was a feminist organization

of student activists during the turbulent parliament of the streets that was forced to go underground with the advent of martial law; the women in the Communist Party of the Philippines; the Concerned Women of the Philippines; and lastly, the opposition groups of the 1980s that mushroomed after the assassination of Senator Benigno Aquino. Most of these groups coalesced under the umbrella of GABRIELA (General Assembly Binding Women for Reforms, Integrity, Equality, Leadership and Action). GABRIELA has increasingly (since 1986) developed a more feminist agenda, and while some groups chose to leave the coalition after 1986, it still can boast of a membership of 120 women’s groups representing all types. Although one scholar has criticized Filipino feminists as still entrenched in

124 | Women, Power, and Kinship Politics © class-based perspectives and therefore still failing to speak for “the Filipina,” - the number and variety of women’s organizations in GABRIELA does reveal at least that almost all classes, some minority ethnic groups, and proponents of diverse ideologies in women’s groups have an opportunity to speak for various Filipinas. Individual women activists like human rightists; traditional ‘Oppositionist women politicians; women members of social-democratic (socdem) groups, including terrorist groups; overseas women activists in exile;

women’s groups. ,

and militant nuns were generally ignored or neglected by scholars on To scrutinize the role of women in radical politics, let me fill in the gaps

, in the literature on women’s organizations by looking at how participation in radical politics is gendered. One assumes that by definition radical politics is critical of kinship politics, which is the dominant dynamic. Therefore it would be useful to investigate the gendering of power through radical lenses in action, that is, through the experiences of women in radical politics. For although women were confined to supportive roles, they were nevertheless

in the forefront, risking their lives along with the men, becoming martyrs as men became martyrs, enduring torture as men did, fearing military capture and going underground, challenging the dictatorship at home and over-

, seas.

A myriad number of radical organizations embracing a motley of ideologies had women radicals as members and followers. Rather than discuss the formation of all these groups and their activities individually, as scholars have traditionally been wont to do, I think it is more rewarding, in keeping with my theme on female power, to examine women’s groups in terms of

, how these radical groups have explored the use of female power or how they have tried to exercise power as women following gendered structures. Let us look at women who have organized themselves as women. Based on

, this criteria, women radicals could be classified into three categories: first, the militant nuns; second, a general category lumping together all other activist groups that had some female membership; and third, feminist organizations like MAKIBAKA, PILIPINA, and GABRIELA. Quite obviously, the militant nuns (though not having an official organizational name) were a women’s group, exercising power as women and exhibiting a gendered structure, whereas the other activist groups (except MAKIBAKA and the post-1983 women’s organizations) were not composed exclusively of women

| and did not explore the parameters of women’s power in radical politics. The prioritization of militant nuns in one major category is justified largely because they exercised moral power, even if they had absolutely no desire to claim formal power. None other than the nuns themselves have acknowledged that they drew their strength from “moral power’’;® they were able to exert pressure or influence because they represented the religious or spiritual elements alongside their gender. The question of whether the nuns

Women in Radical Politics 125 in radical politics should be discussed in a book on gender and power was answered in an interview with Sister Mariani Dimaranan (president of the TED), who corrected my statement that nuns did not have power to speak of with the assertion, ‘“We got moral power.’ Certainly the nuns, in their organization and participation in the rallies, demonstrations, protest movements, and activities in the FD, revealed a desire to influence the powersthat-be to make changes. ‘They were a pressure group hoping to introduce political, economic, and social reforms. In 1995 Sister Emelina Villegas elaborated on the nuns’ moral power, emphasizing their role as “midwives”: Our continuing role is to be midwives. As midwives we are tasked to give birth to liberation and salvation of the poor, powerless and downtrodden, ... we have to go beyond [sacraments] and look for the new fields of concern, exploring all possibilities in the realm of education.®

Sister Emelina’s description of nuns as “midwives” for change was an overt declaration that nuns consciously exercise power, or at the very least influence events, people, and social attitudes at the fringes. And in contrast to the other women activists, who were for the most part members of other organizations composed of both sexes, the militant nuns stressed the female aspects of radical politics; they were, after all, nuns and by their nature, female. Moreover, their status as nuns and religious symbols stressed the perception that they were nonthreatening: nuns did not covet official power, and no one regarded them as interested in official power. This perception actually gave them their strength. When the nuns participated in rallies and demonstrations, the military hesitated to harm them. As a priest once told sister Mariani, then president of the TFD, the organization that collected documentation clandestinely on the plight of political prisoners and agitated for their release: “Kung hindi ka madre na may belo, wala na ang VFD” (“If you were not a nun with a veil, the TFD would no longer be around”).’ In fact, the ultimate symbol of abuse by a dictatorship was the murder of a nun or the imprisonment of nuns, as in the case of El Salvador. In demonstrations where the police confronted the agitators, Sister Mary John Mananzan would liaison with the policemen who, despite their initial intentions of dispersing the protesters, conceded to the nuns’ request for a space in the street, even conceding them a few minutes to speak their piece.’®

None other than the First Lady Mrs. Imelda Marcos summoned Sister Christine ‘Tan (also of the T7FD and president of the Association of Major Religious Superiors of Women) to Malacafiang Palace for a “discussion,” a clear indication that the First Lady was aware of the nun’s moral influence, which she consciously translated as moral power.'' Sister Mary John observed that in confrontations with the military, although the soldiers would not hesitate to beat up the workers, they would generally deliberately refrain

, 126 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics from harming the nuns; and more often than not the nuns escaped arrest because hindi kayo kasali (you are not included).

The effectiveness of their moral power was demonstrated in the EDSA revolution. Faced with armed men in armored personnel carriers, the very symbol of male (macho) power, the nuns, armed only with their rosaries and prayers, applied moral power and triumphed. In that final confrontation between male power and female moral power, the nuns forced the military to withdraw and to take the moral option of refusing to follow orders from their commander-in-chief. The soldiers simply refused to massacre these

symbols of womanhood and religiosity. ,

Still, the nuns sublimated their power, and ironically, much like their sisters who as wives of politicians exercised their power behind the scenes, they exerted their influence through “moral pressures,” “advising” or pressuring

, for reform, rather than as women exercising power themselves. Although this lack of desire to claim power themselves differentiated the nuns from all the men and women who practiced kinship politics, their application of moral power exposed them as following the traditional gendered exercise of power in which women remained in the background, influencing power holders but not holding office themselves. The nuns’ ambivalence illustrated again a point where women’s power is a contested site, in that modern discursive practices such as the various feminisms conflict with the traditional gendering of power. The militant nuns were feminists who were willing to explore the realm of unofficial moral power without asking for official power themselves. Perhaps this was also why they were not seen as a threat, and

why they have been so effective as power wielders. , Where the militant nuns merit being singled out, women activists or other women in radical politics are better understood when placed together in a separate category. This second category includes women in the Communist Party of the Philippines, women in the KASAPI, and independent women activists, some of whom joined soc-dem groups or terrorist groups like the Light-a-Fire Movement and the April 6th Liberation Movement. Others are more traditional human rights advocates, such as Supreme Court Justice Cecilia Mufioz Palma; still others are traditional politicians from the political opposition, like Charito Planas and other women activists overseas (or in exile). In contrast to the nuns, most of these women in radical politics harbored ambitions to seize power, while criticizing kinship politics or the dictatorship of President Ferdinand Marcos. At the same time, with the exception of the women’s groups

, who emerged after 1986 and GABRIELA, they never organized themselves along gendered lines, had gendered structures, or exercised power as women. On the other hand, their experiences do reveal how radical politics was also gendered. Despite contrasting ideologies and despite the fact that they risked their lives, some even becoming martyrs for their beliefs, these women still had to be content with supportive roles, exibiting a gendering of radical politics along almost the same lines as kinship politics.

Women in Radical Politics 127 FILIPINO CULTURAL CONSTRUCTIONS OF GENDER AND SEXUALITY Criticisms of the women’s movements and women in activist movements have focused on three targets: (1) the fact that feminism has been a latent and very recent phenomenon;'? (2) the fact that women still hold supportive roles, '* and (3) the fact that Filipino feminist scholars in the movement have predominantly projected their class positions and therefore cannot really speak in general for “the Filipina.”’? While all these criticisms are valid, I would like to push the argument further by positing that women to this day have not openly criticized contemporary Filipino culture’s construction of femininity with the aim of altering the cultural narrative that is oppressive to women. Constructions of the “Filipina” through historical time have been researched and analyzed by specialists in women’s studies, but criticisms of the construction of the Filipina in the roles of wife and mother have only begun to be explored. So far the excellent work of Elizabeth Eviota on the social construction of sexuality is the only well-known study on the topic.'® The feminist nuns were among the first to view the woman question from the perspective of a contemporary Filipino cultural narrative that is oppressive to women. The premise that a woman must be a wife and mother;!’ the representations of the feminine as associated with beauty, religiosity, and motherhood; and the submissively supportive role of women in kinship politics are concepts that remain unexplored and unchallenged. Feminists have yet to investigate the dynamics of how prestige structures favor men over women, assigning women’s occupational roles less symbolic capital than men’s. No real efforts have been expended to give prestige to domestic duties (though in the 1950s, Senator Helen Benitez, as an educator, gave home economics legitimacy by giving the course some recognition academically). Finally, the role of the feminist movement in its theoretical orientation parallels Western feminism, both Marxist and radical feminism. The Marxist perspective has already hindered the movement because it prioritized issues of national liberation over specific women’s issues (see Angeles). The perspective of radical feminists, which argued that beauty is sign of men’s subjugation and objectification of women, has been used by feminist groups without questioning its applicability to the Philippine situation. The MAKIBAKA, for example, was launched by a demonstration outside the venue of the Miss Philippines beauty contest. Although in the secondary literature there are a lot of references to feminist intellectuals cautioning Filipinas from merely mimicking Western feminist ideas and grafting them unaltered to the Filipino situation, there has really been no major attempt

to contextualize Western feminism in the Philippine cultural narrative." Beauty, for instance, in the Philippine context is associated with female power and not with objectification, subjugation, or victimization as chapter

5 will argue.

128 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics ~ MILITANT NUNS | The nuns were transformed into political activists almost immediately after martial law was declared in 1972. The plight of a vast number of political prisoners or detainees (many of whom were tortured and killed or salvaged) first attracted the attention of these women, who, because of their Christian vocation, staunchly believed in the causes of social justice. Eventually, the problems of the laborers who participated in illegal strikes in order to raise issues of appropriate salaries and inappropriate working conditions and of the tribal groups being evicted from their lands compelled progressive nuns to come out of their convents, braving arrest and military force. At first, it was the plight of the political prisoners that awakened issues of social justice and transformed them into political radicals. Sister Mariani Dimaranan became the president of the Task Force Detainees, or ‘IF D, an organization founded to document the plight of political prisoners, to give them support, and to lobby for their release, speaking out against their unjust imprisonment and torture. Nuns were active from the very beginning of martial law, when most Filipinos, terrified of arrest, torture, and death, kept quiet, when even the student radicals, so vehement in their demonstrations against President Marcos in the early 1970s, either went underground or kept silent. ‘The mob of angry student protesters who filled the streets in the late 1960s quickly _ vanished, but the militant nuns, with far less noise and more courage, consistently took to the streets to champion human rights. Sister Mariani’s motivation for becoming a political activist was not the theology of liberation but the practices of an oppressive regime, which forced the women religious to confront the reason behind their decision to become nuns: Ay no I think the theology of liberation contributed, but I think, humanly speaking, they were touched by the situation of oppression; for me that is it. Siempre, they

, saw the situation, they analyze also, and iyon nga, ang tanong mo sa sarili, bakit ako nagmadre? Hindi ba? Ano ang response ko sa situation na ganyan if I am a follower

of Christ talaga? De siempre may vow ako ng poverty; ano ang gagawain ko? I remember ang sabi ko ganoon I think the best in us comes out in critical times. Could also be the best and the worst . . . di ba? But I think we become more cohesive and sympathetic with the others.!? [I think the theology of liberation contributed, but I think, humanly speaking, they were touched by the situation of oppression; for me that is it. Of course, they saw the situation they analyze also, and that’s it. One asks oneself, why did I become a nun? Isn’t it? What is my response to a situation like that if I am a true follower of Christ? Of course I have a vow of poverty, so _ what am I going to do? I remember, I said that I think the best in us comes out in critical times. Could also be the best and the worst, don’t you think? But I think we become more cohesive and sympathetic with the others.]

| Due to her political involvement Sister Mariani was arrested and detained in Camp Crame for fifteen days and Bicutan for thirty-two days. She was,

Women in Radical Politics 129 however, not the only religious arrested in the simultaneous raids on convents, seminaries, Catholic schools, and dormitories. ‘These religious prem-

ises were ransacked by the military in an official search for “subversive materials.” St. Joseph’s College (where Sister Mariani was college registrar), Our Lady of Angels Seminary, the Convent of the Oblate Sisters of Notre Dame, the Redemptorist monasteries in Davao and ‘Tacloban, and the Good

Shepherd Sisters in Matina, Davao, were also raided.*° On the orders of Defense Secretary Juan Ponce Enrile, St. Joseph’s College, too, was raided, because the military suspected it was a center for the distribution of underground newspapers.’! While under detention, witnessing the torture of political prisoners inspired Sister Mariani to join the Task Force Detainees, taking over the pres-

idency in April 1975 to the time of this writing (1997). Prior to that an American Franciscan had been president for a few months, but he relinquished the presidency to her. The Task Force Detainees, or TFD, was itself dominated by women (it could loosely be classified as a women’s organization, for although it was not an exclusively women’s group, it hap-

pened to be dominated by women until the mid-1980s, when an equal number of men began to participate). The gendered nature of the “TFD seemed to be a product of circumstances—the men were political detainees, and their wives formed an organization to agitate for their release. Militant nuns and wives of detainees cooperated in order to obtain documentation clandestinely on the plight of the political prisoners. The nuns in particular were deeply involved, as their activities included smuggling documents under

their habits.’ A good number of nuns risked their lives in these activities. Ang Bayan (ideological paper of the Communist Party of the Philippines, CPP) reported at least one case of a nun (pseudonym—Sister Jo) who escaped being burned

to death by government militia sent to interrogate her.’’ Sister Mary Bernard, a Carmelite nun, was conferred heroine status by the Bantayog ng mga Bayani for her work with the T'FD for nine years (1975-1984) until she died of cancer. She too participated not because of the ideological principles of

liberation theology but because of her strong sense of justice and a desire to help those who were unfairly treated.’* The gendering of radical politics into men as political detainees and women as wives of political detainees (victims), is reflected in newspaper accounts of the time. KAPATID (Kapisanan Para sa Pagpapalaya at Amnestiya ng mga Detenido sa Pilipinas), in their publication Pahatid Kapatid, focused each week on a woman, the wife of a political detainee, reinforcing the gendering of radical politics, with male detainees and their wives collectively mobilizing for the release of these prisoners.** Although the chair of KAPATID was male (Dean Armando Malay), most of the board members were women (Cora Afionuevo, Vicky Ocaya, Elgie Guio, Teresita de Castro, Lydia Narca and Sr. Mary Radcliffe).’° In this gendering of political activism,

130 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics women as wives of detainees were presented as victims. Male political de-tainees, it could be argued, were obviously also victims, but in the literature

. there was more information on the plight of their wives, who had to fend for their families on their own. But interestingly, just as the wives of politicians organized themselves to campaign for their husbands, the wives of detainees also organized themselves in order to improve the plight of their husbands, with the aim of obtaining their release. The formation by upperclass women of an exclusively women’s group, the Concerned Women of the Philippines (CWP), further reinforced this gender divide. Composed of Zenaida Quezon Avancefia (daughter of former President Manuel Quezon), , dissenting Supreme Court Justice Cecilia Mufioz Palma, Mary Concepcion Bautista, Mita Pardo de Tavera, Ma. Teresa Feria Nieva, Thelma Mirasol — Arceo, Rizalina Bautista Poncar, Maria Yusay Feria, Lourdes Caguiat Jose, Eulalia Hidalgo Lim, and Paz Policarpio Mendez, the CWP visited political detainees and prisoners and worked for the protection of prisoners’ rights and conditions.’’ The women in this group performed civic work by helping the victims of martial law without a desire to claim power themselves, though some of them were later awarded with political positions during the administration of President Corazon Aquino. _ While they did not confine themselves to this arena of political action, the militant nuns agitated for the release of political prisoners. Once the martial law administration declared strikes illegal, any worker who agitated

for an increase in wages or improved labor conditions risked military arrest and detention. Into this battlefield Sister Mary John Mananzan, president of

, GABRIELA (since 1986), founder of PILIPINA (the first consciously feminist organization after 1971), and chair of the Citizens’ Alliance for Consumer Protection (CACP, from 1978), was drawn as a political activist. Her “baptism of fire” (her words) into the world of radical politics was a 1975 strike of workers at the La Tondefia factory (wine factory). Workers approached St. Scholastica’s, appealing for the support of the nuns. Four nuns

! responded. Once on site, the nuns linked arms (Aapit-bisig) at the forefront of the picket lines to protect the striking workers.’® This became a pattern for all subsequent participation in illegal strikes. In all of these strikes, the nuns stood at the front lines. The nuns would always automatically come to

the front of the picket lines, using their bodies as a buffer to shield and protect the workers from military violence. It was their faith that as dedicated members of the religious community, it was their duty to protect the work-

ers, male and female alike, if need be with their lives.?? Nuns were not immune from harm, and there was never a guarantee that they would be spared; indeed, they were hosed, arrested, and harassed by the military | (sometimes abused verbally, as they would be called hardheaded meddlers). There were incidents where nuns were beaten up at rallies.*° Despite the risks and harassment, nuns continued to join demonstrations by workers,

Women in Radical Politics 131 usually for higher wages, farmers for land reform, and human rights activists for the release of political prisoners and for human rights violations. The militant nuns elevated moral issues above political ideology: by championing the causes of social justice they also addressed the major problem

faced by the Philippines in the post-war era. Here was one ideology supported by all activist groups, including the communists. ‘The militant nuns were not just anti-Marcos or anticapitalist; they spoke out against various problems of poverty, including malnutrition and low wages; land for the peasantry and disenfranchised tribal groups; and maltreatment of political prisoners. Stressing that they were not biased toward the left or any particular group, Sister Mariani remarked, ““We are overground, level ground, underground, whatever ground.’*! The TFD’s original intent was “We help all victims of human rights violations irrespective of ideology.”*” Sister Soledad Perpifian (Sister Sol), who was already a participant in the student activism of the late 1960s, like Sister Mary John was drawn into the vortex of radical politics in the martial law period after she participated in the La Tondefia strike. Sister Sol actually had a critical role to play in the strike as a liaison person. Immediately after the strike, she and fellow nuns formed the Friends of the Workers, which organized Metro-Manila into four districts to facilitate support activity for the strikers: calling convents for personnel to woman picket lines, making church personnel aware of issues of social justice as well as appealing to international funding organizations, and getting media coverage with the international press (since local media were censored).*?

Her main contribution to political activism in the martial law years was as editor, writer, and founder of IBON Facts and Figures, a newsletter that produced documentation on Philippine society, economy, and politics (including the underground). First published in 1978, IBON Facts and Figures became the only accurate available published reportage on current events and issues in the Philippines. Scholars, journalists, and academics, particularly from overseas, relied on IBON for their data on Philippine society and economy. Sister Sol and two others were responsible for writing and editing the publication. They chose the name JBON (bird) because the symbol of a bird recalled concepts of liberty and freedom.** In the context of the gendering of the participation of the religious—the nuns (women again), mot the priests, were far more visible and more numerous, dominating the leadership and organization of the TFD and the organizational support for workers, farmers, political prisoners, and other victims of martial law at a time when it was patently dangerous to do so.

Other groups had gone underground; the nuns remained visible. Sister Christine Tan (also once chair of the TD) contended that the nuns were the ones who pressured the bishops to declare that martial law was immoral. It was the women, especially nuns, who built and ran the TTD.* Sister Mary

John stressed that it was the nuns who organized themselves to help the

132 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics workers, going so far as to form committees to more efficiently conceptualize strategies in the defense of the workers’ groups, dividing the responsibilities of organization, and educating their religious colleagues to be conscious of the issues of social justice. As chair of the committee of the Task Force for

_ the Conscientization of Church personnel, she worked to convince the religious (nuns and priests) that they should get involved in protest politics. Nuns far outnumbered priests in participation, perhaps also because numerically there were more nuns than priests in the country. These nuns were organized into those who prepared the food for the rallies, those who remained to pray for their comrades, and those who joined the rallies in the picket lines. Until the EDSA revolution, the nuns were involved in food preparation (usually sandwiches), in leading prayers, and in protecting their fellow men and women laity from the violence of the military.*° During the EDSA revolution, they cooked food and distributed food to the soldiers. Nuns armed with rosaries knelt down before armored personnel carriers and pleaded with the military. he nuns also gave shelter and protection to other activist women escaping or hiding from military arrest. When Social Democrat Karen ‘lafiada (KASAPI member) had to go underground, she hid in — convents;’’ Supreme Court Justice Cecilia Mufioz Palma found shelter among the Benedictine nuns of St. Scholastica’s when her dissenting opinion brought fear of reprisals;** and protected by nuns, Charito Planas (woman

- Oppositionist) escaped to southern Philippines and on to the United States disguised as a nun.°*”

Secretary-General of the Citizens Alliance for Consumer Protection from 1978 until the present, Sister Mary John Mananzan, speaking for this group, delivered speeches and criticized the regime on issues such as the rise in oil prices and so forth, appeared on television speaking out against a nuclear Philippines, and argued with street police for permission to march in the

streets to proclaim their stand.*° Here was a nun officially taking up the cases of all consumers, defending their rights, protecting their interests, speaking on their behalf, and demanding fair prices for essential commodities.

So vivid is the image of the militant nun representing political activism in the martial law years that in Mike de Leon’s Tagalog film Sister Stella L., its main character, a nun, delivers the activist slogan “Kung hindi tayo kikilos, sino pa, kung hindi ngayon, kailan pa [If we do not act, who will, if not now, when else]?”’*' ‘The choice of nun over a priest or a Communist Party member, whether male or female, attested to the nuns’ visibility in radical politics

as well as the strong, consistent identification of nuns with protest politics. In the martial law era, the ideal activist was symbolized by a militant nun. And yet numerically speaking, in the early years of martial law, Sister Mary John observed that radicalized nuns were a minority: 200 nuns out of a total of 9,000 nuns in the country. While not all nuns were political radicals, the religious of St. Joseph’s and St. Scholastica’s, the Franciscan nuns, the As-

Women in Radical Politics 133 sumption nuns, and the Good Shepherd nuns were among those particularly active. Moved by the political crisis of increasing poverty, violations of human rights, and a desire to reform society, these 200 or so progressive nuns

found themselves in the forefront of protest politics, able to exert moral power and therefore exercise some real power at the fringes.

The Nuns as Feminists The nuns were also significant in the women’s movement because they were the first to call themselves feminists, and thus among the first ones to apply feminist theory to their analysis of political and social oppression in the Philippines. It is my contention that they were among the first to criticize contemporary cultural constructions of gender and sexuality and to link these with women’s oppression in the Philippines.** Analysis of this nature is just

beginning to happen in the history of the feminist movement in the Philippines, but it is crucial if one is to prevent feminists from uncritically grafting Western feminist theortes onto the Philippine situation. While women politicians, activists, and professionals hesitated to label themselves feminists,

the nuns confidently asserted that they were feminist, with one describing herself as a postcolonial nun.*’ Like feminist scholars, the nuns proved highly knowledgeable about feminist theories, feminist literature, and feminist per-

spectives, a marked contrast to the politicians (activist or traditional) and women professionals, who, unaware of the new feminisms, associate feminism with radical feminist stereotypes of the 1960s and therefore stay away from association with the term. Not only have the nuns stood up against women’s oppression in Philippine society, they have also spoken out against

patriarchy in the church. Not even Cardinal Jaime Sin has escaped their critical voice.** In 1980 Sister Mary John Mananzan founded a feminist or-

ganization PILIPINA, and in 1985 she founded the first Institute of Women’s Studies in the Philippines at St. Scholastica’s College. She was also a cofounder of the Center for Women’s Resources in 1979. Sister Mary John wrote on the woman question in the Philippines, researched the status of women in prehistory and historical times, and published on women’s issues.” GABRIELA only became consciously feminist after 1986, when it began to address specifically women’s issues (more on this later), and Sister Mary John became chair of that organization in 1986. As head of the Institute of Women’s Studies, Sister Mary John has introduced new courses that examine the patriarchal elements of Filipino society,

where males are privileged and spoiled and women seek to become selfsacrificing wives and mothers morally bound to the home. The introduction of courses focusing on the discourse on the woman question, with an emphasis on the specific Philippine situation, exudes a feminist critique of the cultural construction of both the feminine and the masculine, an important landmark in the evolution of feminism in the Philippines. Sister Mary John

134 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics was among the first to perceive the woman question in the light of Philippine cultural constructions of gender and sexuality, a perspective only beginning to be introduced into feminist discourses on the Philippines.*? In the process, she has refrained from merely grafting Western feminist theory uncritically

~ onto the Philippine situation. On her own she consciously chose to break

away from the Western feminist perspective: We [Pilipina] make it a point to distinguish ourselves from some Western feminists Kasi [because] sometimes they trivialize the whole thing, they make it a man-against-

woman thing which we don’t believe in. With us, it’s a matter of how you get a woman to really maximize her whole potential’”*’

Another nun who has placed the oppression of women within the specific context of the Filipino cultural narrative is Sister Christine Tan. Drawing from her own experience of living with the urban poor, Tan’s analysis of women in poverty identifies cultural constraints as their biggest enemy: “a culture where women are oppressed and where women spoil the male, it is a cycle because, number one, the cultural is so hard and utang na loob, and ano ang sasabibin nila [debt of gratitude and what will other people say]?”** Having contextualized women’s oppression in the Filipino traditional cultural matrix, these feminist nuns have logically contested religious patriarchy

and Catholic constructions of the woman that have perpetuated women’s subservient role. A merger of Filipino traditional family values with Catholicism (which socialized women to “obey their husbands”’), they boldly argued, conspired to marginalize women from leadership roles. In a country that is 85 percent conservatively Catholic, and where the male church hierarchy holds tremendous influence and even indirect political power, to actually verbalize this viewpoint is exceedingly courageous indeed. Sister

Mary John was quick to point out that “there really is a religious root to

women’s oppression”; that ‘there is also oppression of women in the | church’’*’; that “the Church has been used as an agent of violence to women’; and that, for over two thousand years, the Bible “has been an instrument for the promotion of ideas of women being seen as temptresses or evil and... inferior to men.”*° She has not hesitated to draw from her own personal experience: I am not married, so nobody can oppress me in that way. My father died when I was 11 and I have no brothers. But in the church, I know I’m better than some priests,

and yet I can’t be a priest. I studied in an all-male university, at the Gregorian University, the university of popes and priests. It didn’t accept women until 1968, and I went there in 1971. Noon, kung nakakakuha ako ng mataas na grade, sasabibin nila, “Babae ka kasi madre pa.” (If I received a high grade they would say: “It’s because you are a woman, not just a woman but a nun too.”] Sabi ko [I said], “Don’t hide behind my skirt.’’*’

Women in Radical Politics 135 Equally vocal, Sister Christine “Can, who has served as chair of the Association of the Major Religious Superiors of Women in the Philippines, criticized the church’s viewpoint on issues that affect women like birth control and abortion. Although she supported the anti-abortion stance of the church, she stressed that women have the right to determine what would be good for their own body. As a delegate in the 1986 constitutional convention, she was against the pro-life provision.’? Contrary to the church’s official

position, Sister Christine advocated family planning through artificial means.’ She was quick to point out the contradiction in which on the one hand the women religious were the leaders in the political protest movements in the martial law era, pressuring the bishops (who originally were silent) to declare martial law as illegal and protesting to the Pope that his state visitation during the reign of President Marcos and his wife was an indirect show of support for their regime and the repression and oppression associated with it and ‘‘on the other hand, in the church we have no voice.’’** She took on Cardinal Jaime Sin when she dared criticize President Corazon Aquino’s regime for being elitist (the Cardinal was a close ally of President

Aquino).*? On the exclusively male leadership of the church, she said, “TI have much against the male in the church because they make all our laws, particularly about giving birth and abortions.””*° Sister Christine, Sister Mary John, and Sister Mariani have had no qualms about declaring themselves to

be feminist nuns, a label all other women politicians, wives of politicians, and even women activists shunned. Such vocal criticisms of church patriarchy as well as the political activism of these nuns have provoked repercussions: Sister Christine along with five sisters was sent out of Manila and threatened with excommunication.°’ Sister Sol also classifies herself as a feminist, and her feminist perspective

has influenced her social action as founder of Third World Movement Against the Exploitation of Women (TW-MAE-W) in 1982. The organization was originally begun in order to protest Japanese sex tours, prostitution in Manila and in the military bases; it later expanded its concerns to include the mail-order bride phenomenon and Filipino prostitution overseas, like the Jappayukis in Japan.°®

As part of their metamorphosis into political activists and feminists, nuns found themselves drawn into other nationalist battlegrounds. Sister Christine ‘Tan was also active in the Nuclear Free Philippines Movement with nationalist Senators Lorenzo Tafiada and Jose Diokno,’’ as well as the movement

against the U.S. bases.°° She also was a member of PARAP, which focused on Philippine Human Rights, the Philippine Coalition of Human Rights, and the Diokno Foundation, as well as other Diokno organizations, like the KAABAY, which was composed of a group of University of the Philippines and Ateneo de Manila University nationalists.°' An admirer of Senator Jose Diokno’s brand of nationalism, she wrote at least one essay about him after

136 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics his death.°* Why did she get very active? According to Sister Christine, “I start with the premise that a good Christian is a nationalist.” This moral power of the militant nuns was almost translated into official power when Sister Christine Tan was invited by President Corazon Aquino to join the forty-eight member constitutional commission, which drafted the new Philippine constitution of 1986. She decided to accept the position to ensure that the urban poor had a voice in the constitution.** Her closeness to the new president meant that she had the president’s ear. Had she played along with Cory she could have exerted power behind the scenes during the Aquino administration. Instead, Sister Christine, Sister Mariani, and Sister

| Mary John chose to continue their political activism despite the ouster of the Marcos dictatorship; the nuns who had metamorphosed into political activists did not return to the cozy status-quo cocoon once the democratic institutions were restored. In the end, even someone like Sister Christine, - who by 1986 was able to claim a position of official power, felt morally obliged to announce her disillusionment with the Aquino regime: ‘“The present leadership has failed us.”® She attacked the Aquino government as “elitist, corrupt and failing to meet the country’s basic needs,” faulting Aquino herself for not being more decisive and reviewing her achievements as fol-

7 lows: “She restored for us a sense of pride but the people around her are not as sincere and honest.’ The price of her continuing political activism was an estrangement with President Aquino, costing her access to unofficial

power. She persisted in participating in protests and rallies, including one that presented a play depicting the sufferings of the urban poor®’ and one that submitted to President Aquino proposals from a delegation of urban poor demanding a stop to the demolition of squatter communities and/or their relocation to sites a great distance away from their places of work.® That her continued activism was still fueled by her moral concern was evidenced by her rhetorical question, “Ts a [sic] legal necessarily moral?” Sister Christine was lamenting the fact that despite promises by members of the constitutional convention that they would not run for office (for ethical rea-

| sons), some had gone back on their word and sought elective office.® These days (1996), as chair of the Citizen’s Alliance for Consumer Protection, Sister Mary John continues to criticize President Fidel Ramos’s in-

| crease in oil prices, the expanded value-added tax (E-VAT), and the structural dynamics of a society where corruption is still rampant and only 10 percent of the population benefits from economic reform.”° ‘True to form, nuns in groups were at the forefront of demonstrations against the E-VAT.”

Sister Mariani Dimaranan clashed with Cardinal Jaime Sin during the Aquino administration (1986-1992) when he announced that there were no more political detainees under the Aquino administration, despite the fact that TD had clearly found evidence to the contrary.” She continues to be active as president of TED. The militant nun has remained consistently a political activist even when the male head of church, Cardinal Jaime Sin,

Women in Radical Politics 137 had summarily retired from a brief career in political activism to become a major power player in traditional kinship politics.

WOMEN ACTIVISTS Instead of writing a long, detailed analysis of activist groups that operated during the martial law regime of 1972-1986, I will discuss women’s participation in radical politics by giving very brief case studies of prominent individual women representative of the various colors political activism took

in the era. The myriad number of women’s groups that emerged after the 1983 Aquino assassination will be discussed in a following separate section. The clandestine nature of political activism has resulted in a dearth of official

primary sources, so I have relied on periodical literature and oral history (interviews) to fill in the gaps. I have not attempted to do a comprehensive history of the women’s roles in political activism or of the history of women’s participation in each nationalist or nationalist feminist group. Instead, let me focus on how a prominent but typical woman activist of a particular ideological group perceived how politics was gendered and on how some such women perceived their roles in the radical movement they represented. ‘The varieties of groups discussed here include the Communist Party of the Philippines (here represented by Carolina “Bobbie” Malay); the Social Democrats, represented by the KASAPI and their terrorist subsidiary, the April 6th Liberation Movement (represented by Karen ‘Tafiada and Doris Nuval); the human rights activist reformists (represented by Justice Cecilia Mufioz Palma); and the traditional political oppositionists, some of whom had to seek political asylum overseas (represented here by Charito Planas). Apart from the Communist Party, which advocated armed revolution, the rest of the groups were really reformists agitating for social, political, or judicial reforms.

Marxist ideology implied that the activities of the Communist Party should theoretically remain ungendered. In practice, activities were gendered and women experienced difficulties in acquiring leadership positions,’’ ‘The

New Peoples Army, or the NPA, the military arm of the CPP, was maledominated (not many women joined the army), although women carried arms for self-defense. Many women were journalists or writers who busied themselves with propaganda work or were assigned to health care and education.’* NPA women guerrillas also served as cooks and support staff to military operations.’> For married couples, the party divided labor by assigning child rearing and housekeeping to women and breadwinning to men.’° Women usually left their squads, or political activity in the movement, to have babies or raise children.’’ Even the amasonas (women fighters or warriors) who lived in the hills were often confined to caring for babies at day-care centers. Women were delegated to perform household chores or guard post duties while men waged war. One amasona had to protest loudly,

«138 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics arguing that “I did not come to the mountains just to tend to babies,” before being permitted to participate as an armed, active guerrilla fighter. She had to prove that she was just as good as the men in combat. Only after a good - many firefights and her share of shrapnel wounds was she finally awarded a leadership position. Under incarceration, CPP members maintained their cell unit structures, with men still retaining leadership roles.’®

The periodical literature of the CPP (dng Bayan concentrated on publishing the policies and ideological stand of the party; Liberation was the voice

of the National Democratic Front, or NDF; Kalayaan was the organ of the Kabataang Makabayan, or Nationalist Youth’’) did not really address gender issues. Women very rarely appeared in the pages of the various underground newspapers (practically not at all in Ang Bayan, except when GABRIELA was formed) and when they appeared frequently, as in Pahatid Kapatid, it was as wives of detainees making an appeal for financial or political aid. Through most of my interview with Carolina “Bobbie” Malay, a prominent — female leader in the movement, she was careful to stress that the leadership of the party, at least overtly, still towed the official line, that is, that the party promoted equality of the sexes, that women were not barred from leadership positions, and that there was no sexual discrimination. Just the same, Ms. Malay acknowledged the tensions between the official ideology of non-gender-discrimination, the ideology of the CPP movement (which she labels a “subculture’’), and traditional Filipino culture. The latter often subverted the movement’s ideology and encouraged gender discrimination in practice: There are two levels. On one level, the principle is for equality. We are supposed to be building new relationships within the context of the new society that should show us as new individuals, new persons, new human beings. And naturally with that goes the concept of gender equality. And so that means that women are not supposed to be discriminated against, they have all the rights that men are supposed to have

...in... work [and] at home. There is supposed to be no gender stereotyping. . .. I think that as a whole...it has been working in this direction....On the other hand, one realization that one makes is that society exerts a powerful influence upon subcultures. ...1 think we can look at the revolutionary movement as a subculture or a counterculture to the existing traditional Filipino culture [in that]... we don’t

operate in a void;... that’s what we rebelled against, this society. ... That is one source of contradiction: ... that we ourselves... still have not eliminated totally all the ways of thinking and doing things that our parents brought us up to do or that we observed or that we absorbed from our childhood onwards[;] . . . the revolutionary movement since it does not have very much resources really, still has not been able to build the institutions, the mechanisms or structures that would help women really

be liberated from their traditional roles. ... It is not enough to want to change the

, way to change your status and your role in society, society has to be able to provide the framework and the institutions for you to do that and it needs resources. ...

Women in Radical Politics 139 [T]he movement has not been able to provide mechanisms like for example, day care and education, adult education for more women, appliances to lessen the household work... and this very simple matter of contraception, I have been talking about this for years but no one is listening to me, I think we should be providing free contraceptives to those who want it.°°

Hesitant to criticize the gendering of the CPP’s political activities, Ms. Malay avoided pointing out specific discrepancies between CPP theoretical positions on gender equality and the actual practices of the party. Reflecting the party’s official philosophy, she reiterated that the party stressed equality of the sexes but that it had to overcome the obstacles of Filipino traditional

patriachal attitudes in the society. It is significant that she identified the problem as patriarchal attitudes in Filipino society rather than patriarchal attitudes in the party itself, because the party certainly exhibited very strong patriarchal attitudes. Women had sacrificed their lives for the movement just as men had; NPA women guerrillas, or amasonas, had become martyred, and scores more imprisoned and tortured. And yet they had been marginalized from the top leadership positions.

There have been no well-known women theoreticians in the CPP, nor were there feminist theoreticians who were as vocal in their ideas as the militant nuns. There also has not been a major contextualizing of the feminist communist movement in the Filipino cultural narrative. The CPP did not participate in the EDSA revolution, having also boycotted the snap elections. From 1986 to the present, major divisions in the party itself concerning ideology, policy, strategy, and personal differences have weakened the left and eroded their potential as political oppositionists. The women in the CPP have collectively not coalesced in the new (since 1984) burgeoning of exclusively women feminist groups, although some of their women members,

like Nelia Sancho and Maita Gomez (former beauty queens turned CPP amuasonas), have moved on to become leaders in GABRIELA and KAIBA. Both women ran for elective positions as women candidates representing GABRIELA and KAIBA. Neither was successful in gaining office. Maita Gomez became disillusioned with politics after her electoral defeat, but Nelia Sancho is still active with GABRIELA, women’s groups, and NGOs. As for the Social Democrats, on the other hand, their ultimate aim was to focus on “conflict organizing” at the community level, hoping that with increasing empowerment of the people, they would succeed in altering the structures of society.*' In one soc-dem group called KASAPI, the activities of both Karen ‘Tafada and Doris Nuval (Baffrey) did not appear to be particularly gendered, but it was difficult for women in KASAPI to acquire top leadership positions.*? KASAPI (Kapulungan ng mga Sandigan ng Pilipinas) had the lofty aim of full empowerment of the sectors; they targeted grass-

roots support. Hence they looked down on other soc-dem groups, like

140 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics Lakas-Diwa, for being Ateneo de Manila University—based and therefore considered burgis (bourgeoisie).*> Both Tafiada and Nuval joined the organization when they were very young (Karen in high school, Doris in college), ~ as students. Both maintained their links with the movement, which had qui_ etly gone underground once martial law was declared. Doris, while working with the government overseas, continued to furnish information to KASAPI. Following the 1978 Interim Batasan Pambansa elections, Doris was recruited to plant a bomb at the convention of the American Society of Travel Agents. KASAPI had a subsidiary group that was terrorist in orientation. Called the April 6th Liberation Movement,” the group aimed to destabilize the Marcos government by exploding bombs around key conferences and buildings as a desperate form of protest. The American Society of Travel Agents was chosen as the site for the next bombing since KASAPI knew it would embarrass

, the president, who intended to announce that peace and stability under martial law made the Philippines an attractive haven for tourists. Doris was chosen to carry out the mission because, as a conference organizer (in fact,

she was entrusted by the Marcos government to bring to the country the latest bomb detectors), she would have easy access. She was chosen because she was well positioned for the part, enjoying access and opportunity, and not because of her sex, revealing that at least in this case, decisions made by the KASAPI were not based on gender. The bomb explosion demolished Marcos’s tourism program, Doris had carried out the mission successfully, but unfortunately not without being found out. Arrested and imprisoned for five years, she suffered psychological torture and rape while in detention.® According to Doris, prison life had gendered overtones: the men were phys-

, ically tortured, while the women were psychologically tortured. Thus, even | in the depths of the dungeons, she experienced the gendering of violence and oppression.*®

Some activities were very obviously gendered, while some were not. Whatever the case, it was more difficult for women to gain leadership positions. For Karen Tafiada, a top leadership position came only after many , years of service. Whereas Doris Nuval (Baffrey) was inclined to see activities as not reflecting a gendered division or prioritization of men over women, Karen was quick to point out the areas where women were discriminated - against. For instance, women who went underground were expected to do the cooking for the men. In membership alone, men far outnumbered women activists. Men usually were the speakers at large rallies. Women’s labors were channelled to secretarial roles or administrative positions. So ingrained were these models that even when some became important organ-

, izers of workers, they were still required to do the administrative work as well. They found themselves saddled with a double burden. Women were also the fund-raisers. The few women who acquired leadership positions were usually those who were assertive, aggressive, and outspoken, and these potential leaders were quickly dubbed with unflattering nicknames like

Women in Radical Politics 14] “Pipi,” for “pillbox,” and “Pusong bato” (“heart of stone’’).®’ These nicknames revealed that women who were given leadership positions were perceived to be less than human (or superhuman), and using Filipino cultural methods, which pressure individuals to conform, the appellations were one way for members to stress that it was not womanly to claim leadership positions.

Karen’s role at the start was that of a researcher, but she also participated in rallies in the 1970s. KASAPI penetrated the cooperatives, focusing on “conflict organizing,” or issue organizing. Arrested in 1974 (along with other members), she was released after one week. In 1977 she became active again,

until her links with the April 6th group and her father Renato’s activities with the April 6th Liberation Movement eventually led to an order for her arrest, along with her father. Forced to go underground, she hid in convents until the 1980s, when it became relatively safe for her to move around or visit her home. Both Karen and Doris (indirectly from her prison cell) participated in the street rallies that gained momentum after the 1983 assassination of Senator Benigno Aquino. Through links with the Concerned Women of the Philippines (CWP), Doris was able to smuggle out speeches written in prison, and these were read at rallies. Karen joined the Bandila (a center-left group) and the Cory for President Movement. After the 1986 coup d’etat triggered the people power revolution, which in turn restored basic democratic institutions, Doris and Karen were keen to run for congressional office. In the end, Doris decided not to run due to lack of funds, although she expressed a desire to become a legislator some day. She is already planning to propose a bill for broadcast media.** Through Executive Secretary Joker Arroyo and Secretary of Labor Augusto “Bobbit”

Sanchez, whom Karen counts as close friends, Karen was able to gain an appointment in government with the National Manpower Council. Thinking the time was right to run for office (just after the euphoria of the EDSA revolution), she ran for Congress in San Juan and Mandaluyong. She lost.®” Although critical of the oligarchy and various dynamics of kinship politics in the past, at least one aspect of kinship palakasan politics was still acceptable to Karen. Now malakas, and therefore having close ties with those in power in 1986, she was able to gain a good government position and subsequently run for office. She left KASAPI after 1986 because she was disillusioned with

the behavior of KASAPI members in office. For example, according to Karen, many received positions in Quezon City Hall, but unfortunately, they did not practice the ideals they espoused as former political activists. Originally critical of the dynamics of kinship politics and aiming to alter structures of power, KASAPI, with political power now in its hands, succumbed

to the very traditional political dynamics they claimed to want to change. They experienced the classic conflict between traditional kinship politics and nationalist values. Small wonder that, plagued by internal problems, KASAPI eventually disintegrated.”°

142 © Women, Power, and Kinship Politics Undeterred by all this, Karen has become more active in feminist groups and in Women NGOs. She was a member of PILIPINA in 1986, and in August 1990 became full-time coordinator of the Women’s Action Network for Development (WAND), composed of 100 NGOs and other grassroots organizations with a women’s perspective. She is also coordinator of the Development Initiatives for Women’s Alternatives and Transformative Action (DIWATA). The focus of DIWATA projects is to support initiatives for gender equity, looking at programs for women’s organizations.” Although not a conscious feminist in her KASAPI days, Karen is currently focusing on women’s issues. KASAPI never really challenged women’s roles in kinship politics or women’s access to power, although they were critics

of traditional Filipino political dynamics. | | One unique oppositionist is Supreme Court Justice Cecilia Mufioz Palma.

As a lawyer and a woman (she believed that women made better justices because they had a better innate sense of being fair),”” her entire career as oppositionist and political activist was rooted in her desire to uphold human rights. The first woman appointed a justice of the Supreme Court, she was originally politicized in the 1930s suffragette movement, agitating for the

, women’s vote. Also true to the gendering of politics and the traditional gendering of activities, she was very civic work oriented: she opened a free legal aid clinic and was very active in the Community Chest and the Zonta Club.

As a Supreme Court justice under martial law, she was then faced with a number of ethical dilemmas, particularly those involving the trials of political prisoners. When prominent political prisoner Senator Jose Diokno filed for a petition of habeas corpus because he was detained without charges, Justice

Palma, the only woman Supreme Court justice at the time, was the first Supreme Court judge to dissent from the Supreme Court ruling against Diokno’s petition. While preparing her draft, she sought sanctuary with the Benedictine nuns of St. Scholastica’s because the rest of the justices (with

the exception of one) were pressuring her to conform. The talk in legal circles was that “there happens to be one man with balls and that happens to be a woman.” In the end President Marcos released Diokno, preempting the official submission and subsequent publication of her dissenting opinion. Once retired in 1978, however, Justice Palma gave speeches (including one memorable one at the graduating ceremony at University of the Philippines) speaking out against martial law and reiterating the importance of human rights, the dismantling of martial law, and the restoration of democracy. She joined the Concerned Women of the Philippines (CWP), who visited political detainees and lobbied for their release and for better conditions for

the prisoners. With human rights as a crucial agenda, she became vice chair of the Integrated Bar Committee on Human Rights and Due Process with Justice J.B.L. Reyes, and in this capacity investigated “hamletting” (military practice of placing people in “strategic hamlets” away from CPP control) in Mindanao and negotiated with the military to ensure that the people would

Women in Radical Politics 143 be permitted to return to cultivate the farms, as a guarantee against possible starvation in these hamlets.’* Palma’s ideology of human rights protection was similar to that of the TFD. ‘Uhey empathized with all victims of human rights abuses regardless of ideology, “whoever they were, whether they were underground or whatever their political persuasions were. In other words, that [human rights] was important to us.”” In 1984 Palma ran for office in the Batasan Pambansa, triumphing with the defiant battle cry “One Marcos cannot stop us all.’?° Convinced that participation in the Marcos-controlled Congress was the only legal means

through which to topple the dictatorship, she chaired the Committee on Impeachment Against Marcos, though the move was practically futile. As chair of the National Unification Committee organized for the snap election

of 1986, she dialogued with the then disparate members of the opposition, | the UNIDO, the Visayan group, the Bicol group, the Tafiadas, and the Cory supporters. She used her skills as a judge to preside over the meetings that eventually united the opposition endorsing Corazon Aquino for president. After the EDSA revolution deposed the Marcos dictatorship, she was appointed to the 1986 constitutional convention and shortly elected president of the group selected to write a new charter.’’ She should be credited for the speedy conclusion of the deliberations. Introducing a woman’s religious bent into the ritual of the constitution, she moved to time the signing of the document on the feast day of the first woman doctor of the church, St. ‘Therese of Avila, October 15, and then she moved that its ratification fall on February 11, the Feast of our Lady of Lourdes. Palma championed the image of woman as a religious or moral guardian, images associated with female power in the Philippines (discussed in chapter 5).

In the very early period of the Aquino ascendancy, prior to the 1986 constitutional convention, Justice Palma was often sought by Aquino for advice on legal and constitutional matters. In this sense, Justice Palma exerted some influence behind the scenes in the traditional way women exerted power. But of course she was only one among many advisers to the president. When her suggestion not to abolish the Marcos-created legislature, the Batansan Pambansa, was overruled by two of Aquino’s closest advisers, Exec-

utive Secretary Joker Arroyo and Father Joaquin Bernas (of Ateneo de Manila University), she detached herself from the president. Nevertheless, when the legislature was abolished, she festooned her house with dark ribbons “because I always fought through constitutional process,” a perspective she consistently endorsed throughout her life. Now in her twilight years (she turned 83 in 1996), she remains immersed in civic work as President of the Tuberculosis Society and as president of the National Peace Conference, which was born after the 1989 coup d’etat against President Corazon Aquino. She was the recipient of several awards for her humanitarian service, among these the Pro-Ecclesia Et Pontifice

Cross by Pope Paul IV in 1977, and the first national award for human

144 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics , rights given by the Commission of Human Rights in 1994.'°° Her numerous awards, mostly for civic work and for her legal contributions, have been compiled in a publication in honor of her 80th birthday.'°' Her various | awards and activities illustrate that despite her activist inclinations, she still adhered to the traditional cultural construction of the woman’s political role as civic worker and moral guardian, in this case defender of human rights. Although a political activist exuding quiet militancy and staunch commit-

ment to the protection of the law and the upholding of human rights and democratic institutions, she did not consider herself a feminist,’ (although ~ one essay in her honor mistakenly labelled her a feminist).'°’ She preferred

to be seen as someone who did not necessarily look at matters from a woman’s point of view, choosing instead to perceive matters from the point , of view of all individuals. In this sense, the woman’s perspective is considered

but is not prioritized.! | |

The final capsule case study of an individual prominent woman activist 1s that of Charito Planas, who would probably be best classified as a political oppositionist in a traditional mode. In 1963 she ran for vice mayor of Quezon City but lost. In 1971 her second bid, for the office of mayor, also failed. Undeterred by these electoral defeats, Planas became Secretary-General of the Citizens National Electoral Assembly, and she was active in the campaign of the National Citizens Constitutional Convention Movement (NCCCM) the umbrella civic organization that encouraged interest in the proceedings of the 1971 constitutional convention. Her house was often used as a meeting place for activists, including youth leaders like Ed Jopson. When martial law was declared, she was picked up for questioning by the military but was _ released shortly after. Undaunted, she joined the few political oppositionists to Marcos, who met clandestinely. She was among those who voted no to the Marcos-engineered 1973 constitution written to legitimize martial law. For these activities she was again arrested and detained in four military camps (Aguinaldo, Bonifacio, Crame, and Panopio) and placed in solitary confinement. Following hospitalization for a hysterectomy, she was released.'””

In 1978 President Marcos called for elections for the Batasan Pambansa,

and Charito ran along with Benigno Aquino, who campaigned from his prison cell. During this campaign for elective office, Planas’s political tirades targeted First Lady Imelda Marcos’s frivolity and excessive lifestyle, blatantly

| manifested by Imelda’s shopping sprees. Charito’s house was used as a venue for all colors of the opposition. She was also involved in compiling materials

on the Marcos regime published overseas and printing them in her house. These activities invited the attention of the military, who suspected that she was acting as coordinator for activities of the left as well as the left of center.!°6 Disguised as a nun and shielded by the nuns, she took the adventurous escape route via Mindanao to political asylum in the United States. While ~ in the United States, she joined the Movement for a Free Philippines and

Women in Radical Politics 145 continued her anti-Marcos political activism by giving speeches all over the United States and joining the activities of other political activists in exile, who tried to lobby for U.S. support against the regime.'”” Her published official biography ends with her decision to return to the Philippines shortly after the FDSA revolution. Since then she has fulfilled her previous frustrated political ambitions as vice mayor of Quezon City

(1992-1995), only to lose office in the May 1995 elections. (She ran for mayor in 1986 but lost to a movie actor named Simon Sotto.) In fact, as is customary, or modus operandi, for most candidates running for political office, her official biography (of 1991) was probably published as campaign material in time for elections. Taking the perspective of her life as one of political activism, the book entitled Escape! concentrated on her activities during the martial law period, magnifying her “sufferings” in the United States, for example, saying that she had to take menial jobs (such as delivering pizzas), wash dishes, and drive herself all around America to disseminate information about the Marcos regime and keep the flame of activism burning. In the book, her political ambitions were not given mention. But like the other political activists apart from the nuns, such as Doris, Karen, and the women of the CPP, Charito hoped to someday hold the symbols of power in a male-dominated political arena. In contrast to Karen and Doris,

however, Charito achieved her political goal, if only for a brief period (1992-1995). Moreover, in her political campaigns Charito stressed her po-

litical imprisonment and political activism, both in the Philippines and abroad; in this sense she shunned the traditional female roles that were associated with female power: women’s roles in education, health, civic work, and social welfare. Actually, she had involved herself in civic work prior to her career as political activist. She was a volunteer worker at the V. Luna Memorial Hospital, a donor of kindergarten school equipment, and a member of the Philippine Social Welfare Management and Quezon City

Youth Development Foundation Inc.'°? While she made much of these civic activities in her political campaigns prior to the 1970s, after the 1986 revolution she emphasized her career as political activist and, if the official biography’s perspective is taken as a source, she endured the many sacrifices and deprivations in the name of nationalism. She described herself as an activist rather than a politician.'°? Very much in the tradition of politicians’ commissioned hagiographies, her official biography gives us the image she has chosen to present: an activist but not necessarily a woman activist. Overseas, political activism against the Marcos regime (particularly in the United States) was equally male dominated. ‘The Movement for a Free Philippines (MFP), headed by Raul Manglapus, was male dominated, di-

rected by an all-male leadership. Senators Jovito Salonga and Benigno Aquino Jr., Heherson Alvarez, and Steve Psinakis, the most prominent expatriates or political exiles in opposition, were male. Psinakis’s wife, Presen-

146 , Women, Power, and Kinship Politics tacion Lopez, was one of the few active spouses. Charito Planas, along with Cecile Guidote (wife of Heherson Alvarez) for the arts and Carmen Pedrosa, who wrote the unofficial biography of Mrs. Marcos, number among the very tiny handful of women political activists in exile abroad. Planas

nevertheless pointed out that the Friends of the Filipino People (United States—based) had a membership that included men and women of almost equal proportions.''° In the only political office she held, Charito as vice mayor was the first local politician to create a Women’s Desk in all police stations in the entire country. Her aim was to train policewomen to help battered women, who. had nowhere to turn (previously the police had considered domestic violence a family matter and therefore not a problem of the state). Despite her pioneering Women’s Desks for local government and her project that inaugurated Women’s Week celebrations in Quezon City, she was quick to retort; ‘I don’t want to be called a feminist.”"'! A concern for women’s issues was expected of all women in power. Though her concern for women may be genuine, Planas, like other women activists, refused to be associated with the negative connotations surrounding the label “feminism.” In a follow-up interview in 1996, however, Planas did some political posturing by saying she was a feminist but not really a feminist.'!

These capsule case studies of women activists provide us with another _ , category of women in radical politics apart from the militant nuns. All were reformists, passionate advocates for human rights and reforms. The Social Democrats wanted to alter the structures of society in theory; however, once in power, as Karen ‘Tafiada observed of former KASAPI members, they failed to live up to their ideals. Activities in their groups remained structured

along gendered lines, with women usually marginalized into roles that stressed the cultural construction of femininity and womanhood, that is, care

of children, cooking, cleaning, and secretarial or treasurer roles. They all hoped to acquire political power, in general running for political office after 1986 or, in the case of Justice Palma, during martial law, with some actually gaining political office (Planas). In contrast to the feminist radical nuns, these

reformist women were reluctant to call themselves feminist. Doris Nuval (separated from husband Baftrey), Karen Tafiada, and Charito Planas, though single career women, were not prepared to declare themselves feminists—despite the fact that Karen Tafiada works for women NGOs. ‘To these radical women political activists, feminism was still an F-word, though I defined feminism for them in very broad terms—anyone who wanted to view issues from a woman’s perspective. Their political activism was hardly structured along gendered lines. “They did not participate in activism as ~ women. While that is not necessarily a criticism of their ideology or behavior, it is certainly a direct contrast to the assertive self-representation of the

militant nuns.

Women in Radical Politics 147 BURGEONING FEMINIST GROUPS INVOLVED IN , POLITICAL ACTIVISM The first outrightly radical feminist organization in the republican era (1945-1972), MAKIBAKA (Malayang Kilusan ng Bagong Kababaihan, or Free Movement of New Women) began as an offshoot of the Kabataan Makabayan (Nationalist Youth). It was organized initially to mobilize women as part of the student activism of the late 1960s and early 1970s, which protested social injustices, the Vietnam War, U.S. influence on domestic affairs, oil prices, inflation, the Marcos government’s fascist tendencies, and the wide disparity between the rich and the poor. Under the leadership of Lorena Barros, MAKIBAKA developed feminist consciousness. The aims of the MAKIBAKA were: “‘a) [to] mobilize Filipino women into greater participation in society, b) to expose cultural imperialism, and c) to liberate Filipino women from social discrimination and sexual exploitation.’ In the words of Lorena Barros: “The principal problem is our culture that subordinates women to men; MAKIBAKA aims to project this problem in the context of the national democratic struggle. It is to present more dramatically the need for emancipation and involvement.”!'* Influenced by Maoist ideology, MAKIBAKA grappled with the woman question by associating it with the power of four authorities—political, clan, religious, and male, all components of the feudal-patriarchal ideology that was the source of women’s oppression.''? On the other hand, MAKIBAKA

also reflected its connections with Western radical feminism when it launched its organization in a protest outside the Miss Philippines beauty contest. Locked into the frameworks of Western feminism and Marxist feminism, it had not yet gone beyond grafting imported feminist theories into the Philippine situation. A summary of MAKIBAKA’s perspective by a mem-

ber reflecting on it more than a decade later revealed a viewpoint closely associated with both Western radical feminism and Marxist feminism: Makibaka proclaimed that the semi-feudal character of Philippine society subjugated

the women to the men, moulded the women into the shy and conservative Maria Clara, and defined her function primarily as child-bearers and housekeepers; while the semicolonial nature of the society gave rise to the commercialization of sex and made women the playthings of men. Ergo, women can only liberate themselves by joining the struggle for nationalism and democracy. It was a credible though simple theory which basically answered the question of how to involve women in the people’s struggle and the proper place of a women’s movement in the history that is being made.''¢

The first phrase of this quote showed the beginnings of a criticism of Filipino constructions of the feminine, had the specific traits of Maria Clara been defined. Placing the woman question in the context of Philippine con-

148 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics ditions up until today, however, has only begun. One scholar contends itis only in its formative stage.''’ Perhaps because this protofeminist group was born at the height of student activism and in the midst of “national liberation” struggles, tensions between feminism and nationalism prevented any sophisticated theorizing of feminism and its adaptation to the Philippine cultural matrix. In fact, the tension was resolved in favor of nationalism, where women were pressured to keep feminist concerns or women’s issues secondary in importance to the aims of national liberation, a prioritization

| that characterized women’s activist groups all the way into the 1980s. In , effect, national liberation was seen as a prerequisite to women’s liberation.''® ~ Such a concession hindered the development of feminism in the Philippines. While the men, including the young student radicals of the 1970s, succeeded

in convincing the women that women’s issues were a “luxury” hardly as ‘important as greater national issues, the word “feminist” was constantly

avoided: a | ,

Makibaka members in fact, refused to be identified as feminists, as the term connoted militants who were concerned with purely women’s issues and who prioritize these

over national political issues. Besides, the strong nationalist sentiments among the women then made them wary of a blind acceptance of the ideology of feminism that was considered as foreign in origins and therefore alien to our local experiences.'!”

This fear of being branded feminists permeated women activists to the extent

_ that “local libbers had been (and still are) haunted by the ghost of the word ‘feminist.’ The word stalks here like a plague, and very few women, despite their overtly feminist leanings, would admit to espousing feminism.’’’?° The

, first feminist group members refused to be labelled feminists, and even today women political activists evade the word; thus the militant nuns, albeit not the first ones to behave like feminists, are the first and only ones to declare themselves outrightly feminist. And though they trace their feminist awakening only to the late 1970s and early 1980s (most of them very recently), the nuns have emerged as some of the first “official” feminists in contemporary Philippine history. They are genuinely dedicated to women’s issues as opposed to mouthing women’s liberation only as rhetoric for acquiring votes to gain official power. _ MAKIBAKA was dominated by young students, although it also incorporated the mothers of these students (who were initially drawn in and po-

| liticized as chaperones for their daughters),'*’ as well as women workers, — peasants, housewives, and professionals.'*? But MAKIBAKA never selfconsciously thought to enlarge its membership, for example, by mobilizing the mothers further or extending its membership beyond the students.’?7 In any case, its potential as a burgeoning feminist movement was never realized, as martial law forced it to go underground, aborting prematurely its mutation into a probable feminist movement with a nationalist orientation or,

Women in Radical Politics 149 alternatively, a nationalist movement with a feminist orientation. Some of the MAKIBAKA members, like Lorena Barros, joined the communist left as

a guerrilla of the National Democratic Front, while others went underground or simply left the movement. Lorena Barros herself became a martyr for the cause; interestingly, she is remembered as a nationalist heroine, not as a feminist, in the file in her honor at the Bantayog Foundation Library, where she was nominated to be one of the nine women heroes of contemporary Philippines.'?* With the premature silencing of MAKIBAKA, the development of feminist organizations in the Philippines was aborted. Apart from the nuns, women activists of the martial law period, as discussed, were part of larger organizations of men and women or were independent political activists or reformists. Women’s organizations that took on a feminist orientation appeared only very recently, beginning with PILIPINA, founded by Sister Mary John Mananzan in 1978. Even the women’s organizations that bloomed after the assassination of Aquino in 1983 were not feminist in orientation; feminist issues only acquired full priority after 1986. ‘Thus after MAKIBAKA in 1971-1972, no other consciously feminist organization ex-

isted until 1978 (PILIPINA), followed by KALAYAAN and then GABRIELA, which only became consciously feminist in 1986. In this sense, MAKIBAKA can be seen as an aberration in the pattern of the development of women’s activist/feminist politics in the post-war era. The assassination of Senator Benigno Aquino Jr. at the Manila International Airport in August 1983 unleashed previously stored up sentiments of outrage, frustration, anger, and resentment against the martial law regime and its head, President Ferdinand Marcos. Thousands braved arrest and took

to the streets, at first meeting in churches or while jogging or attending mass, and then defying the law by joining peaceful rallies, particularly in the Makati financial district. ‘These rallies were supported by the middle class

and the business elite. Many groups were formed to politicize the public, who for more than a decade were banned from expressing and discussing politics in assemblies and rallies. Some examples included ATOM (August Twenty-One Movement), formed by Aquino’s brother Butz; JAJA (Justice for Aquino, Justice for All); Laurel’s UNIDO, already organized prior to 1983; Bandila, the soc-dem groups; Coalition for the Restoration of Democracy (CORD); and KAABAY. It was at this point that activist women, or women in opposition to the Marcos government, began to organize as women. Their aims were primarily to mobilize women as a gendered force and to politicize them against the regime. Into the scene burst Women for the Ouster of Marcos (WOMB), the Alliance of Women for Action Toward Reconciliation (AWARE), and Women Writers in Media Now (WOMEN), composed of middle-class women. Samahan ng Makabayang Kababaihan (SAMAKA), composed of women students and youth, Concerned Artist of the Philippines Women’s Desk, and Kilusan ng Manggagawang Kababaihan (KMK) were others with a broader range of class membership. Some peasant

150 , , Women, Power, and Kinship Polttics groups who were still active were KaPaPa (Katipunan ng Bagong Pilipina)

and Amihan.'’? KaPaPa members were mostly peasant women, urban poor workers, and housewives. Its basic focus was the education of grassroots women.'?° The CWP and the TFD were still active, as well as the Third

World Movement Against the Exploitation of Women (T'W-MAE-W), formed in response to Japanese sex tours and prostitution in the military bases and then later expanding its issues of concern to include the mailorder bride phenomenon (the “export” overseas of Filipina brides, who proved to be victims of domestic violence, murder, and other forms of victimization), and Filipino prostitutes abroad, particularly the Jappayukis in _ Japan. There was also the KALAYAAN (Katipunan ng Kababaihan Para sa | Kalayaan), founded by some who had experienced detention and were consciously feminist in orientation. Scholar Leonara Calderon Angeles, who has

| written an excellent thesis on the history of the woman question in the Philippines, credits KALAYAAN with its clearly feminist orientation: “From

the very start, KALAYAAN was the strongest proponent of a rigorous theoretical understanding of the woman question in the Philippine context.’’'’’ It raised issues of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, pornography,

and abortion. Along with PILIPINA,

they were among the first ones to apply the term feminism to their framework of , analysis as they both recognize its compatibility with the goals of national liberation - and democracy. They did this at a time when the label “feminist” was still unpopular and associated with many pejorative connotations due to Western media projection

of feminism and women’s liberation.!?° As for the militant nuns, there was the Association of Women in ‘Theology

(AWT) and the Kapisanan ng mga Madre sa Kamaynilaan (KMK). Inter, estingly, Sisters Mariani, Christine, and Mary John were not associated with either group and were unaware of their activities. With the exception of PILIPINA and KALAYAAN, most of these groups were not specifically _

feminist in orientation, their main agenda being to organize women as a , political pressure group against the Marcos regime. They distinguished | themselves from the male-dominated group by their motives, as they did not outrightly aim to claim official power as a group. Like the traditional women’s groups organized in previous times for the mobilization of women for some male kin political candidate, women organized other women, only this time it was not on behalf of a candidate but for the purpose of protest politics aimed at the overthrow of Marcos. No longer were they just campaigning for a male candidate. Perhaps women at this stage were also weary of becoming mere followers of male-dominated organizations where leadership positions were denied to them. Forming women’s groups allowed them to exercise that leadership. Eventually, the groups began to see their impact as a gendered force, and slowly, perhaps influenced by the few fem-

Women in Radical Politics 15] inist organizations, exhibited the first stirrings of gender awareness, developing a gendered outlook in their political protest. For instance, middle-class women dressed in white led prayers at rallies; middle-class women picketed Rustans (an up-scale department store cum supermarket owned by a close friend of Imelda Marcos, Mrs. Gliceria ‘Tantoco). A woman’s vocal duet eroup called Inang Laya (Mother Freedom) sang anti-Marcos songs at rallies. Thus, as women, they held their own rallies and demonstrations, facing the WACs or policewomen sent to contain them. hey marched for a nuclearfree Philippines,'?? held a Women’s Day of Protest,'*° celebrated International Women’s Week with a militant march in honor of Gabriela Silang,'?’ and held conventions on ‘“The Significance of Women’s Social and Political Action in the Present National Crisis.’”’!*? Finally, in March 1984, these loose groups of women’s organizations co-

alesced to form GABRIELA (General Assembly Binding Women for Reforms, Integrity, Equality, Leadership and Action). GABRIELA was chaired first by Fe Arriola and then by Sister Mary John Mananzan, and led by other activist women like Maita Gomez and Nelia Sancho, former beauty queens who joined the Communist Party in the hills, and women of the upper class like Dr. Mamita Pardo de ‘Tavera. At that time there were about 50 organizations in Manila and 38 in Mindanao who affiliated with GABRIELA.!? By 1992 GABRIELA had 120 organizations affliliated with it, though it is believed that more than 200 women’s organizations now exist.'** At its inception, GABRIELA was interested in harnessing women’s power for the

anti-Marcos dictatorship rather than in advocating specific feminist or women’s issues vital to the struggle against the dictatorship or in challenging the patriarchal notions in the culture that have kept women from leadership positions in power or oppressed them in society. According to GABRIELA

founder Fe Arriola, _ Initially we thought of harnessing women’s power for the anti-Marcos dictatorship campaign, but at the same time we did harness in terms of women’s power to give them some kind of advocacy, some sense of women’s power. Once you organize women, you already give them some sort of power—some step outside of their usual roles.'*°

Thus, although feminism was not in the agenda for the formation of women’s groups for political activism, their highly gendered structure began

to elicit gender awareness, and as members began to see themselves as women, they developed a gendered outlook and a realization that they could attain power as a women’s group. Arriola asserted that GABRIELA was interested in political power and later in changing society so that women would have a say in government. It was through bonding together in political activism that women realized that they were relegated to background positions in organizations of men and women:

152 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics One of the issues was when women rally they are always made either member of the finance committee, or in charge of finance or in charge of the food, but anyway they are always in the background; they are in the foreground only when they have to face the military. In that, ...the military will not strike the women, but all the assumptions were in a sense anti-feminist, so we were in a sense harping against that.

, Look, we are a force unto ourselves.!*°

While not criticizing directly the gendering of politics, the women of _ GABRIELA began to see the potential of women’s power and attempted to unite women’s groups of all flavors under its umbrella. After 1986 some | groups broke away, contending that GABRIELA had become too leftist, but 120 organizations still remain under its wing. More important, the organization tapped women to become future politicians, avoiding the traditional practice of grooming women only to be the support group of male politi-

clans. ,

| After Marcos was deposed in 1986, GABRIELA became increasingly more

, feminist in orientation, viewing issues from a more gendered perspective. Interest focused on mail-order brides; prostitution; rape; domestic violence and battered women; the problem of the comfort women of the Japanese Occupation years; domestic helpers and maids in Singapore, Hongkong, and

the Middle East; pornography; and sex tourism. In her master’s thesis on the history of the feminist movement in the Philippines, Leonora Angeles saw the period 1986 to the present as “the stage of developing more rigorously the feminist orientation for the women’s movement.”!*’ Questions on feminism and nationalism or the ideological orientations of specific women’s activist groups do not interest me as much as the way in - which many of these groups reflect how activism was gendered (militant nuns

and other women activists) or, as in the case of MAKIBAKA and GABRIELA and the other post-1983 women’s organizations, how they evolved _ from support groups for the male or the cause, to sources for tapping women _ for political issues, to organizations experimenting with women as a political

pressure group, and finally to feminist organizations supporting women can- | didates for office. GABRIELA supported its prominent members Nelia San- _

cho and Nikki Coseteng when they ran for Congress and the Senate.

_ While scholars writing on women and politics in the Philippines (and elsewhere in Southeast Asia) tend to focus only on women activists, inter-

- preting them as the sublime example of empowered women or political — agents in the Philippines or Southeast Asia, the experience of women activists in post-war Philippines disproves this viewpoint. Women activists, with the exception of militant nuns, have enjoyed less power in post-war Philippines than their sisters who exerted unofficial power. These women activists,

who shunned kinship politics and women’s exercise of unofficial power within their group, were eventually marginalized from official power by the

Women in Radical Politics 153 male leadership of the radical organizations they joined. Deprived of official power and refusing to exercise unofficial power, women activists were prac-

tically impotent. Compared to their sisters who practiced kinship politics, women activists were severely limited in functioning as political agents, their leadership roles hardly commensurate with their contribution to the movement. The militant nuns, on the other hand, appear to have negotiated the con-

flict and contradictions between feminism, modernity, traditional kinship politics, and the gendering of power to their advantage. As feminists, they spoke up for women’s issues and women’s rights. Ironically, while rejecting official power (not a feminist stance), they became very effective practitioners of moral power behind the scenes. ‘The nuns, though feminist in orientation,

embraced unofficial power and thus became more formidable critics of the social and political structures of the country than the women activists of the CPP or the KASAPI or even the terrorists of the April 6th Liberation Movement. Perhaps feminists would do well to study the example of the militant nuns: avowed feminists who, in exploring moral power, were able to maximize women’s empowerment as religious. Be that as it may, the history of women’s activism in post-war Philippines reveals an evolutionary feminine politics. It is women’s involvement in activist politics that awakens them to the possibilities of women’s empowerment as a group. In the 1960s, they began to form women’s exclusive activist organizations with feminist overtones (MAKIBAKA). During the martial law period, while some women joined radical groups in which they were mar-

ginalized from leadership positions by men, these women made clear con- , tributions to the activist movement, in a few cases even compelling the men,

no doubt grudgingly, to assign them to critical positions. Having gained from their experience in the TFD, the militant nuns realized the potential of their moral power, turning it into their forte in the 1986 revolution. As a representative of all activists in the martial law period, the fictional movie character Sister Stella L. attested to the visibility of the woman as militant. It was during martial law, however, through the process of organizing as a support group for the victims of the Marcos dictatorship, followed later by acting as champion of human rights causes, that women became alert to the possibilities of women’s empowerment as a group. At last they could claim leadership roles in their own exclusively women’s organizations. In the same vein, the women who organized themselves into exclusive women’s groups protesting the assassination of Senator Benigno Aquino in 1983 discovered that political involvement gave them a voice in a way that was different from

the unofficial power that kinship politics assigned them. The women’s groups that mushroomed after 1983 and demanded the resignation of Marcos and a return to democratic institutions were not campaigning for a male relative or practicing kinship politics. Instead, they had risked their lives for modern democratic values, and in the process, discovered the potential of

154 Women, Power, and Kinship Polttics women’s power. Participation in activist politics empowered them in new ways, and this inspired them to seek office themselves, to form a women’s political party (KAIBA), and to transform GABRIELA into an actively fem-

inist organization that specialized in women’s issues. ,

NOTES ,

1. This is corroborated by other scholars. See Leonora Angeles, “Feminism and Nationalism: The Discourse on the Woman Question and Politics of the Women’s Movement in the Philippines” (M.A. thesis, University of the Philippines, 1989); and Anne-Marie Hilsdon, Madonnas & Martyrs: Militarism and Violence in the Philippines (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1995).

2. On feminism and nationalism, see Angeles, “Feminism and Nationalism,” and Hilsdon, Madonnas; on the feminist perspectives and/or feminist scholars, see Nellie Nacima Hyndman, “Speaking for the ‘Filipina’ Feminist Scholars and National Liberation in the Philippines” (B.A. honors thesis, Australian National University, 1992); for accounts of women’s groups and women’s groups that were politically active, see Aida F. Santos-Maranan, “Do Women Really Hold Up Half the Sky?” in Essays on Women, ed. Mary John Mananzan (Manila: Institute of Women’s Studies, St. Scholastica’s College, 1991); Aurora Javate J. De Dios, “Participation of Women’s Groups in the Anti-Dictatorship Struggle: Genesis of a Movement,” in Women’s Role in Philippine History: Selected Essays, 2nd ed. (Quezon City: University Center for Women’s Studies, University of the Philippines, 1996); Maita

Gomez, “Women’s Organizations as Offshoots of National Political Movements,” in Essays on Women, ed. Mary John Mananzan (Manila: Institute of Women’s Studies, St. Scholastica’s College, 1991); Salome Ronquillo, “MAKIBAKA Remembered,” — Diliman Review, 42, no. 3-4 (May—August 1984), Luzviminda C. ‘Tancangco, “Voters, Candidates, and Organizers: Women and Politics in Contemporary Philippines,” in Filipino Women and Public Policy, ed. Proserpina Domingo Tapales (Manila: Kalikasan

, Press, 1992); and for the feminist scholars’ perspective, see Delia D. Aguilar, The Feminist Challenge, Initial Working Principles Toward Reconceptuahzing the Feminist Movement in the Philippines (Metro-Manila: Asian Social Institute and World Association for Christian Communication, 1988); and Aguilar, “Toward a Reinscription of Nationalist Feminism,” Review of Women’s Studies 4, no. 2 (1994-1995).

, 3. Except Aurora J. de Dios, who provides a general, two-paragraph description of the militant nuns. Most of the studies have been excellent, in particular, the M.A.

thesis by Angeles, “Feminism and Nationalism.” ,

, 4. Though one activist nun, Sister Christine Tan, was a member of the constitutional commission that wrote the new 1986 constitution.

a 5. Hyndman, “Speaking.” 6. Interview with Sister Mariani Dimaranan, Quezon City, Metro-Manila, February 3, 1995. , 7. Ibid.

, 8. Quoted in “Midwives for Change: Militant Nuns Here to Stay,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, February 5, 1995, p. 18.

9, Quoted in interview with Sister Mariani Dimaranan.

Women in Radical Politics 155 10. Interviews with Sister Mary John Mananzan, Manila, Metro-Manila, February 4, 1994, and July 20, 1995.

11. Interview with Sister Christine Tan, Malate, Metro-Manila, February 7, 1995.

12. Interview with Sister Mary John Mananzan, July 20, 1995. 13. Angeles, “Feminism and Nationalism”; Santos-Maranan, “Do Women?” 14. Hilsdon, Madonnas. 15. Hyndman, “Speaking.” 16. Elizabeth U. Eviota, “The Social Construction of Sexuality,” in Sex and Gender in Philippine Society, ed. Elizabeth U. Eviota (Manila: National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women, 1994). 17. For an essay arguing that the Filipino cultural construction of gender that assigns women the role of wife and mother is absolutely essential for symbolic capital, using the case study of Filipina women migrants for marriage in Australia, see Mina Roces, “Kapit sa Patalim (Hold on to the Blade): Victim and Agency in the Oral Narratives of Filipino Women Married to Australian Men in Central Queensland,” in Lila Asia-Pacific Women’s Studies fournal, no. 7 (1997).

18. This point is also made by Santos-Maranan in “Do Women?” pp. 42-50. 19. Interview with Sister Mariani Dimaranan, president of the Task Force Detainees.

— 20. Liberation, November 12, 1973, pp. 1-2. Copy available from the Cultural Center of the Philippines Library. 21. Ibid. 22. Interview with Sister Mariani Dimaranan. 23. “Madre, Nakatakas sa mga Pasista,” Ang Bayan, February 28, 1978, p. 11; “Sister Jo and Her Brush with Urban White Terror,” Balita ng Malayang Pilipinas, February 25, 1978, p. 14. Both underground papers are in the collection held at Cultural Center of the Philippines Library. 24. Sr. Mary Bernard, “Remembering Sr. Mary Bernard Jimenez,” profile, Philippine Human Rights Update, December 15—January 14, 1990, no page; Mila Astorga-

Garcia, “Sr. Mary Bernard, Religious Activist,” October 4, 1984, no page. Both articles are in the file of Sr. Mary Bernard held at the Bantayog ng mga Bayani Foundation Library, Pasig, Metro-Manila. 25. Pahatid Kapatid, April, June, July, August 1980, April, May, June, July, August 1981, and March, April, May, August 1982, March, August 1985. In the Armando Malay papers collection, University of the Philippines Library, Quezon City, Metro-

Manila. ,

26. Pahatid Kapatid, May—June 1981, p. 2.

27. Angeles, “Feminism and Nationalism,” pp. 175-76. ‘This type of work was corroborated by Doris Nuval (Baffrey), who was imprisoned for five years during martial law for her involvement in the bombing of the conference of the American Society of Travel Agents when she was a member of the terrorist organization, the April 6th Liberation Movement. Interview with Doris Nuval, Quezon City, MetroManila, February 4, 1996. 28. Interview with Sister Mary John Mananzan, July 20, 1995. 29. Interview with Sister Mariani Dimaranan. 30. Interview with Sister Mariani Dimaranan; interview with Sister Mary John Mananzan, July 20, 1995; interview with Sister Christine ‘Can, chair of ‘TFD.

32. Ibid. , 20, 34.1996. Ibid. ,,

156 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics 31. Interview with Sister Mariani Dimaranan.

33. Interview with Sister Soledad Perpifian, Quezon City, Metro-Manila, April

— 35 Interview with Sister Christine Tan. 36. Interview with Sister Mary John Mananzan, July 20, 1995.

37. Interview with Karen Tafiada, Quezon City, Metro-Manila, February 7, — 1996.

Metro-Manila, July 11, 1995. , 38. Interview with Supreme Court Justice Cecilia Mufioz Palma, Quezon City,

39. Interview with Vice Mayor Charito Planas, Quezon City, Metro-Manila, July 5, 1995; Chic Fortich, Escape! Charito Planas: Her Story (Quezon City: New Day

Publishers, 1991). , _

1995, , ,

40. Interviews with Sister Mary John Mananzan, February 4, 1994, and July 20, — 41. Szster Stella L., 1984.

, 42. There are some scholars who have examined status and constructions of the feminine in prehistorical Philippines (especially the Babaylans—priestesses) and

44. Ibid.

nineteenth-century Philippines. — , 43. Interviews with Sister Mary John Mananzan, February 4, 1994 and July 20,

1995; interview with Sister Christine Tan; interview with Sister Mariani Dimaranan.

45. See Sr. Mary John Mananzan, ed., Essays on Women (Metro-Manila: The _ Institute of Women’s Studies, St. Scholastica’s College, 1987); Mananzan, ed., _ Woman and Religion (Metro-Manila: The Institute of Women’s Studies, St. Scholastica’s College, 1988, rev. ed. 1992); Fe Mangahas and Sr. Mary John Mananzan, eds., Sarilaya: Women in Arts and Media (Metro-Manila: The Institute of Women’s Studies, St. Scholastica’s College, 1989); and Mananzan, The Woman Question in the Philippines, pamphlet (Metro-Manila: The Institute of Women’s Studies, St. Scholastica’s

College, n.d.). Sister Mary John is also on the editorial board of Lila Asia Pacific , Women’s Studies fournal, published by ‘The Institute of Women’s Studies, St. Scho-

lastica’s College.

46. The point that this perspective is only beginning to be introduced into feminist discourse in the Philippines is also made by Aida F. Santos-Maranan. See Santos-Maranan, “Do Women?” pp. 46 and 50. The work of Elizabeth Eviota is one of the few that addresses this issue. See Eviota, ‘“The Social Construction of Sexu-

ality.” ,

, 47. Jose F. Lacaba, tape reporter, “Sister Mary John Mananzan: Christian and Citizen,” periodical and date not mentioned, filed in Sister Mary John Mananzan’s 7 personal scrapbook, Nursia, The Institute of Women’s Studies, St. Scholastica’s Col-

— Jege, Manila. , | , 48. Interview with Sister Christine Tan. , 49. International Viewpoint, N. 145, (July 11, 1988), pp. 14 and 16.

50. Neomi Tanedo Olivares, “ ‘Erring’ Catholic Leaders,” letters, newspaper _ publication not identified, in the scrapbook on Sister Christine Tan, compilation of

, newspaper clippings about her activities held by her godchild Paulette, Women’s Desk, Association of Major Religious Superiors, Quezon City, Metro-Manila.

Women in Radical Politics 157 51. “Our Feminism Needs a Third World Perspective,” Manila Standard, April 21, 1987, p. 5.

52. Catherine Custodio, “A Consistent Voice and Will for the Filipino Poor,” The Manila Chronicle, October 14, 1986, p. 13. 53. Olivares, “ ‘Erring’ Catholic Leaders.” — 54. Interview with Sister Christine ‘Tan. 55, “Existing Contradictions,” Malaya, June 18, 1987, n.p., filed in the scrapbook

on Sister Christine ‘Tan. ,

56. Interview with Sister Christine ‘Tan. 57. Ibid. 58. Interview with Sister Soledad Perpifian. 59. Donald Goertzen, ‘““Working and Praying for Peace,” Midweek, March 9, 1988, p. 3. 60. “Friendship Day,” The Manila Evening Post, n.d., n.p., in the scrapbook on Christine ‘Tan. 61. Interview with Sister Christine ‘Tan.

62. Sister Christine Tan, ‘““The Man Whose Life Had No Doors and No Walls,” Sunday Inquirer Magazine, March 8, 1987, n.p., in the scrapbook on Sister Christine ‘Tan.

63. Ibid. , 64. Interview with Sister Christine Tan; Catherine Custodio, “A Consistent

1988, p. 1. , ,

Voice and Will for the Filipino Poor.” 65. “Sister Christine Tan Playing Down the Cory Cult,” Midweek, March 9, 66. “Prominent Nun Hits Cory Gov’t,” c. May 1987, in the scrapbook on Sister Christine Tan (periodical not identified) of Major Religious Superiors, Quezan City, Metro-Manila; ““Nun Assails Gov’t as Elitist, Corrupt,” Star, May 16, 1987, n.p. in the scrapbook on Sister Christine ‘Van. 67. “Urban Poor Persecuted in ‘Calvary,’ Malaya, April 18, 1987, n.p. in the scrapbook on Sister Christine ‘Tan. 68. Teodoro Y. Montelibano, “Gov’t Prepares Expanded Land Reform Proeram,” n.d., n.p., in the scrapbook on Sister Christine ‘Tan. 69. Sister Christine Tan, “Sister Christine’s Personal Grief,” Letters to the Editor, n.p., n.d., in the scrapbook on Sister Christine ‘Tan (periodical not identified). 70. Personal communication with Sister Mary John Mananzan, Manila, February 22, 1996.

71. “Protests Spread Nationwide,” with picture caption “Nuns Are Once More in the Forefront of the Protest Marches,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, January 31, 1996,

p. I. 72. Interview with Sister Mariani Dimaranan. 73. Hilsdon, Madonnas, pp. 167-168; interview with Doris Nuval (Baffrey), political activist incarcerated with female members of the CPP. 74. Interview with Carolina “Bobbie” Malay, prominent leader in the Communist Party of the Philippines and wife of Satur Ocampo, prominent CPP leader, Quezon City, Metro-Manila, February 1, 1994. Bobbie Malay also had a leadership position in the party, though she confessed in the interview that her exact position was to remain classified information.

158 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics

76. Ibid., p. 75. ! 75. Hilsdon, Madonnas, p. 82.

77. Ibid.; interview with Carolina “Bobbie” Malay. 78. Interview with Doris Nuval, who was imprisoned with CPP women. 79. Ang Bayan, November 1984, p. 17.

80. Interview with Carolina “Bobbie” Malay.

in the early 1970s).

81. Interview with Karen Tafiada, KASAPI Chair in the 1980s (though she joined

82. Doris Nuval has been known in the activist movement as Doris Baffrey, her married name. Although separated from her husband, her father did not want her to use her maiden name at the height of her political activism because he was a close friend of President Ferdinand Marcos. Doris herself prefers the use of her maiden name, Nuval, so I will use that name in the text.

83. Interview with Karen ‘Tafiada. ,

84. On April 6, 1978, Metro-Manila had a noise barrage as a sign of protest _

against the martial law regime. |

85. Interview with Doris Nuval, Quezon City, February 4, 1996.

, 86. Ibid. For a good study on the gendering of militarism and violence in the Philippines, see Hilsdon, Madonnas.

87. Interview with Karen Tafiada. , ,

, 90. Ibid. , p. 345.

, , 93. Ibid. , , , 95. Ibid. 88. Interview with Doris Nuval, Quezon City. ,

89. Interview with Karen Tafiada.

91. Aura Ancheta-Sabilano, Valiant Women (Quezon City: Giraffe Books, 1995),

92. Interview with former Supreme Court Justice Cecilia Mufioz Palma.

94. Ibid.

, 96. Ibid.; Ancheta-Sabilano, Valiant Women, p. 249. — 97, Ancheta-Sabilano, Valiant Women, p. 249. 98. Interview with former Justice Cecilia Mufioz Palma.

99, Ancheta-Sabilano, Valant Women, p. 248. ,

100. Interview with former Justice Cecilia Mufioz Palma. |

101. “Faith, Truth, Justice, Freedom: A Souvenir of Recollections, Parangal Kay Justice Cecila Mufioz Palma, 80th Birthday Anniversary,’’ November 22, 1993, Ma-

nila Pavilion Hotel, Manila. . 102. Interview with former Justice Cecilia Mufioz Palma. ,

103. Leonor Ines Luciano, “Justice Cecilia Mufioz Palma: Feminist,” Philippine

Panorama, November 21, 1993, pp. 8-9. ,

104. Interview with former Justice Cecilia Mufioz Palma,

, 105. Fortich, Escape! pp. 1-71. 106. Interview with Charito Planas, July 5, 1995.

110. Ibid. , — 111. Thid. , 107. Fortich, Escape!, pp. 73-169. — 108. Ibid., pp. 13-17. , | 109. Interview with Charito Planas, July 5, 1995.

Women in Radical Politics 159 112. Interview with Charito Planas, Quezon City, Metro-Manila, March 21, 1996. 113. “Moving on Toward Women’s Deliverance,” Babaylan, no. 1 (1984), p. 36. 114. Quoted in ibid. 115. Angeles, “Feminism and Nationalism,” p. 149. 116. Ronquillo, “MAKIBAKA Remembered,” p. 51. 117. Santos-Maranan, “Do Women?” pp. 46 and 50. 118. Angeles, “Feminism and Nationalism.” 119. Ibid., p. 155. 120. Santos-Maranan, “Do Womenp” p. 49.

121. Interview with Ceres Alabado (one of those mothers who joined as her daughter’s chaperone), Quezon City, Metro-Manila, January 25, 1996. 122. Angeles, “Feminism and Nationalism,” p. 149. 123. Ronquillo, “MAKIBAKA Remembered,” p. 52. 124. File on Lorena Barros, Bantayog ng mga Bayani Foundation Library, Pasig, Metro-Manila. 125. Tancangco, “Voters, Candidates, and Organizers,” p. 70. 126. Angeles, “Feminism and Nationalism,” p. 172. 127. Ibid., p. 183. 128. Ibid., p. 185. 129. Mr.& Ms., September 21-27, 1984, pp. 25-27. 130. Francois Joaquin, ‘““Many Faces of Eve,” Mr. & Ms., November 1-7, 1985, pp. 12-14. 131. “Also for the Liberation of Men,” Mr. & Ms., March 8-14, 1985, pp. 34— 35,

132. Lita ’T. Logarta, “GABRIELA’s Women Cook Up Something,” Mr. & Ms., September 21-27, 1984, pp. 30-31. 133. Tancangco, “Voters, Candidates and Organizers,” p. 70. 134. Feminist Forum, in the feminist quarterly, Laya, 1, no. 2 (Second Quarter 1992), p. 32. 135. Interview with Fe Arriola, Makati, Metro-Manila, January 26, 1995. 136. Ibid. 137. Angeles, “I’eminism and Nationalism,” p. 240.

a Blank Page |

»

Beauty Queen, Moral Guardian, Inang Bayan, and Militant Nun: Images of Female Power Southeast Asian images of power for the male emphasize virility and potency.

These go back to precolonial attributes for kingship and leadership that idealized a leader with “soul stuff” or “spiritual potency”’ as a “man of prow-

ess.”! Though there is currently no study specifically on images of male power in contemporary Southeast Asian politics, studies on classical Southeast Asian states have discussed the images of Southeast Asian kings as men with soul stuff, while studies that touch on contemporary politics in Indonesia and the Philippines link virility and power with contemporary presi-

dents like Sukarno and Marcos, whose scandalous affairs with women enhanced their images as prestigious men of prowess.’ In contemporary Philippines, a man is expected to show virility and aggressiveness. ‘The machismo associated with war heroes, and more recently with the military, has been a

potent image associated with male power. In the past, President Marcos capitalized on an image of a bemedalled war hero, however fictitious its portrayal, as well as on the curious claim that a prominent nationalist church

leader had buried an anting anting [amulet] on his back. Images of male power are also reflected in the aggressiveness of investigative journalists and politicians who indulge in bomba, bombastic political exposé speeches. Why are images of female power only beginning to be examined in Southeast Asian studies? It is because in the past, women were rarely seen to be political agents unless they held political office. Since women were not seen to be empowered, the images of women have usually been associated with

162 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics the opposite phenomenon: victimization, exploitation, or motherhood. Thus the beauty queen, closely associated with woman as sex object, or woman as

, moral. guardian, closely associated with woman as mother, have not been generally linked to female power. ‘The images of female power I discuss apply to those few women who have held political office but just as well to the larger number of women who have held unofficial power through their kinship alliances with powerful male politicians—as wives, sisters, daughters,

mothers, or mistresses. ,

In the gendering of images of power, women are expected either to exude beauty or be moral guardians—or both. The image of motherhood is closely

tied to the image of the moral guardian, reified in the woman’s role in charity, civic organizations, education, and social work. Many women who | hold power have been involved in the administration of civic organizations _and in charity, holding the highest executive positions. Beauty contests are

- another women’s domain, and a title is an advantage if running for political

, office or if campaigning for male kin. The roots linking beauty and power may be traced to the fact that traditionally, regardless of their physical appearance, the titles of beauty queen were given to the daughters of very

prominent or wealthy families, thus confirming a link between beauty,

| power, and influence—malakas. , |

Even prior to the introduction of the formal beauty contest into the repertoire of Philippine pageants, the town’s beautiful women were honored in fiestas such as the May Santacruzan, where the town’s beauties reigned as Reyna Elena (Queen Elena) or Reyna de los Flores (Queen of the Flowers). It is difficult to document when exactly these titles began to be bestowed on women, but clearly the American period introduced the formal crowning of a Carnival Queen (one Filipino and one American) at the Manila Carnival held yearly since 1908.’ After Philippine independence the Miss Philippines beauty pageant replaced the traditional beauty contest that crowned Manila’s

, Carnival Queen. oo

The scholars who have analyzed images of women in Asia postulate that images of women can be artificially constructed by the state based on current state ideology and policy on gender issues. ‘This is obvious in authoritarian _ states, particularly Indonesia, Vietnam, and China. Thus, Krishna Sen’s work shows how President Suharto can promote and shift the emphasis in female images from “mothers” to “workers” as Indonesia increasingly participates in the globalization of the economy.* Beverley Hooper argues that the Chinese state since Deng Xiaoping has transformed the image of women from workers to housewives and consumers,* while Stephanie Fahey, Esta Ungar,

, and Viviane Lowe discuss how the state has manipulated images of Vietnamese women from revolutionaries in battle dress to contemporary beauty queens.° While I am not downplaying the role of the state in constructing _ female images per se (though my concern here is only on images of female power), and while not disagreeing with the overall propensity of the state to manipulate, negotiate with, and engage in image making—particularly of

Beauty Queen, Moral Guardian, \nang Bayan, and Militant Nun 163 women—let me present an alternative case, where it is not the state but kinship politics that constructs the image of the powerful woman. In addition, | argue that there are other agents, such as the global media, that construct images of female power. In this chapter, I look at the example of GABRIELA, the umbrella group for activist women, which has been proactive in the image making of the Filipina and female power. Since images of female power flow from the dynamics of kinship politics, when the martial law years altered the tenor of kinship politics, it consequently affected the imaging of female power. Martial law implied that only one family grouping could effectively practice kinship politics, since the abolition of elections put an end to opportunities for various families to compete for political office. Only women who were kin or allies of the patronage circle of the Marcos family could continue to hold unofficial power. Barred from opportunities to exercise power or become political agents in the tra-

ditional way, other women joined the radical opposition and the undereround Communist Party. With the assassination of Benigno Aquino, opposition women’s organizations mushroomed under the umbrella of GABRIELA, as women mobilized each other in a movement that culminated in the people power “revolution” of 1986. Such a political climate bred a different image of women political agents: the woman as militant. ‘Chis image was epitomized in the era by militant nuns, who courageously protested human rights abuses of the Marcos dic-

tatorship. As a counterpoint to the beauty queen image projected by the most powerful woman of the time, First Lady Imelda Romualdez Marcos, it was this image of the militant woman that dominated icons of female power. Though on face value it would seem that militant nuns and militant women could not possibly represent power, considering that they were, in political terms, confined to the fringes of power, in the final confrontation between male power (the military) and female power (militant nuns armed only with rosaries), it was female power that triumphed in the 1986 “revolution.” ‘The last image, that of Inang Bayan, or the suffering motherland, is more nebulous because it is an image that is subtly rather than blatantly projected by many powerful women. It is perhaps the one image that has remained

constant in the post-war years, a period when the Philippines has been viewed as a much maligned country, victimized by outside forces of postco-

lonialism as well as inside forces of corruption and plunder. I offer only some preliminary observations about this elusive image, one much sought after by women striving for official or unofficial power.

THE WOMAN AS MORAL GUARDIAN In the Philippines it is generally assumed that politics is “too dirty for women,” an excuse used by many males to deter women’s overt participation in politics.’ ‘hose women who entered politics directly, however, succeeded

164 Women, Power, and Kinship Pohtics in turning this image to their advantage by playing on the perception that women are untainted by dirty politics and therefore are less likely to engage in dirty tactics and corruption than men, an image projected conspicuously | in their political campaigns. ‘This was epitomized in Corazon Aquino’s campaign speeches, where she stressed her difference from President Marcos with the following much applauded statement: “I have to admit I have no experience in lying, cheating, stealing, killing political opponents.”® Thus women are expected to be guardians of morality, instinctively opposed to such issues as jueteng (gambling)? and womanizing. When womanizing became an issue in the 1992 presidential election, presidential candidate Miriam Defensor Santiago announced facetiously, “I can safely say that I am

not awomanizer.”'9

An examination of the careers and activities of the women politicians from 1945 to the present clearly demonstrates their strong involvement in charity work, civic and community work, education, and social work, often prior to

their election into office. In fact, one scholar who has written a profile on Filipino women politicians observes that almost all of them were active participants in civic and charity work.'' It is my contention that this characteristic extends also to women kin of male politicians, and politicians’ wives in particular. Thus even current president Fidel Ramos’s alleged former mis-

| tress, Rosemarie “Baby” Arenas, perceived to be extremely influential due to the fact that she was a major fund-raiser in the president’s campaign, is chair and founder of the Padre Pio Lend a Helping Hand Foundation. Before they made their political debuts, six out of the seven women senators who were in office between 1945 and 1972 were all active in civic or social welfare work, and the voters were made aware of their contributions = in these areas. During the republican era, involvement in the Philippine Red

Cross, the Catholic Women’s League, the Community Chest, and the Tu- | berculosis Society was most popularly associated with powerful women. Senator Geronima Pecson was for eighteen years the treasurer of the Associated

Charities, later assuming the positions of vice president and director.’” | Weekly Graphic pointed out that Pecson’s reputation “rode on a formidable _ wave of unquestioned civic and organizational work earning for her a seat in the United Nations and, at present, the directorship of the UNESCO in © the Philippines.”'? Both Senator Tecla San Andres Ziga and Senator Pacita Madrigal served as heads of the Social Welfare Administration (traditionally —

didacies. _ a |

the only cabinet position given to a woman) prior to their senatorial can-

, Senator Eva Estrada Kalaw’s reputation as an effective civic projects organizer was her springboard to senatorial candidacy.'* She was given the Outstanding Volunteer Social Worker of the Year award for her activities in around fifty civic organizations.'* These activities were outlined in the campaign literature circulated to advertise her candidacy and entice the elec-

- torate to vote for her. That these activities were closely identified with a

Beauty Queen, Moral Guardian, Inang Bayan, and Militant Nun 165 female candidate was obvious from the slogan underneath her picture, which declared her the kandidata ng kababaihan (women’s candidate) and the Ina ng Kawanggawa Pag-asa ng mga Dukha (mother of charity, hope of the poor and the suffering).’°

Senator Helen Benitez was known for her contributions to Philippine women’s education (she was president of the family-owned Philippine Women’s University )'’ and traditional Filipino performing art forms. Philippine Women’s University was the home of the Bayanihan Folk Arts Cen-

ter, which had a dance company and music ensemble specializing in the research and performance of traditional Filipino dancing Gncluding those of the tribal minorities). Benitez had immersed herself in civic work even before she became a strong advocate for women’s education. In 1942-1946 she was the Founding Chairman of the Volunteer Social Aid Committee (VSAC); between 1942 and 1946, president of the Catechetical Workers Association; and in 1940, founding chairman and member of the Central Committee of the Association of Girl Scouts of the Philippines.'® Senator Maria Kalaw Katigbak, a former Miss Philippines and a newspaper columnist, was closely associated with the Catholic Women’s League (CWL)

and the Girl Scouts of the Philippines. In fact, it was the women of the CWL and the Girl Scouts of the Philippines who campaigned for her and were her most active supporters.’’ It is not my intention to discount solid achievements apart from civic work credited to these women senators; Senator Tecla San Andres Ziga, for instance, topped the bar exams, while Sen-

ator Magnolia Antonino (the one least associated with social work) was named “Woman Executive of the Year” in 1957 for her record as general manager of three lumber corporations and secretary-treasurer as well as director of Antonino holdings in banks, schools, and other businesses.’? But despite their meritorious achievements in other areas, it is their accomplishments as civic workers that clearly positioned them as possible women can-

didates for political office.

Among the women politicians who were elected after 1986, former Coneresswoman Consuelo “Baby” Puyat-Reyes entered politics after a business

career as well as an active role as fund-raiser and campaign chair of the Philippine ‘Tuberculosis Society for twenty-five years.*' Another former Miss Philippines, Former Batasan Assemblywoman Edith Nakpil Rabat was likewise a major fund-raiser for the Philippine Red Cross, where she also organized the Miss Philippines Red Cross beauty contest to raise funds for the

Red Cross.” ,

Politicians’ wives were also expected to be involved in civic work. In the republican period (1945-1972), the Congressional Ladies Club and the Senate Ladies were expected to raise funds for the Philippine Red Cross and the victims of natural disasters. Practically all the First Ladies of that era were patrons of the Philippine Red Cross. In the post—martial law period, the Congressional Spouses Foundation Inc. (CSFI) was inaugurated for the

| 166 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics purpose of launching civic work projects.** In 1994, the CSFI built a center for women and children,”* were responsible for setting up a number of livelihood projects in depressed communities,’> and came to the aid of victims of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. The Senate Ladies, an organization paralleling

the CSFI, also involved itself in Mt. Pinatubo aid projects, as well as in environmental projects.*° During the martial law years (1972-1986), the Ba- — tasan Ladies’ Circle, under the aegis of Mrs. Marcos, set up projects such as the Balikatan (shoulder to shoulder) organized specifically for the creation

of livelihood projects focusing on women.?’ | A former vice president’s wife (she was active from the time her husband was senator), Celia Diaz Laurel was not only involved in theater patronage but received three international peace awards for her civic work. She received

the Community Chest United Nations Peace Award in 1987, the Impregno

, Per La Pace Roma (Commitment to Peace) in 1989, and the Woman for Peace Award from the Together for Peace Foundation in Madrid in 1991. | Her achievements include the founding of People’s Welfare Foundation Inc., which addresses the basic needs of the poor; the establishment of free medical and dental clinics; the inauguration of the Mother ‘Teresa home for the destitute in downtown Manila; and the creation of the Halika Foundation, which specializes in providing livelihood projects for the handicapped (one of her own children is handicapped).”* ‘The wife of Senator (and longtime secretary of defense under Marcos)

Juan Ponce Enrile was very active in the Philippine Red Cross, and for seventeen years was chair of the Philippine Eye and Infirmary, the Cerebral

Palsy Foundation, and the EFECTA Foundation for the blind. She also contributed funds toward the education of seminarians and is chair of Our Lady of Pia Foundation.’? Her accomplishments were recognized in 1994, when she received a Papal Award, the Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice, for service

to the church and the people through charity and church work.*° , Two of the more prominent women politicians since 1986 have closely identified themselves with moral crusades. Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, a presidential candidate in 1992, made her bureaucratic debut as Commissioner of immigration and deportation (CID) and subsequently built a reputation as a tough graft buster who was determined to rid that bureau of graft and corruption. Her number two priority was the persecution of pedophile syndicates.*' She founded the Movement for Responsible Public Service Inc. (MOVERS) in 1990, which was dedicated to the crusade against

the culture of corruption..? MOVERS published several of her manuals, which suggested practical solutions to everyday graft and corruption. How to Fight Graft and Corruption and How to Fight Election Fraud were published in 1991.°> Focusing on the reform of the culture of corruption as her cam-

paign platform, she reached the top in the poll surveys without a politica! , machine, without extensive funds, and without the backing of major political families. This was an unprecedented achievement in a political culture where

Beauty Queen, Moral Guardian, nang Bayan, and Militant Nun 167 all three were prerequisites for victory. In the final election count she lost (Miriam contends that she won in the voting but lost in the counting) but came in a very strong second to President Fidel Ramos, who not only had a massive political machine and access to campaign funds, but had the backing of the previous administration.

Another prominent woman politician who made moral issues a central focus of her political concerns is Senator Leticia Shahani, who launched the Moral Recovery Program in 1988. She began the program with Resolution No. 10, calling for a study of the strengths and weaknesses of the Filipino culture and character, which she felt would be necessary in the solution of the current nation’s problems.** Since then there has been a major seminar on moral recovery, and Shahani herself has published literature on the subject (both in English and Filipino), distributing them from her own office.** ‘The gist of Shahani’s message was that after an examina-

tion of Filipino values it would be possible to isolate the ones that have been detrimental to economic progress.*° Programs should then be designed to encourage the development of positive traits for development. In Shahant’s own words: I clearly saw that the sickness afflicting our country was moral in nature. As I said

in a privilege statement in the Senate: “it is my view that at the bottom of our economic problems and political instability is the weakness and corruption of the moral foundations of our society. We do need an economic recovery program; we also urgently need a moral, intellectual, and spiritual recovery program.” ‘The Senate therefore adopted a resolution sponsored by myself and Senators Romulo and Maceda to the effect that an inquiry be made by the Task Force into the strengths and weaknesses of the Filipino character with the view to strengthening the moral fiber of the nation.’’

Her program has now developed a momentum of its own, after being launched officially by none other than President Fidel Ramos (who happens to be the brother of Senator Shahan1) with the nongovernment organization (NGO) KABISIG movement as its official implementing arm. ‘The KABISIG People’s Movement National Operations Center is also headed by a woman, former senatorial candidate (she lost in 1992) Marietta Primictias Goco, a close friend of the Ramos family.’® In local politics, the vice mayor of Quezon City in 1992-1995, Charito Planas, raided the nightclubs and massage parlors of Quezon City, closing

down those that were fronts for prostitution. She was also known as the “Lady Drugbuster” because she was head of the Quezon City Anti-Drug Abuse Council (QCADAC).*? She was fulfilling her gendered role of woman as moral guardian, whereas her opponent in the 1995 elections, a male, did

not present a similar stand against the red light district of Quezon City. When she lost the elections, some attributed her defeat to those lucrative

168 , Women, Power, and Kinship Politics

support her male rival. | !

businesses affected by the “moral crusade” who pooled their resources to

BEAUTY _ The link between beauty and power is palpable in the Filipina. In Phil-

ippine culture, it is clear that women’s power is quite literally articulated , through a woman’s body. But contrary to the Western feminist perspective — that beauty is only associated with sexuality and therefore associated with the objectification of women, female beauty in the Philippine context is mobilized in quite culturally specific ways. This is not to deny or ignore other aspects of the society that do link beauty and sexuality with the objectification of women, for example, the pornographic media and the sex trade, where beauty and sexuality are linked with disempowered Filipino women such as prostitutes, Jappayukis, mail-order brides, and the infamous Brunei beauties. The point is that beauty (7aganda) in the Philippine cultural and linguistic context (see definition of maganda in chapter 1) refers not just to physical beauty but to conduct that is socially pleasing. A woman who is beautiful extols the virtues of her gender. Former First Lady and now Coneresswoman Mrs. Imelda Marcos showed acute insight into the Filipino mind-set when she expressed in an interview with this historian that her

| obsession with beauty was not tied simply to her belief that a woman’s role was to be beautiful. She observed that when she launched specific new projects, people would not ask: “Is the project a good one?” (““Magaling ba ang project na tyan?”’) but rather “Is the project beautiful?” (“Maganda ba?”’). Funny, the Filipino you ask [about] all my programs—convention center, Cultural Center, Folk Arts Theater, Heart Center, all of that—people will not say, “mahal

ba iyon, malaki ba iyon?” [“Is it expensive, is it big?”]... Never. “Yung project, maganda ba?” [The project, is it beautiful/nice?”’]...So you, the maker of that,

better make sure that the project is maganda [beautiful].*° , Apart from the conflation of the concept of maganda with all that is good, virtuous, successful, and beautiful, one cannot avoid its association with female power. In that sense it is distinctly gender specific, since the same beauty/power articulation does not necessarily translate into the male realm. Although standards of beauty are influenced by globalized notions of good grooming, fashion and glamor, of high heels, jewelry, perfume, and manicured nails, the relationship between beauty and power is dialectical: beauty can be a source of power, but closeness to power is also a source of beauty. It does not really matter whether the woman is in actual fact physically stunning; she can be reinvented as beautiful if she is a powerful woman who, in donning the outward trappings of fashionable dress, high heels, makeup, and manicured nails, conforms to the dictates of what is defined as beautiful

Beauty Queen, Moral Guardian, Inang Bayan, and Militant Nun 169 by the most respected institution for measuring beauty: the beauty contest. Attractive women candidates or spouses of candidates are often featured in popular and women’s magazines, “reinvented” as beauty queens or glamorous models. See photo 5.1, Senator Nikki Coseteng, and photo 5.2, senatorial candidate Mrs. Rosemarie “Baby” Arenas, alleged former mistress of President Fidel Ramos. The photo of Arenas, which graced the cover of Philippine Graphic, was taken prior to the media exposé that she was practicing kinship politics, two-and-a-half years before she ran for senator. As early as January 1993, barely a year before President Ramos was in office, she was already seen to be malakas. Mrs. Imelda Marcos’s thesis on the First Lady’s role as woman was inextricably linked with the woman as maganda: What was the woman’s role? ‘To be maganda, to be beautiful in body, in mind, and in spirit... This is how Mrs. Marcos has been really quite controversial because I have been true and committed to my role as maganda. ... Immediately after he became president, I asked him: “Darling, now that you are president, what is my role as First Lady?” He said: “I will build a strong house for the Filipino people. You make it a home.” And I said, ““What makes a home?” Love. What is love when made real? Beauty. So I said maganda again, my role as woman. I am going to make that strong house a home. Maganda. Magandang gawain |good deeds/works].”'

‘The site where the beauty/power articulation is most publicly expressed is the election campaign. Women in politics and women who have campaigned for their husbands or male kin have underscored the advantages of a woman’s attractiveness on the campaign trail.*” Senator Maria Kalaw Katigbak’s political campaign advertisements produced the slogan may ganda may utak (she has beauty, she has brains) with a picture of herself as reigning Carnival Queen of 1931.4° Mrs. Gretchen Coyuangco, wife of presidential

candidate Eduardo “Danding” Cojuangco Jr., remarked that many townspeople requested that she appear at rallies accompanied by the GLAD ladies (Gretchen’s Ladies Auxiliary for Danding) because they were perceived to be more attractive to look at than male candidates.** Imelda Marcos, in the whirlwind campaign of the 1986 snap election, criticized her husband’s opponent, Corazon Aquino, for not wearing makeup and neglecting to paint her nails. She accused Aquino of being “fan un-made-up and un-manicured non-beauty.”*” She judged Mrs. Aquino with the yardstick of woman’s role as beauty and found her lacking. Aquino’s victory despite her failure to live up to the beauty image was due to the fact that she ran at precisely the time

when it was attractive to appear to be the total antithesis of the Marcos regime and the female beauty/power icon that it represented. (As will be discussed later, the martial law years gave birth to a new image of female power—that of the woman as militant). President Aquino herself was never reinvented as “beautiful” despite holding the most powerful official position in the country. As chapter 3 has shown, this seeming anomaly is explained

Eee teicher ela teee See ee Sn eaten hc eae eatttRRR etal ateha aMON! CO eectRae aetna elec al ea ac Psa USE =eTcette eees ",aeo parisTSR BESS AOE EES RR IN OAS RRR RC ae ORS oR ramen RC ESS TIM FREED TT Sa Re een RR nnn ata stomata on nnnian meant aEseh eMTE Nea MEER a TS : 2eam SESE ea eR i cae[EER ee a eee Bee BERR ecient ri eaRenepA intend nati onneteretey haee Ln cenmacnusmtnm ne mance mete . % : 0: Seer

BSS SSS ESS SRS RRR RG SRR OER SR REO: . SERRE ae SERS SS eeeRR gcER omnes nieNO inte cutee meats RR SRR cee ee see - ee ESS RN a eS anor eS OE eC RE RR SRmace 2S ROee OE SROO OD AER SOE . a SRE SS aoe cee 2erate Oa Sree Sa nCRO ere aRRR SRN “cee ceGe eeORR ESUe 3 aABBE SEE ee Sc emerson he eran ane neregegne mens tes ecnai ean ee RR a inane RRR re ei ra nerna neers neers ana na meroremarune me nats mime meneame ee een aa - ERR SS

:

SERERESSSS Sr RR ae eccrcitation er at ae a Sy SS Ae SRS SESS acpi aR RN a petemncenns | :SESE ES es SE ee ht acct chest ton hn inn ee Ree openness o SRE ke ; ecceneeoe . BESS eee ARSON RR SRE ROR “aaaSEE Se:oe SEst“ SEE Bea SEES RRR eae SE Se St eaeSar peers7SRN aR ee oe ONS ersSR renee techRR ee SERN RSRS ROR hs OR RRR OREN Fone - ono EEE etSe . BeRoars EE Semeiahipisargie Roca npene ct RARE RR, RRR RRpimeree SORE SR RRO RneonRR OESu ORR OR ERS Ee ceOR BaRROD Shoe. SEeSeetsesee: Beaten OnBR aR RR Sco to RRREN nS ORC SE aS sie ee ipo shneenaanemnn eeeRRR RRS SR Sister see ns ORR SROtsa OR ONSSierra RRS RRS RR htt + MgRR Scere acd ae Se 1. TREES eats Butea TEE eR oN Se eR neoRRS re ORR, SRN RRO RD ono SOD R207 RRR teen OR EERE ace Minieiessnee - SRESeSei

BessRRR agereRe SoaNRRE oer A.C2SRNR BSR RR OR ney 2 TameraaeaeHEC ~ SEECERE Se EES Bee Rr RRR RS SSR oRpron OREnce cncRR” cnies

3B SRE OS ZELR ge EES SESS SEES So SEO . FESS “g & PaPEs ge BLS pee Besorar RE TU eC SUR ERAN Se ORES eS Ee BR CS RICOEUR Ss rang ayes eR pss ci Sees : : HST MR EOE oF PES | Reseensts ea ONIN CORT SSE SEN Se SR OR oa TSE SSNS SR RS ec Se ES UR ine nee tsa cee gS RR es SORES aria” oe : aoe 2 Beers DRESSES Ecc eeERE te eRa SS aRE cioeRM cean SRR alencase Boo eR ER:Sh so- ce at: . ::£ =seeBees SSS ce Sk cs ree . "SSE citRSS pene amin SS gaa ainsiORR be re scr eiecityaeg tsi int eRap chee cc Sehr ergcc cnet emsacnativia Seamer *7 . ~ . Sa = es Rees EES Ae . (= Re a Cg ROO OER mcr te eee ma ce ee ae Sherer nec. scenic arson Sean CR OR UNS me . g 4 BEN A RE ES SSE RR noe ne Sr eg ae en eer ee areca Se * : Es Bees Fee a Se SSS US OT ERC ES ea ence eee arene ee SS orae: Sonstp beater one eae ae RR EE . . . Be Beas SEE ne aia ons SRS ORES 2 SA done ARRON RRR NRA RR SR RRDREE SS = RRR RRR EER EOE Bererenc nea sia i satan a See - Reema EES Bese

ES ROE oeSas eesEon Se Ne . : 7" as FAesa EES SSeS RRR SE SSS eS eC OO RRR BES ras a rae ee - 7 3 mec CRUSE Eo ps gaa sane ha cacaa eae aaa ee eee CCS SC RR ORC DR RO IIS ARE RU CRESS SCR cnt sintiaueeaeu ea Ne es Seam NURS MOR ROS -- a Bs SEER a nro anim nairagor a mia neRNR a a SSR ceahaere ER eee oe -a 53 SEES SS imeon aacam gc eerrencacie iar hh RRRer RSecnici mR EN . £ ee as

ES seOST RGR aaren Sse NNER Sa inne eae ear ra Ba ee ca ane oe ee RR RR =aeee-meee SESS aaE eee re aeCe Ns SRS ES REC RS crae So en neem eat ene ance i: .= Se . eSSEES a eR RCO CRE saRtn eetrcnc ome eee Mee eee Bere acu ei eect aa . fad zSS a BS Rs aSSE SES OR re a Sagan Bree eee Scene .:ea = as RR ee aaa SS RS IE 2g noe ce rouer a ge ee | Rane SRS ee SS RES OR = Bee SS oR ee oan te eee RSs ERE "Saeco See honncenis raced eae = Bess TERE EES BS enue ec st a PS RN eR RRO NSS SSDS I RAST: See asa hares oa eae , = eS IRE Scie ae ceca SE Tama ena eae a mE nye Serene sansa ncn nies irene mre a : : ae EEE RE ere Sareea aon ea ag mean ee OR 5, Do RRR eo RR RE = ES BORE aS ee EE RS NS onc gee eae eto ea Soc) SESE See ee : 2 ee [EES pS Bee Se ceeee oe eRoo ree ec ~ OR Poc © «+ SRR aa ee eee eee :3 Se Se aeSSE aR aNN Rho 2eccnennaaceccses ohn, mee aae tty RS, 2, nee .TERS ae Ba eee aSeca ence |onan 2. °° SR ee ee eee 2.iSoe BESOSEG IESE 2oR REISER ERE Re IRR ESRD ONCo cen ree eee een eam enNS eee.” EEE SER ae rn NOR : °=2 “iE“RSS 2 eS ee TESS ce OES UR ; . SERS BESS ee Se : TRS Oe NOR RIS Ta Ea A ei Bea eee yee ORR ae oe a : SEER ESE ER Sr PN ee CR RE SRO ee STEERER ie acer ce sot = “eee SSE Se RS RRO re. . CARRERER SESE Eee “=: ESSEC ESnts SaaS a ENC NSN ROOTES ate aaate EN Sees, EN SSIES SRE SCE EO re eaten .° Bacon Besar ce SS Sh SE SR ee en een aca RR, ont Se Fa “ae ESSER ES CRN Get rE RE RR eg I SESE ES gee aec ceaaa :.°7een .::=4ao =% Bah Berane eenSe eete RO eRe Saae teres SE RNR er ei us RR ea IRESEES io SEEEE SUSE Se aoe srae -cos - = ae Soa ieee RE oe oe tn em rt SR RR SESE SO Fa ae “SESE ees come RNR VU ROR RN Soon aan craic migarn s ree Huse eBEES 2 SERRE ASIANS at R“s0 ESR SRE aR agi teeta eet sahne sete es ESS SEES ESS SSS eee emeerie ee .:z:. BBB se _ Es ee es ce Eg 2eee > eR ee ee SRE. 2SERRE RE ee "REASON ae aEERE i= : : - aESS PON ORR a SSS; - SS eo toa eee Sa EEne 7.eeEy PesignessSees SC eae eet Sams 2 RY RRO. «|errr SRSA - | So al. :EBS... oa eo PetSeSE + Bees Resear _flSESE ee SS eee erlit. See -.NSE BRR Rees ene eee oe ee i ee ca a23-7 ae op OSS ee. — :.i=.BES Sec stearate: Se aeeeeeeaee POTS - eeeB UE ie apeo 3is |. TEER SER . Sees a-B pees 4Pee As- Raves TE, »wR] Zeid Be ceecupidnaaontaaedns ; i vo oo . :_2one i PEERS Rees RE. 7 ERS Saseere renee SORee neET

“ESSERE SBRaoSgL ee ORR tenOoBe Roe ee Teeeee a me oh a eer _ i am Seeee PES a Se Chea aaRCO wor Se:. cE i ese eere7 tien :RRwe —= i et Oe [ES Seema oe ee Beye eRe a aenea eras cencee Sioa: ree 1-7, SERRE ae Broce PE Sa eeeerantmennas FA a UP Oy

ee ee eePbS rae ae ee ce ae eeSESE ae aoe erent es caterer staat ee Be ee eee wr, eee mS Reeea Ree pres oe See SaShon RY SR RO 7 Bere ee oSee OE 2 ERaSOP UDB trop aa F. POSER eee ee ~ : GperSoenmanae SSR |ees Re: BoSS pelea ht aii ganna eaeaa rnreage) SRR Se RRO“t~. ome Pee RE se RPA UE ST. aener vic >"eeeRee ae a eae Ea sean Scene) Seer oeOO ol: 1S

ee va |eee) 2 2 SRESSSE aoe aad Drs#5 a. oe ee Pere SRR OTSSE Sepg 7 a: --Se PTE coe ae Pldeee miFle lt et ee OE a So BRED . iia : . .ie Boe et

ae eee eee Eea7eSmh.SER eR EE SE De Aa Bree 2 eeeae Re eee ee ee ee | ae Sie BSS ae Ss ieae ae ER A ae OR Gea eee - CERRRERSE ES OP Se eee 7 toEO _ pre BBs: SOR Nas Se ene ee ee RR PSS RS Se eee. LE Po . 0 CBEERS 1. . SB Gee ea cota este: ¢CE eee Re Sete We eeee Pee es: ae ees om Ese 7 ORE, 7° ages eS ee a . . : Zo. tT CE: Wg oS ae Sereae RNBB Geertoe SeRE ene ees ee ee tla aE ne (ERs aca i aee ea ees - - -pore = t 7 2ee yb .esa=7s: ee OR aoe Be ae eS eee ar :Ste, :ee es oe fee ee eo ae eo ee 1=Ete SERRE aE anneniat ce enna a:Se ame Bits... 2RR -See aeeR ee aRS ee eeee Se Reae -Si See. DR nePIERS an. “Te - - =tear ZEA:cies Rn RR RR, . -. a-ses °:-xe := ooaes ee eS ee Bee eee __ RRR ioe SEE aR aR atPore eek =: Be RR aeas Sag BRS Ree Se eae -Seeseen Rees ae: :AR oyeta ERR “ae oe aacod :3se peas oot ee. BFEB See Ra ee ia ote -eae aie cette persion aaae-.eee eo we:

ee eee ie ee ae : : er : Eee eee ape ee ee id SS tn 2) pe - _ . eee

eee ape aa 0 SS PNge feetee =”.TEESE seaaeeeai aRenee cat aoer Saaa eoenomaee Ssgt - .RR Se ce aa = ae Ped it| Se eee ies oe :—— :e3. SER Beas Laea Be RS TG Pint -eons Se eet oea.Sima aeee aBee -. =. ree: SE es Rere e.ae | aoe. pSeS Seole bes re a aset aSERIES _ee zs| See oe Ra cee nner .Sep -eS . : ae arnone ~ee are elie DAU ee oe oS RS SE eae ee ee ae ag eT MES: ep ee end i ee aes aee ae ee ee See ee er . _ | RR ee ee: = a a ae _ EBB : SS eee 0 eee e eT ag Tw ce Te 7 7-7 Cees pees cree None RR : See er rr eee ee cy eee Swe Ses ee 2 flat oi: [2 RR RE canoe oe ~ ~ oF . a a isoe eae OC re wah skates cowie Silden eB : . _ Te TEES Soe eaceee sake . : : Pisces ooe a : _ ee ge a=ieceeeeh Be ge Si, Re RE Re ee - i, Sp SSSR eeBabee eee Se =~ -meee -:es -: :RRS — SRR ee “a. +.i 2ES Rees eh Te eee ees an Z . -. . ee are ete de Bam 2 eae Ses ae ea ae | OS ORE ae . . _ So 7 ze : Po ee bee : . _ + EAs Bee a . Rage OE Te ae See Se fie ds : ee eee rs to i . RES ee TT ae - gee eee a e 2 a eeae ae roe csae EE cen eee etnaOO . - . - VEE Lt re “eeeae caries oa -eeee eve 1 anne eS f 7 fen # ee Oy Bk i SS Bee -..:7..gee SEER eR seer ei. Dc — EEE mT eeenares 2023 reek ieoe Seca oe ESE .SS . EEE Ll. .& : Lo BEhSTeee . ed See Fa aRescie ae fel :. lJ.kT >1Le:et CERES Pessina - .WOO WEES >RRB .: aes SIA fee ee oe awrt oe ee ee Sey :oi.osoSSEEE ES Sc : =--- __i’ ;-eS — fe ag 2 Loe ee So ee eee Be — ngEe eo: fo ae ae .. | ee Sa ee et Re ae| ee eee 2re -ERS Lo . 2° 2) ee ATS SRR Sac2 enema UREN. ESE Sees — aa ees

ee Bee oot. 2 8 er oc h6hcCU De Be

aeseepeaoe eee SEE cle ee::ee gS aeSe gggee eerr oe2PPPS pm 5 mo ce Bae ESS eSaaaAE re eee ges et See er eee uscfPAPERS |G ri“ — lee ee 2 231! sigbicite® Joist - - . 2S Ro Se. Ti+ ARR - > =: a ER - : abe: . . HL. te e024

ee a BO oPeee i .ee .aeem Eee ee eae ee.eee . SESSEE Se. eR = istSR. SEER, OS -EY JE ee eee gee OE Soe apd Re cnn Lite coiSRE Pe- SR nn , =— eae pa eee eee eeeee: eeEO ae aeeeae Se Saree Prous. 2EROS. teiets.” on RRS Ee SERRE a Wet : PS ae ae Be See eeeeSe one ee peo a -SS eres Sessa: ins, ae SS eeore Ps ee See escae Sere ee eeSR eeaess nee eRe oo. .saSEES SSS SBORR iat Reamer eet RRR ei ~aees 7ES 8

2Pee See SE ate Peete eee eora eit©wo ere ees ae 3zBe eee eeeer ee eae -anS re Bee 22 eR Aeee ie fE Ss 358. £3 4 goor neatte RRR iei eee ree a SE Soe ae Ree a eS eR eos eS aeCie = Siti aee SN ears gee EB Sorin eeMTC ho RE epee Be ee aeem :mR ee ;aES Ee EE BEE SPee PROS Se ROR ROMER Ooo Uc! a-or —Sus EE eeoes eee oc eee GB ee eee isSe rss ere Oe == Sees ad Ba scSe Bee pos eee Spee e eee ee OO oOo eeenF es Se ee en Ree aBOGE en om en eseR eee pee eee ee eee ee eee Be SEES 25 ee Ss pe Bo A Roce... SESS ae EEeS ae ce a es EB Sg uae Seca eg 8Peer = ens Pee Eee ee ee eee CECE ee 2S poomenaes ieniunamand ture een sa aes : BoE “Ti+ SE 2 See Bie pega = tees erat Pe OSES ES os Sc 2h, BE ee a WEES Pen IAF a se aWes “£ Ssier aks pembrets SES Rec a Se anIo ie SIGaets: a ha Oeia Mae TCTeee CeEe CneT re ee mE -am sei EEE eae ae z:sv1i aRee FOS 2228008 es0DOES NS SO tanita [OSM ts aaeREET seES aedOE wo EES OR ee SRE ase =a ee a iia SEE RE REE - ECR SEE See Ee : ar ae oe

Beet fgeeEee oe ag Jen TEE ser ee Ce cceee eetinea a-— =“Ce eS eee eeSR tie Bits. Seb Geskn Geass whe Le ee Fos : Sc SRA OS ERE ERR OOOO — : oY SRR. - ee foe 7ws eae8 Ree 2... Pee ee BBis Pee eee reed essenses rite SoS ihie a aa EE SUH ecotar ES ee eee eS eeBoi. Beet eee aoeBET ee. Se -eee — |Seeing Se Eee eee

pee eg Gute ee ee eee wae Ss - gE ae ee

a re we NR SAE ee ee ee ee = a rie aPosies Le. eee iin nice eve ei aegEN ee :a .,ee eee = oo Be SS RES erage, See eeSee eS Semoe eae Seem ScSe ON. OE 2 aSe TDS co ERS ees SEE aorSS UR SIGE ES aeee ecee ee iee eg eter? BFE ER a eS ee pe ee a te “OES Be SE RR 7 eg 8 ee Par ae Bs aan a ee a ee ee Ed 1 RR ee —" ae oie ee Sere a ee ee er ee pe 2BBE ee ee ee oom er : aaBeeeaae a~Esoe“a Ree AL ae eee coe a ee fe ee ee an ee ee eeaeeee ee PSE Se, ee” -_ ee pee2RolRR fae RR oT, eReeeaeoe ate ~sae eae ee aaeee ee pee eee + gearing eee Ber erg ga mS ee Peee ee iSEE oe os pe SRF ATER & eed PE SES” co Sia mere ereerreee eeeyaniv ee reece SEEDERS aS eg SAE ESee ON PeeTohk ES SeTSSeCEES (0 eeeeeaeothe. eee - cl SS aSeESR PERE TET PBIPLALS SETS BREE ecole SREY SUSEren inion iat BREET OE Le nt Re SEIS

es 2 ers ag Sve gS Ds So aa ESS eee cee eS AEE SE SS Se Sgn JES Soy ne ee . 7 vot Bo 5 ES Se Sees Sig osaS esUE CS Heese eens tanec saememece nate SRoe PSee SE ee ,,°nee enaeeg Boeeee ol SR =RS BEF cs8e eg Tu: uo... $s(RES gee eee CEES ReUOMO ee ee ee Sena eee peepee sos RS? peeeegnee ESE eeoh ee ES ee en crea ger SEO ee- :eR =i Pete Rr etLo ae bE: Sl: eee ete? ane aSSSI Se aa RE SS ee ees. ~:aeaBee ope Pees a , BRR nrg cs teag. [ELST 2RIPE Ra eeeeeeceeereeess TESTES DSS eeeore Sane ee ae Te SURE: oc SS ER REOC Bega innsninnntesuae en a eS a aadES 5 Paes eS TS o> a ee ee eee ere ee [oe 7 Boegee ot BRR AREF Cnn eps 20S SEES See ee SEES, eS Sh Se BRR eR ' = °ee ee es Sea Bieri eR Reger es See ee Soo SERS See enna eee ene ans oe me Rosine = .MeRRMRRe IRR — ee eee ae ShereSa RRRR EE eet er#ou. PEERS 3.0222)IES Fes CSRS SEROs eeree eS Se SEES cin ieona ene tae SR Oiaoessnerenpataene o WE pee a aREL PEE SORES Se BS csES TESS aceon Stan ect me - 2 Reape= EE ooee2 zee | LoeS: . “ps peseee 0 a Lf 5 2 SAE SSL RE So ee as "CESSES ce REC, eae eecice rn. EA ERROR 200 ae eT eo aecomennonee Ss ie ea a : nae

eeGee oe cea EE eeeBee : aa aSSrra aao rerae en ae er eeSr eere Sr ee

RRR FESS SERRE ei ene RR Re LS-+OTR ge 7. REE ESEREEREE Tee oe 2S aeee aensmo eee7 ee Lf aTagg eee>RE Se eeSTaeeereeaeaSoe VEE eu rn aeeeSEO ESRR. REE as Soo Wat ERY pee RR On sy SRS a = eis oe era ees tee aR en a eR EEE ON SOE co i ae cere ae pee . es ; “Se See Be pee STE TR ge eR Sage ec = ees SES SCs eae an ee ne een Sees pe Re RR ee . SEES. ER. - Be ne : > aon a ih of aE eeRR RR S|, |TRE eter seep meee os_ SEER atenes Pers aa aSeas ee oO Ske “ee pee ee =:: .:: -:— ee See Seie a. ARE EERE REESE | - oRe SEER Bean torneee RR Pores ipeemaer EEE; Gee TERE Lee Pesce RE stRS tee>SESS > RERE SRRRESE - her | 2ons SRR ee atic es: 7=:BSE See Este VER EES ~ fae Se

aeoenaSn aBe ee ee Bp ee rn ees Oe i ne 7we Sseg a SSS SE eee ee ee ee aae a 2ae — 5See ae eR Be iRE ee aesOe coee gee eee eeeea a7“oe , MESS aeaie aaeee aee Ean oe Sea Nee 5EE ema ae aaSeo :7 _aEES oe ae ee ee =a: aa are a ae Co ee Se aes oo Bee esee So aS | gee - | ee OE BR ager .eee Poon.

Jo ee oe ele aSISS. ee a:a5ooSe2.-ONE PS el, eee ipoe eens > See ea eae RR eet see aeee BPS ee, .cn Sieea’ RR LUE 2eB ae: :coe a.LISADS =~ BERS epee zs: oe Lar hell SBE. TE ae FS BE ae oeee fee ABS -eee aeMaker aee aeee a ge a ee oSeg ER whe. HEE. J2ete CDS Bee _-i “His See an ey Lebel :. 7eel SLATES ee eet ee ee ee PEGE oo RR oe ae a = aaetars Ce pe ce ene ae ST a emi MRED oa gaol eee a a —Be gee eae ee See ae ae. Sones Se cits Seas oo egg Pe. Sette CO en Rg «ee = an me oa 8 5. 2 LESS eee RA Ra a See 12. appa ee Sees eee ee poses e AR. | -._ a ee coarse ipa ees. ceca: Sey OE aaa - oo. : sft - we - Re eee 2ng BRR a, Ue pie Ree, aARES ee Bd Sgpeeks. "RE =. 12 =Dae ee RPeeon Eo li.BPs TSS erPe SeSe=aeaieSe hgSe ES BB en ge ee ee aBc oe20 es a22eee BSS ae REE Re ag ESSE Ro: .% eres perme reRRR RR RR ee -aera BSS eeeSo ee eT ESSeSe oPa“SE Ae = -Se - ae -= . :: ..,se ::ares ~oa ES

Soe ee eee 2 eae eee Se a=~ eeSaaRtes: aSRSA «SRSees - Ber cS eee: oe ee ae ee ee :. Be:aeTBs oe poo. Se: SR oe cegig.” RRR OO eaeBE RS Seep RR CR — “SEN eee SS: Re SE,eae SR, cee = =F 2eg aeee ice [Se Peres eee ae eee “mea FiFP RR sae SOR. .ad .ae| Bers -° +). poe dae 22RS Raa reer: aeeeeS Sane OR EO SOAR ONG ERC RR ee ee eee eeEC” 2 eS RRR BSE Ra SES Same RR ee

eeaeeeeeSee aeeeeeBee (aosa See ee ee -2 2 i= eee 2 oe Sees ee ae ee ee Pe REee ee .orSe 2 Pe

Serger oe ae See ao aeeee Rsee ea Seas eeRRS enaeae = - --Bee “ae ee age ~ RReee aeoaeo FEOpees oe ee —Se See ee. ame © ae BRS eee Reopen: “2= =eseaeSe SeaRN ee “= RReR:Seema Re ae- essaaea Po eG= Se peoeaS a BE SeEe 7CaS RS ee SeTSE ae(—-eee gee eee-Saeee “BERRA ERR 2 SaBees CORRS, COR RE ..ee SeBee ee eee eee To 7 RR> ec: eae ee >. RN = 7 ee : Ree

Reese 2. aieme =o ee See Sa ea ORES SeSe SReee aoe aees a Sages RR SR Se. 2es RES RRR oes | Reeee . ERE eee -nee oe aeeSEE Ga ae RE > ieee “a Sa Soe. Siena Se SE ae oe pence ze amare oROR aeoe: ._ RRS = Seeeiaeesse aR i>= os eeSees SASSER Seeman ca aa RR re eee. ne =S . 5 eee . - _aS ERROR R |i Se enone RESSe pees eson PRET eeSgoe Ts eet asl:re RRS See” eee canoe SpeRR, Be. ee -RSE RO :oai See eee SE 1 ae cee SE ee--EER SeeES Setiiigu naa rr2Re Seine corre ee SSSA

a= RS ae ee ee aees es SE A RS RS IR RRR See a See oe >" Se. ERS: ROOOKn Rae =. Se” RR _ — Re Scenes: Reece: =) - Ree Rennes Sak seen. Sepa. > SRS eas” ~ eae SEES = 2 ro nna _eS SEE herBS as Sue See, RETR ge Se See * Rees. 2 ee. -"Se: = eS ROR See. Sheena cca... -. Reena so -* SSR Se = a es RT Bien” RR eS a ee SORES SE: RR =. | Oa!

_ IE se ae ee ee Ee” SOBER SSIS EE oR ee age.” + ee ; Te Tg Sens Sad BE Ls, eee OS SER Ss Lede oe Edo Mica eee ee 2 a | Ee ae a Poe eee ee ST). SERS. 7,ge Se aSSee WOT RSvt ee SEE DE SES SS 7poEES Seeecoo Tat) Ree Soo eeLeMRRP DERERP ERS SSS tL) eeGSEERSEES ee | SE ee > SESS ST Po: Tne Fee ane .A SEE mo "Rg cae | oR ape ie .) CAge + SRG ee wVSe Beka forays PT)acEyl” LAU 5eee 7 EST etSSflleeRRL. 77 0. 12 SieSEER. =” SS eeaeWLP Beeline Se aee ED ee ee eeoe. Boole ERA ere ESE bse OCT ti pOgues deh Us ~ grilge a “Re Gas OS a : lo ST aSS ees: oeLER ee eget Se 2Fe eeeeeee nee otTReats Sige Oy

oRSEN at ein aa cainasaiaiseg = 2.Sein a ReSR a 2 RRS cS RRR ROR eeap ec aS mee2. BBRB Sn -: BRR RB BREwage SE ee. hae . = . ;OD sd 5ES eeSTEED IR SRR aRBBB Ga ee oea eaSO sit =RR: geee ee. OechSnes SPSS TaE oe onOR RRR Saee BeSOR Sie Sek SeeSER ae RR EO SRay RSreo BR SOK A SORE i.Se ORca cea hs es Bene ls AES Se ReeRe a ee sa RR” SRaeaaieaeS eeeBR a She ee Sie esaee ee ae OR a eee: SAR RR SRS cee IS" Bee ae caehe AR BeeG a aeea ae se i. Seseats ae a .7TP SEnL

ee aCfAR, RR SER RESEUNIOS REE EE RES SR20S RS ae RR AR ~,TPE e ig aege e eee e OR ereR ae e77g See teae: aU4 ae Belg owiehe ERP SE ps ee Se geSee eee ET Se eae a ee nels, sls FL. ea Do Sas fo Bo: Cl TRIE § CO] far Sp RR REL be LDL ie ee SUEee woe ps ra es OF leg PSwe ee nin ve sion ae Jeet LP eefgBe, 2 Rv. Je TUS Dl eo - aaae arn 28 Bh aSenealisee te: Cee Pestle SoBe NEE WOODED URS ERR

ra wt So pra. SD teesstPUL. Wet oo weeee PTT aan ep Slope os . aeAg -aa oe oe=o : ae cESt: Beraewre aLae ;. ;-rsut _— oo:ee . awon . . a. i:needy : a aLd :epee -fer, ah,CEN Reeco. mae :oehere

Be : ; Fe. fey Bie Ca SO et Sa Pe Ble te 2 or ens Se ne es

BE ee. =o whl, ko ae coe, wo Pa a Sea. pt woe: a nis oe Te SL Sees U7 1D SR eres ad Tou see - - : ees os aan = ae Looe a Op Bs vr Fv gh SY bie Cee ota SIAL, Dyes ec TF ae Dobe C8DT ARF ff a Toe a i rae FY Bert a : 7 a es ~ . a CFE =

Bp ce wore te vege OI LY UEELg: SSFLERE ch SRL: ISR Ee vb ates Donn: wieRo ECL2d2 Se Eeere eRSB TAleas ne aeaaa DEA Te Ee eee BeeST Tee 2.2ee woe Ole Pens, Sie ET nadie HPP - Saat Bae Bet rn tleOD res il gg ee LrARR, EES Ln Se cs EW Ti 90 URES ERE wee :ibe OSof . pe ilk:neif::“3 ERE eee I) a Baise 2 ieTht: EL apc0+AEMULE CTE a7.SE | USL SAIS Sse ee g)1 Se oop EE nod ct sre A, eT RR. BOs von ES

Pree elo eye JL. E BRS 8 EESR [> 7ocr’ GESRSeISis Fe eB eehE ee ee eeeeee wi EER CHEESES 2 0-0 st we Soka Tea 2a-ODL ee. Lot Ett. 1,Pein Riser >aDoes Ste eee Eeee ett fee TE aye Toe re. EI: Beene om a wool.) ato0rT Logo, |E2.SEES SESS es eh Ree ee eecepeteeeee. BBE eee 9. ne FO 7edn aoBe SEP ER ne ee eet SEIBR cs eth eee tacaeee atee aice eRe en enim RE ME o. Gee etlle _ “of ue = .a: as Sele lt-aCoenh. woe splice CET Se, aE: Serene ee ee ee ee eene ERE Ob a pend wees. ae eit Be ASESES. Eee SS ee SE Soe Saneeraisic Renee By a URE ee WE *YOL Sel eae meroot 2 taan otfl 27UAE: Been to a peo, PERS wsEE JAEEERRES CEES oe ES Se etic ts Sohne cee meneame lava maeeees ST A Fe . woot coe wer De TeHe aat edi Pe Se of.0 2) JSSRES eS ee Se Me ees SRD wet woe Dt -* See me een Fle SS (Site! ) HELA 77 EEE Se ene ce eenMee a Se OE cin, as, eae pO Tree oe DU rt he pee oat ve ep UE RES 1 SRR ee eee oe ee Seatac sisi NSN nh a SET as rn re : rane ee Bee ye Ra SER SES SE ee Ef tag SEioe ee Se te . aeeaeen eee Fo Sn pet ee UE ee tle 7d i SEES ES oS eee oc]. Ea ee ee eee a a a ~ iE

Oe ee) Sore. - write L "> 2. EELS. ik 2 SEES areED] wison a DLE SeECS oo EU eee ¢ Vind. -- .;=eesett a wa. Genie: ft cote 2 -- =-7. “ili oEs TESSaeOS (ites 7° ee 5cE+ eee 0 hes eeeSRE eg on - “ a DH

ee AT Soe Te. port, ~ 0 ac Tl. oe >”7 JFRR eee eee se See Beers keer ae nee aa AS eaeos"Scr Bee ee a vteo a Btl We ear SF SE 7 a0 fos loSee 2-esSERS 0. Done Sg 73oe Se es ts TORRE «2 PRR TE FI teEeaSg ass pee ao dese sb fee teeth UES. BEES Pesca tide On. SEE “\.' >| “iefe ieT 2 eee” ~zoos We eg. Se Fut sDe Soc tnftER 2¢GER AS eee AU! U1tr5TE -ie SEE eeSee Se - EE wePee eetet Dri J.MS-EHEE Behe ce LtaTSU. 7 eiol,: Pir Silt 1° oust REE SER [LEY RRS Th ee-USE PUREE BEae Pe . aeET WIeteh? DRS Say Us peostyeiin. Sol, Try lito BR REVERED lucy SEue SS 2) oe See 2S eee 2: RN : oe rs Ons. 37Oa 7) BRR Peete fs ES Leosf=-, of RP 820 Oh LL Eee ARE SES ee nn Fillof.Api eeseee eee RO Ci0: 2b - aa wo eg

ia enee Meeeeeee ee ee Se So ERR aeeeeeeei er nee a EE BBa

Sete arete ca os on . oS - wt Tuig¢ h(t 7ENS: REE “ES taeeUnga) 2] oa eeee ete Sea ees ae hep oTwae : 7arrOME : -;Se ho. EE Fairs aseo --Fe, ee ooee SVT SE ee ES veac ToS ene Seen eeSee ET pot =— SoS aeOE U0 TS SEER eee can ero SS ae peace ee wee rece: Ti fo eT we ee Se eae eer on oS ABeae TERS Se POs RES esse fie PES Sa etae ee ee tier: SS eee —— a5Ee::-Oo se Ess. SEE ee Ftaeet ves voEe OtOL -SSS 2 Tin maRE -2Se 7Se ERE SS eae emer SESE ee ota cater re TLL oeas *21Beer! BRT Pele ern eeTUE re BER ee egies eae righ cS Re Semen Sa mete ERY

pee: one LS :eole Ct, Bs+SS eee ep Re ceeSega eee ern ccc eer Gee He, ”ea Wate ea LB BESES S: _Pn ra! ean. See DET eg. Polo SS Te yes Bitty WS EYE Reet ee as oe LL TOL Eo GE aee SE RRR RO BEER Se Re a ODI eS EES Pore fee ctfot et 7: ln |Pope TREE re aan ceSRR rnc ior SEER ain aNR RR Eee Peerae apaieR gs ee:PO. aey es aae ReBE RE oeREE eg Eo Hs .Soie . mt :TFL Fasd .weal | ee GEER PO eee eC RED SR RS-SO *egiis henna ehOR aeoe zee3a"BB SEP PERS -5

ee oo ee et ees LLU ee ee BS ah ee - RES eee 2g SHY TD Tb -7]ekwot :SEER otfotsete wet nee ® wis eepea . RRR Se eg BT RR oe ae oe pe ooo Reese 7 pen . CER Sipe C3 aise ces Doak st lie ter Te eae SSe nD SS aRRTOS ooo eS eTees Ee OE OE EEE BiG cieae Sige OD ee out ZSel . ped SERS ne Se aSR enters OE Rex ee BS oF ESE BRS PS EES: BeetsLe EI Bl ep YON Talca ee! sues c+) oTS a 7 nye. EERE ee ee nee er S +SRO SERS BR SES TE BRET SSe3 PRR Ree LEI RSE ee2 Pol se st,cis ge te Lt A> RR eee oe RG Se ee, OE ee ee aaSoe aeEeoe ee

ee eee ee ee ee ee ee CF

oteeeaoe ERE ee ee Ieaee eeEeLe rn BR GS Meee iceile: ate aaCe AL edTe eeeaee ee ee BSS. SESE ee2 ee STetal aSee oOa,a Goae 7LS 1 TERRES ee i Pe PeSet DR SRS oSOT eR eR Ey“TL ARS Ee ane Oe ig 2 ES eee OE oacae es Ere eta SS a Seer So oe eesSR 1aBS cr Se SR eo BettSee pn Dany ~ SEES Sea eee eae ss os nee ee i oe ee SLee CE»ere SER

feriel fares ae TBST cree AB Pa ER. AD ETS oT TREES AO cee ee ee cee Se een a ee eee TE he FEL Pore Plas ct bs URES Sol LS gre

Bo eseharen, weeag oe a BEC aeSees Ber Soo tt ies so aAS DEee eSSees ce eeemerce ciee eepee e Teee oS reine aU OeSeer 2 STR se loa wet Loe Te Siiieees nn Sanne A CR Ceeeres ea Se SES rio ne EEIST OSE gi otLun USteeg eae

Rrcaice rete etbere esatetea SSC curate araoa imams oe ange aee a ETSee SUR SEES ESoo. Se T: -7” SEEEEEES apts oases eaneBe eeaacsas eon— cnet ec Sats ee RPSL. tS BSCS gS UE SSeS See ee ee ee aeee TR eee CARES aes 8 aPE eeeeoeaay Sveti Tue ea SE espnee eterema ager rasarenas oo eeereoecea ieaSoy eeRoo eae a ear i ne RNR AEE : - TE EERee cn SOO cce eC Saas nanne ceSS meee SINT SRS es hee ee eee eeteeeey mn SO ROOT BeORRIN eps eee eitCEae eeenC eee thea tyeeeesRESee - Ltcco EES Sn en ne pa eee

pee a nmin nee nee eS eT RRS Sane Gora Tee ee oe a ere Ee SIE SEES RE

SSS eee Snr am eee eeRR eos So See ec eeeDT S|- SESE 25 Ra ae Se eeee aa ie eneSaps BEteapee onRenee eeaL onNTR atc enna BNR ort cee ene See et*Sees 2. RRR > 77]Cee + NERS Se eeer eae hase em een pen nSSSeee Seeicrs ERig enetae éPROCS :RRC eeaane ee ee ee mone ge ee One ee CHERRIES aS aR NR ESO Beep Se aS SMR UR ORE NR rare glaR Se ee cee eeSS Fs Sha oeRane eee iscsi anne tine emma erRAR EN aRn on eit eeas I one aa anna. Thee Se fe an -SER ___ 1»GR EERE een aEE a Resists snk ner nent reenter s ci enna ie|_|» ae eRe mac a ee aA iment eae Ce SIS ga “JULES 1 5Patera -Ree eee ore ee Ses Res Sea ponents acne saeearee SereRR isseons mare ESE ORE eran Seren neSer neetan ek Seana tee ene eee cs Regs SOnna ENnmtaan Ne OR CRes ee aSt eee Bier er —r—“ eee ese REE SS SE Se ON RR arerYESS ee ea Srv Re CS eee PctEN erm r— eR RRR ERS RS en aR saEteee aeROE oor

e. oJ e€nso antiago Ss image as comm

.

J

4

176 a Women, Power, and Kinship Politics Because, you know, in any campaign rally I had on the average of 20,000 to 50,000 people. That’s a whole lot of people! And it was like a rock concert, it got hysterical. _ Because when I passed people would say “Ang ganda pala niya\” [“Why, she is beautiful!”’] Now, don’t worry, this never distorted my own self-perception. You see, do you understand, I want to try and explain, the public had preconceived ideas about

me. It’s because they wanted a deliverer, a savior, and because I was female, the | female had to be beautiful. It’s not possible that the country be saved by an ugly female. So they were seeing what I had invented in their mind’s eye.... I had been me all my life and nobody had ever called me beautiful. But all of a sudden, when I became a presidential candidate, I became beautiful. People—the moment I stepped off my vehicle, the lower economic class, the poor, in other words—would say, “Ay, ang ganda, ang ganda\” {‘‘Ay, how beautiful, how beautiful!”’].

Now I understand why Imelda Marcos was so dressed up every time she appeared in public. ...So for effect, I decided to dress up. So a woman must dress up.©

For the rest of the presidential election campaign, Miriam took her cue from the crowd and put on makeup, had her hair professionally coiffed, and wore scarlet dresses, thus reinventing a glamorous image of herself (see photo 5.4). Many powerful women who campaigned either for themselves or for their __ male kin have argued that it was necessary to dress up formally and look beautiful because it was expected of them as women. Women who did not take the trouble to dress up offended the barrio folk who had traveled miles

to see them. It might even be a contentious point that Miriam lost the presidential elections of 1992 because some were “put off” by her tough image and her intelligence. The uniqueness of Miriam was not only that women were not supposed to speak that bluntly and strongly, but that not even male politicians were that brutally honest and confrontational. In a smear campaign against her, she was dubbed “Brenda” (brain damaged) and “Rita” (retarded) by those threatened by her audacity, her personality, and her anticorruption campaign. Such a derogatory image, fashioned by her ~ enemies, in the form of flippant and exaggerated nicknames, must have had an impact on some of the voters. A tough, hard-as-nails woman who wielded a handgun did not fit in with the woman’s perceived image, costing her some

crucial votes. She was not the norm, therefore she must be deranged. ‘The image of Miriam as ““Top Gun” evoked a male image. Miriam took the male image to a certain point and then dispensed with it, responding to people’s perceptions that associated beauty with female power. In the 1995 senatorial

tional office since 1986. |

elections, she succeeded in becoming the fifth woman senator to gain naMiriam’s manipulation of the beauty image affirms that certain continuities prevail in the images of female power from 1945 to the present. While female senators have always been careful to project themselves as beauteous women, the electorate also chose to reinvent malakas women into beauty queens. In 1965, when a teenage Gloria Macapagal campaigned for her father’s presidential reelection, a fish vendor was reported to have exclaimed:

EES 2 eee“ooge IRS Soo SRE cL eR Soe rs SSeNem ee EEE Oe |SERS SE ee eee ee eee eee ee BUSES age ae niSee iis ROE ee See ee PRE CREE Cee Oe nec Seen aR Sg eee oer Re aSee RE steRR ng a Lage Oe ADT RS RS a PS isge egche Whvateasiee ran eeemme: caecum au Seema. ae me eS SR 0 iALi ee eRSec See eeee ue SESE asono PRU ee SESS SE Sege SSS SS) aaa rst ce eto RR peree summa aerate Rhee ars Sema. adeace BRE =SRN SBMA Tee eeede SeRE ieee RR eegtr na RNR ESSE teagan cdma ciao einense gicSUR ee SR tance SieSonn RIED OR eosin oeLE Sos2cece CR Sr eeewobec. oe UsERE RR Be2noe emo accentuate SESS eeeace eS SELES RRR Apet Neoe eS nN Se Ua mecca arene aemn RRS: eee ee aR ee ree eC RO a LR oO aSe RRenEN eo on re Sieen ee ee Siege tamu geese SEES a hag are con ee eee heen ee SOR RUNNER, RE Soe a aR, banaue Some eS SSSR ar ee Seana ana iciERROR COE ee cc RR i So eh ecco RRR caSR Seren EGRESS: CRO ER ERE SR _. SEES mee cnneernae, Sena Ne Boe ER ASEs rnooRRs RE RR 2 Raa. oR ER Rs >OR SR OES RESERRE RRR, oceee eRBREAN Seeing mee ge SeS SAU See aaspaDene eee eeSRDS Se! Re aR oR SRR co = SEESee SRS eects Sonne SE ee ge no S: =SONS UREMS 2s CERES = RRR nSRR: ge RSS ocr SESS Be RE 2eReSe SR oS eR Se Se gosnn he deen Cause seinnet “Sere tear ta cent neat cmeentenrte tennant necnaenaniaite on attge tt cna nad acc aone tas ae sass Re RR SR TRS EL SSNS Si TEE SSRN EOS SER A SSIS SEE ORBLE : Te PRE RE TTT

SS ee ee Rec Re EE SRR ienhieatniniseieeenechagiennainetee easeEMERG Sees Peasaeam Sennen en cee a arent eeseee ageee ee tne ee” et : SEER esta see ace eS SUeeeee ees enn Skee Ny ee ceiecERear nar oes Sonera ea a Rn BERS SOO enter atau ate Eo eS a ae -_Sree ESSE oesae Bobet mgm nnennee ec aaee we

PSRs sac naae eno me Steen ea ee Se RE SRR SS | "eR

- dd 712 USSR eeereeererrerereeencnctens

Ss RRR OR NE OE Lec. J ee Pm en ieee ae se ea cena EE hon ee um Ree: 7 agamseee TE GE SUE STE BPGE fala p30 Sees

Beee eeeae naeeng Ce ae Re tiNea RR MCPLD SRS OEOS OeCR SRR GEOR LER: :.‘BSP D Se RS Ee Fac, ed hee vi eee ee RYSA reeSoe SESS ternsSke opeeneet Se ROSE eeee Be “SERRE ome Qf UES USSSE LETS RaUSER TA Stat. Se See ee se Gee fs oe eaten RRR gen R22 ARR ee ee ee Pore aap LENA Recetas Seer 8eae aN RR genes Ee nrSees eer nrg cr enc re aaa Nee 2,EO Bacon a SPEeh Mel SE OES Bee SE PSee TEES ee ee ae EES ee RE eeeeeren JPBk SERSREN TTT 72S acre Sac Eee Sac EEE Se ee eee Sage meer ssPEE |MeRRe | SERRE eee LSI ee Pines iD Be ee SOO ORR Loem NR SR ERSSS RS - peta REN SMES Ee| oe eeeON a aayRee eae oySe Saeene Sean : SEE cee 23 EE DRESS FdAPES EE eS OE JPSR b> SEREESES Eee ere erence

RS en nthe Sie rs oe EE GRE Epes presence ees ea noe : ae es ae eee

SRR aton onesie aera nao es ee ee on : ORE a Td DS ee ee EE ee Sa eee connie use 1 vl “HERES pcos - SEER Ve Be 7 oo th.1 SEs SORE OSES

PRET ate oR RRRaUR 2S NES: ee ERS eee eR SO SRS+t- :: = #72 Tp MEees EEE ea eee Book meme ES ioe: REER koe oeate + |enemas eee SAE ee eee) SERRE --| eg |ASRS SERBS . DEES BSS Sate RRO aenhmraeney pares aCRE Saye ea a TT Teese ESR: | eee GSR” UeSueeemneemetme ee CERES - cla zSERRE ROR ae Seem ona Bee. eeeaSaar i. SUCRE SEES GEESE is ERE aries sates 2-0Tg ES >os RR eae Eos SESS Rs aaeee

eS eS ee ee se:2, Be EE 1” SER SEs ee kea Eee eeeerarenes SaaS oo:ee|-eae ee =Bk aol ices 7=erate EE: ERS RS Sa ee Boas aang eee Bee SO a ares Eero eee eee asec See: g-0 :eeBoo Perr eee ae rePe apee ER NSfe SRE RRS RNS rs RRR cre S301) Fe ees nes". ae SEE = EE EE era Pe ee GORGE SE BE) Se See mn eee Be Soeoncoo aJo an °2enema SEER pee Se ue ee armen ee RS coe ae fiee ee ;eT 2ie-BER Be ences eee ees ee ora ES SL Saar Be cS oe mon aes BORER ER a RR Re Oe eae SSygomc arenes )” Seen: Sea = soo 7: SE REESE LR ee : a RR Wied? Rc te cares es See See a Re ee eae ar ERSTE. - Ee eee ss ea = :5Bea Re eesone meen en RS Reeeeoetes 2 RRS RSIS RR“MA: egTRE” ~ SSPE ES ee7oo ae eee oeSk nenoeS

Seat se Ces a=oen ee ee fo AD ad =sone eRe Renna te ee Sen 1ERE SoS Bee see es SPARES seb JSRE EgNe SG SE -PTE Pot . , aes Sse reces Ses reees cc Bei ee —. ee ee os 2Seo ge See eee tanainantannine an err ». SE SSE eo ee sep DEFER. econ eee cise Sheasoi, eee.:_SS oyPoet 2s BEES ee ena - 2 pen secereeeenrn mee : Pe Bt ceria 2ee

ee aoe 7: ee SSS bs moe ° oid HR ESeee eerare ee-eR 1 aeewert Ths aRR. eeacieaae ee: ERE Sn ifol aeieeee .ee UEEEEL SES 1 JU aE Thiel TEE aco aieSfienSRE SRR eaPe ieeeLEE ase? BOSE eyNSP tee ee. .AES. .NEES Paper Seen ae SUS oie Etene eeee ee ei gee eres PT 2-7 . SE PRESS ee oho ers age ;ine eee eee FE : ae _ : A. SE ee Le “ESS Sas oH . eee Seer RES, 2 OE a a ee “ : : IERIE Scio RAS Se ee ee a tte eee fies te RRR i oc seesaw at:ee SUES SE SIIE EL SD sn is cee ee _ aoc a : PARP ZREST 1 SSS Se Ee oe ee a0 E27 cin SISO EASE aor eee ee fee EE Fk Roeper cre ee = feet wey ODES Es Sy hE EERE SS RE Sy ee naa ees Dios Renan Son CR es ee Hee cree aS ”_S Se eee Be PPI EP SUSE SL ee ee mete rt SE Re SSS + “Ey ee ee ee a Hil PERL TT IS EDS ZUR ee eae 20 Pests enum Sra oe a a err Oe eee aeSee roe TSeage. ouCRASS ShULES AER Be eS eeeen so Fee Sesehets i SELY SRL... ESSE ARES SEER SUP teSee Tes aeSet Wee TUR ERE Se ee -ha Bee eect SEee eREE =ee pees TT TO PEER oe SaEES eee Gearon eee aa ayeBF pecan eee Se J: CHERRIES SES TOSS S ESEES) |ESC-see|oS Vol BASS Seoe ee ee ee Se ee . :Ree aeeae Soe aaa rare ee Pesta Sl etfe) (SUT Pe ECERS ELLA at EEE Ss oF SE Ci een OAS te aULES aia SESE nsSER Ge, Eemt Dori Ce esSe ooEEwns woe eee ore 2. SEE.SA 2i VERE SSS - - . aca . SERBS Lion JF SEE Ee eS | Sa _BERRRRORESS Sener RO na EIS Sassy TL :TIRED REDS eie Seek >ro : - 7ied | SURE gETT UpReet SRE ad 2 ee oece HotINe¥Oe - ERS ee

ee Ign EenEO gnrteR! - Ft . Lo CHESS |BSS Sg RRS REE a ee SORE : ees Eaten uence a agensean aniniac dh secon ssee oety eee oekB: Pes EE RESET DpSot tin 2 aS SRR eee Soto EL, Bete eneenenaara cnenne aia manne PASSES 7Paseos EEE Seoee Sere es ae EE nels” .ROS EERIE rain re eee aeNOR See Seer EstT SE BE: NESYSSGSSEE Ee ie Tg ae a Se are Se Penbessriead - RSS RU SOree CO nea acts :RAR RE pCO RAE ORES RESIS aC ne aR eS Basser

RRR one SentoS aces enees tents ERE eSRR Zein. :ee - : ES ogBee Se aed ca SRE to SE eens, OR RRR BRS eNO ORS RRR ESC Oe aSee RRS peeaie cree ean ene wR ERES eee aReese RR aeRR. La °es oS coe ~es. SSSR sat Sorte Seno ieee aenneneetinutenineenian SRerERE Bini SELB eeOES SESE SSS IPEL eR ea nen en EEG tat Eos ge.:eng BR ea ee ee ge Reet een gShe RRtigre ge ena ee FRO SEES ee oe Be OO Bae Se Do, SRE Thee ot. Seance ee ae RR | Sea SES ERE ethan eee Pee SSRN iC Oe Us Re Se wha oer ean ue esate aha eee eam wee te ere ROR ee ais ag pte nh cee ee EE eR ER ec ocSSE SIS aes hee eeeBREE gee ee ce SUSU Sonar BEES res. Bi hath ca os anaes canoe nape rae sk enaas aa eee a ae OEE ACR Seee ORES aeEe ESE SES RE SU osSeedae BEATE : See TSsye oe ooSE ees Engine a SLY anunaniaiaeaer ana ie aa ero neath ie >neta aan uate hetac human nine BRB ee,Ee TE Sorento saa 4 Sauer inc chee Semnta ee eapetra net at tegtemenciding nea oe Renee TTnena RRB EEE SRR aS e ORR RRR a S RRR R sR paniniaceonangcde shauna neRR cts

Be ee eo) BR et ee BO So ee EES ECS eg eeeee ee Se pees te BRR SSeS 7 cane eeeeeeeee SEE eS Se De ee Pa aS Se ee fo ee ne re ee ae eee See eee SS UR eS ae ec Ea ee ee ee Sigeban een RRS ene era. See Sx eee ee er ee ee ee Ee See ee eee es -~ Re Bo asctap nanan eerie nore ee eda ce ane mou mE carte nay tienen nnn morconsr hiram een mR na eae hermes

IRS a ee eh eREERARE ee Rene eee eee enc ag aeRee eee noe cette RR Sa RNR Ne oT Bea ceORS oe oan eee eeeeraRE Pr Ns Jeneserrr caer Secreto Be BSS Rc aR Ea RS eraser ESC Se RO RE OERAR IR Came os ane ae eiesSS yearn neem unre eecieneenae nese ee PSN RAR a IS RES SSE EO ORO DI ERRNO ON SeieS NCGree RM eR TEeee Noocr eiuitie tana enar ne cues enarianie neta ccna eee eS ee EEE Sou tance nian coc say tire eigenen uthag ena caarunaiatan mieaan ier memaa aimee reece nr RO RS ior eee cS ouprece see Sha Rae cua eee nea aecee tone maar ns nec ina nee Rea eMe R eee eee

ee eR ee a eee Ro|e aeeneeeee aieeee See Be eee ee ect Seeee eeee EeeEee Re en eeSousee BUS neeCRA Se. 2 DYee ceSahnance So OC RE SE RG SEE 2RE RE SSE CE SEEE rte cacao emo RRS oN SARSes Rena eReRp eae eeices oR RII OE oSSete sae Beant wien =. Ser eee Sor RRS ORNS SO OSCR LAOREET eee ne eee SeenSgye BROATS e RRS eeeRe eee cso eeReaaa Sunes ang anes ae cea mnnnee yeaa ceAERNS oe ee cerSe er eree ee Ee eee NS: RR eectome eeeencSE tere eres BERR ee ne ctor nS So SSIES Sat Sa entee ciate ener aie teen nae meter cme acne cane none Eg Senescence Sera peer Renae geeeee a eeee SS rr ee ee SR A ae he ns apne ee ae Se See ee eg ee BS ROS Peres eR REE CICS eS enn OR EEO RO RR RRBe ave sR SN eas Beton aOR SSG RR ra SE RISTO RESUS SRSSeem OR re RRteeta ORS Rie eae RAR oe RRR a NS Pee en erence ee ee ee See Se Ne tO eee es eS ee oe aan oa ae aoa ei er eee ma awe SrRReee amc og cts eC ec EEE ee ee aSE Ba aseSaeee ee tS eee Ee eae ee en rN oe eee es en ee eee BROS Sep ce aae SEE neces curate smeesa Saaneae noma nen eR aeRs CER ERR ON ernce eaor RRcn Aaen Bee RESnaan peta gESS Seetne EAC SEESEIS AS eeSEE SeRS ee SSE ICRep ESE Sc aeaaba a ce te ie Sec nae yy eee TS nC SEE Se ae eS Sec gee EES SS eee aSeee Ss eC esa rR eS me aSE eee cena EEE ESR aca Ss eae cca ene RRR iE SRE ee NRT IRAN erg Oe ASC Se SEO ESE Ne EEA OS RRR ne RSee ASI i FE es 2 SoS ISO Sono SNa oR RR SOR Ce Rr SUBS eR gO RS ORR INC FES SS SEE eeiota aee eeSe es aSRESS SES Sa Bate EOosaS REC RR et ene BES Te SaSTS eee oe ae oeeesEPEAT yc EP ES SSE SS BS SS ee DieUe ieinRR Raa eS Ee Rng eT ROR. RE See EE Ee Een Sa SEES Sige aroeaen ermine coneuecen aiietetaun snare mguien eee tc a aattng canna aa Be are |? MOORE oa RAEN RN ECAR ope OT I EO SUSAR ERE OU OE RENE RSE oR ES

EEE RIESE asaeceamene nescence neten te tpentiesgcereeeg ernest enanrinse eet ces ea PERS ea eee aoe nee ge es Ue oo eae Se reece 2 ethernet teen page aoa anno ee ee Ce ieee ee oe ea SEES aes Sa ee cued eens moron emg anemia eh oh am erereu enema Meee tnostee bsg OR bares Rie eaen eee irc nen, “Tt SE URES BED SE eMiuanntn eenteue poate een nme

EERE 52 Ee SSS EENaerate CE gt ndae Sc aes Na erSaree eRe EE mere: Ce ae eaeoe ne eee inneree ee Seer ea ESS cc Sa RN Noone ure Me th eo cog Re Ca eee Oe ce gh vies fo, sy FES PER SRC PC Ee Enon ara tear nee ee ee ee Sees ee eee oe pee ee pe cee DORE SEE: ESE BE eee ce fe ee ca RE es oe ee eee ae BRU CEN CR i Seta ec CAS GRR SEER eee EEE at. a ee SEh aos SE ae ES Ree ee eae ee ES SS ESSReeSe eR eee EUR ORS osES” RE EE oe Ue ee eeEee eee FESS Seener ec Re cr eee aApec omega. 2RR 3” Ro Sea" asabee an oe SR Rs RC aR oS Sa aSeee ee eeeee ee Rs RR AEaparece Se RS ore eng Se a ERS EE RS Ee EES hee ec han ise aetna agate ee cinco cere are Sr | — RR Se ae Be PSR ERR Sag ee eae ee So ee ee re ee ee ee ES ae BS ea RO PER She ~a ne | ERS i ERR RCRA Seaeeeens eeUe ee Seek ee ee Sea ote Pee eee ces See SR RE ES eee ea ene mata oe a" enates ee ere A ne=: cc!ee EERE Us ee eee TEES eeu ae ction cetacean SR Seer oars meetumnhnn mints ute une m oe eee: hela a A od Le SE a ee ee en eausassuunsilrac dota taiane readin seen

EOESeep diate ume pioSucve metas ene ate noe nectena ieee aieeape nee CT Bo SGeeeAS ee emaces Ts tccteni ges RE SEE SR tesserae Se SiGe SESE SSSch er Sesencencaseuaesgg ata otanvanans mercies eee eae:engi See ee cinee eR NENanance PEE an etna pe noe. naeenaa eee cesBU SSeSone TT SER Se OR oe _ SERS ee a sietteges sessing eine bene

EES Bee eepeti eemain ee EES See nna ee Sposa ee Me. Beas onagSE EESoe sonnei Pee nat Sea SERS TE aacneaes Ge stee caeou igo memae eee suger See eae atenee LT eeSe Reprpeenccunn caer SeRE enot Nee aiacece Spam ne,ORR cee cnn POSE a gaeee geeaera nciaieats aaaSeo simran SRR RSE Oo oReee REIN ave eaehana BeenSeapets ane Senaa“Tame PRE oy 3ase SEERena ERE Menten ee Sir nt eg Sane RO RSE ESeimai ORR RS RRR

SSSR SSSSSS SSeSeaa a SC areSER RR aPED cena igan UR aaaS ean USE SEI. coinSC A Rea eeuanerahennig a ae sees eR Re onannomen mie noenets icinenana sae nee TERE cer SieSSE gee SSE a hema eeetaeegane RCaoe EN eeeRCO emerens. RARER i Ucar penis gonna mene

ESE Seca Seer = ssgeSRR See a eoEO eee SueySLeee teRIOT crea RS ameRRS SRSOR ed ee ERE See eS enema ee Re enBaer ee urneaaRRr ReeR ee ak Sepsis ERE. gS eeea os Tea IE OO Reae Seeeee Ne er ROaeREN SERA RSE RS

SEES ER ec cpr hha aeianen cree aatenna namie eeh See ee os Nice Seve oe Soe enn See eR Sie eee rena RRR sea oe ae cere ee eg seme tema eter denne, Sueatersrtaenisretecnaetettr a

ESS Sees ee raphe ee en eneeeeee BOR GaN ine aianeeenctete SeeeS SRSR LN Sian one h recnarane ce meee ananguereneartce htese mean ie ities necineca te emcenenaia eenaeneeenemee RSS eeRR ee tthe een eeOO ereewe ane mec Ranta SSS aoa SR SSR UREE SOS Narra aerate aineae ean caer mac oe eeranae SESE ee ate uan a oyun emeee ee ata aur ag acenomenon kaa een ete ci pec! pear Beacons agtern OOweeneaietc eesreERR a Se eeeen ESSER OE arae OOarate SO SEE SSS oC OME Santee cparnaee aes camara apsea reue sutienmnghe or noun MeiSern nem ernie cr aneinie wattage gee pane

EEE ESssacargo RSa ace Re SE srs ee ene EE SSeeSeee ee ee asters EERE Ue ee seeeeen eenr aee nea ene ee : :Sea ERE eeSe ce era eR a eeae gies ean ee ee epee cearae ee FR ecioe a Gin aimsatiimnns noncancer a eae Punranne SORE eeeSpeen gibi cee Sain Bese RR eerie ES Richoneasasntanen corner SEES Se icici ect eSming er chew eaens ene BaarRR ce Me ON on eae ORAS =e: eR Suc 3aaa sectah aearene Seen oe igeneriinet en ame eugene igs aunecaecn HES ARSED SR cha eee ie ann gener eae ae ee ee eA ee eu een cen RRR ESR ARC NCCAA ORO OR RC Si iuiununr gu umincunnnan cringe saranet meee cen

Photo 4oan ide Te , a erensor 1ago egan to be r a possi ec . e66 _ _.5e 99 = When ~ _8_ .econsidered e e . & 33 . e 7: 1otorera OF Nagazine Covel b Dou St | U “missic .. Vy Cie Y se ™.3.

3~8° ee

.

presic ential candidate, she aitere er image rom tne gun wie Ing graft buster Oa bDeaul queen in scarlet dresses un ay nguirer Magazine, cover, Se tember *

s

unday Inquirer Magazine

e

178 | Women, Power, and Kinship Politics — “Maganda pala ang anak ng Presidente” |‘‘Ay, the president’s daughter is beautiful.””]°° When Gloria Macapagal Arroyo ran for reelection as senator in

1995, her campaign posters displayed a picture of herself exposing bare shoulders in a cover girl pose. She topped the senatorial list of candidates in that election. (Macapagal, for that is the name she continues to use, credits her success to name recall and the observation that she looked like a popular movie star—Nora Aunor.®’) Of course, the poster could not take sole credit

, for her amazing victory. The senator enjoys a reputation as a brilliant economist, reflected in her legislative record, which focused on economic issues. Since the Philippines is currently in dire need of catching up with its neighboring “tiger economies,” her expertise comes at the right time.®

| Though the militant nun/activist woman eclipses the woman as beauty queen (Mrs. Marcos excepted) during the martial law years, and despite the fact that President Aquino’s victory revealed an initial rejection of the beauty image because the image was so closely associated with the Marcos regime that people sought to overthrow, since 1986 recycled versions of the beauty queen have reemerged as a dominant image of female power. Miriam Defensor Santiago’s experience is a case in point. In early 1996, in what was

| perceived as another “battle of the widows,” Congresswoman Imelda Marcos and former President Corazon Aquino expressed their disagreement in a | beauty/power discourse. Aquino demanded the return of the Marcos millions stolen from the country; Marcos rebutted with her own demand that Aquino cede Hacienda Luisita (the Cojuangco family’s vast sugar hacienda) to the people, in keeping with land reform. Although these charges and countercharges were the main issues of contention, the debate was couched in terms of the beauty/power ideology, with Mrs. Marcos exclaiming, “For 10 years

| our country and the Filipino people have suffered enough from your ugliness,”°? and Aquino, on the defensive, lamenting, “Well, you know, she spends all her time calling me ugly. How can you reconcile with someone who keeps calling you ugly?”’’° On the face of it, the quarrel may simply be about beauty and its antithesis, ugliness. However, taking into account the fact that the ‘Tagalog word for beauty (#aganda) connotes a woman’s virtuousness, the debate becomes not only an obviously gendered one in ref- __ erence to a woman’s virtues, but even more, in the context of politics, a fight

about women’s power. ,

MILITANT WOMAN / MILITANT NUN Gendered images of power reflected a confrontation between images of

7 male and female power with the advent of martial law. Immediately before the declaration of martial law, the student movement, which had erupted in what became known as “the first quarter storm,” had already produced militant, activist women, students, and members of the MAKIBAKA. Many became political prisoners in the early days of martial law, while others who

Beauty Queen, Moral Guardian, \nang Bayan, and Militant Nun 179 escaped the net joined the underground movement. To provide assistance to the political prisoners of the regime, the Task Force Detainees was organized. Predictably, this organization was dominated by women, both nuns and lay. Its president was a militant nun, Sister Mariani Dimaranan, who was herself imprisoned by the Marcos regime for twenty-seven days between October and December 1973. Not surprisingly, the wives of male political detainees as well as nuns sympathetic to their plight were the most active in the group.”! It was the nuns who clandestinely acquired documentation on

the plight of political prisoners. It was they also who stood up against the military during the illegal labor strikes of the era and supported the minorities in their defense of ancestral land. These same nuns confronted the military in the 1986 people power revolution, and their support was actively solicited by groups who very clearly represented the victims of martial law. ‘The nuns were conspicuously placed at the front lines for two reasons: first,

it was believed that the military would be less likely to harm a woman of the religious order, and second, the nuns themselves believed that they should be the first ones to offer up their lives for the victims of martial law.” As discussed in chapter 4, the nuns were highly conspicuous and more openly

committed than the priests in the radical and highly dangerous politics of

the martial law period.

This image of the militant nun was immortalized in a 1984 movie entitled Sister Stella L. Vhe plot of the movie involves a nun, Sister Stella Legaspi,

who is initially politically indifferent, but who eventually becomes sensitized | to the plight of the strikers during a labor dispute in a depressed area. Exposed to the miserable lives of the strikers, she joins them on the picket line, only to witness the military assault and murder a labor leader. This experience strengthens her determination to fight against tyranny and oppression, and it is at the climax of the film that she delivers her message: “Kung hindi tayo kikilos, sino pa, kung hindi ngayon, kailan pa! [If we do not act, who will, if not now, when else!]’”’”

Written by Jose Lacaba, this slogan was one of the catchphrases of the activists of the 1970s. The fact that Lacaba purposely gave these lines to the character who was a militant nun was testimony to the visibility of the militant nun as representative of opposition to the Marcos dictatorship. Sister Christine ‘Tan, also of the ‘Task Force Detainees, pointed out that director Mike De Leon consulted the nuns in the making of the movie, thus presenting an insightfully accurate image of the militant nuns in the martial law years.’* ‘The image of the militant nun was certainly an interesting variation on the earlier image of the woman as moral guardian. In the movie, Sister Stella L. was portrayed by the popular, beautiful actress Vilma Santos. The

choice of a fair, pretty actress to play the lead role shows that even nuns exercising moral power must also be projected as beautiful women.

The other image of the militant woman represented the women in the Communist Party and its military arm, the New People’s Army (NPA).

180 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics Women of the New People’s Army were projected in the underground press

as petite, young college students, mahinhin (this ‘Tagalog term for modest refers to a woman’s proper decorum, which, interestingly enough, also implies timidity) who carried armalite weapons. These female fighters were also political officers with specified roles that allowed them to concentrate on the education and enlightenment of female peasantry, activities not merely centered on issues of national liberation but also involving feminist issues.” ‘The fact that the image of beauty queen as signifier of female power had in that era, been eclipsed by that of militant woman is palpable from the example of two beauty queens, Nelia Sancho (Queen of the Pacific) and Maita Gomez _ (Miss Philippines and runner-up in the Miss World contest), who took to the hills to join the communist underground.” After the assassination of Benigno Aquino in 1984, anti-Marcos groups , mushroomed, particularly women’s groups. Chapter 4 discussed the General Assembly Binding Women for Reforms, Integrity, Equality, Leadership, and Action (GABRIELA), which was organized to serve as the umbrella for all women’s organizations (around fifty in Manila and thirty-eight in Mindanao).’’ GABRIELA at its inception was formed as a vehicle to mobilize women against the Marcos dictatorship, and thus did not really focus on women’s issues specifically until after 1986. Although I have argued that the images of the female in power have come

, out of the dynamics of kinship politics, GABRIELA consciously constructed four images of the Filipina woman. These images are reflected in the GABRIELA logo, drawn by artist Bencab. The first image is the nanay, or “mother,” image (a woman carrying a child); the second image is the woman with one hand covering her face in a gesture of defense, representing the women advocates who rise to the defense of women victims; the third image is a woman standing up with her arm raised in defiance, representing the

woman activist; while the fourth woman is still emerging and as such appears indistinct, the image of the Filipina woman “who is in the process of be-

coming [and] who has a very high sense of herself.’””® a

It was the third image, the woman as activist or woman as militant, that in the end predominated in the 1986 people power revolution. But it was not the militant woman carrying an armalite weapon or the woman raising her hand in defiance that openly challenged the military. In fact, the Communist Party chose not to participate in this middle-class revolution. Instead, it was the militant nuns, armed with rosaries, and the unarmed woman as militant who confronted male power in the form of the military, and triumphed. This particular incident illustrated the potency of moral power and its ability to defeat male physical power.

INANG BAYAN | The image of Inang Bayan, or the motherland (usually depicted as suffering), was both an emotive and a powerful symbol. During election campaigns

Beauty Queen, Moral Guardian, Inang Bayan, and Militant Nun 181 this image was conjured up or embellished by women candidates. Miriam Defensor Santiago pointed out that one of the advantages of being a woman on the campaign trail was that one could make a strong emotional appeal to the audience. She would end her speeches with the story of being wheeled to the hospital on the threshold of death after a car accident that she claimed had been an assassination attempt. At the climax of this tale her ten-yearold son, reluctant to leave the operating room, takes one last look at his mother, and cries out: “Mother, never give up! Mother, never give up!” Another anecdote she often told the voters was of her arriving home from work after receiving a death threat, looking in on her eight-year-old boy sound asleep and promising him, “I am not going to let this little boy down,

I will never let the people of the Philippines down, no matter what the cost!””? Statements like this carried emotional weight, as she became identified with the suffering mother. | Among “mother symbols” we have Senator Santanina Rasul, who received the Inang Bayan (mother of the country) award in 1991,°° and Sally Zaldivar Perez, often called the mother of Antique province.*’ Even Imelda Marcos grabbed every opportunity to project herself as a mother. When the outburst of criticism against her husband escalated to unprecedented levels toward 1972, she put on a media performance of grief of soap opera proportions during the burial of a “foetus” from an alleged miscarriage. In the midst of the women’s demonstrations against the Marcos regime after 1986, Odette Alcantara played the part of the suffering motherland dressed up as an anorexic looking Inang Bayan.*’ ‘The singing duet famous for performing antiMarcos songs in the rallies between 1984 and 1986 called themselves Inang Laya (mother/freedom). Nevertheless, the use of the image of Inang Bayan by women in power or even women disempowered, though consistent, has failed to crystalize fur-

ther. This I would attribute to the inherent conflict between the role of mother in the dynamics of kinship politics and the role of Inang Bayan. The image of Inang Bayan also demonstrates that women’s power is a contested site where traditional kinship politics and modern values of nationalism are locked in an unresolved conflict. To be a good mother in the dynamics of kinship politics means to protect one’s family, a point of contention once a “mother” gained power. Though supporting one’s family may give a woman the image of being a “good mother,” endorsing nepotism and family corruption would inevitably tarnish the image of mother of the country. This dilemma is encapsulated in a statement made by President Corazon Aquino as she attempted to warn family members against abusing their position:

“Short of ordering them to hibernate or go into exile, I don’t know what else I can do.”** Though this mother image is never really prominently tied to women in power, it is of course more closely aligned to the entire country as a symbol of suffering or exploited victim. In some subtle, ethereal way, the image of the suffering mother became an elusive image sought by powerful women, who sought identity with it because of its emotional potency.

182 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics Images of female power that stress beauty, moral guardianship, or Inang Bayan are linked to the woman’s position as the support system in the dynamics of kinship politics. Even though women claim the symbols of power themselves and no longer have to exercise power unofficially, they are still expected to exude such images, often requiring them to reinvent themselves, as the career of Miriam Defensor Santiago has shown. Why would these images specifically concentrate on beauty, moral guardianship, and Jnang Bayan, or the woman’s role as mother? Apart from the fact that these images reflected women’s role as support system in kinship politics, women could acquire top positions only in the areas traditionally accepted as female-dominated organizations. Being president of groups such as the Philippine Red Cross, the Catholic Women’s League or the Philippine Tuberculosis Society or even being a beauty queen whether Miss Philippines, Carnival Queen—Miss Manila, Miss Caltex Philippines, and later Miss Universe, Miss International, Miss Asia, Miss Pacific, Miss Magnolia Ice Cream, Miss Philippines Red Cross, down to the Muse of the De la Salle , University basketball team—were the only avenues where women could gain

top prestigious positions and acquire fame on their own individual merit. These were the institutions where women could become known and accepted, the parameters where they could theoretically achieve the most pow-

, erful positions within the purview of society’s concept of the role of woman , in charge of the household, and politically, in the support system of the - dynamics of kinship politics. These were the only areas where a woman could acquire a reputation as a public figure based on her individual merit, the only areas where she could build her own identity, an identity that did not necessarily have to be linked to a male kin. Born out of the alteration of the tenor of kinship politics, which polarized society into either the few practitioners of extreme kinship politics or the marginalized others who were disempowered victims, the image of the militant nun presented the woman not as supportive of a male role, but as an individual agent speaking for men and women victims of martial law. As for

the women in the underground, in theory Marxist ideology argued that women should be fighting alongside men for national liberation, but there was some debate as to whether national liberation should be the first aim _ prior to the liberation of women. Interestingly, the feminist influences did not shape the mind-set of the militant nuns or GABRIELA until a few years after they became political activists, or, in the case of GABRIELA, until after the inital political aims of the organization were achieved.** The primary concern of these women was that they, as women, speak out against all oppression. After 1986, when kinship politics began to operate anew, much as it did in the republican era, the militant woman, as an image of female power, was again eclipsed by reworked images of beauty queen and moral guardian. However, the images of militant woman or militant nun, though

no longer dominant, continue to be projected by those women who remain

Beauty Queen, Moral Guardian, Inang Bayan, and Militant Nun 183 on the fringes of power. One recent news item in fact, went so far as to claim that militant nuns are here to stay.® The influence of the various feminisms as well as the constitutional limit on terms of office, which resulted in increasing representation of women in

the Congress, the Senate, and other political offices, means that at some point men will no longer monopolize the symbols of power. This signals the reality that unofficial power will cease to be the only avenue open to women. Such a change may be attributable to the impact of globalized ideas of empowerment for women, to First and Third world feminisms, and to the postmodern concern for those voices at the margins. Eventually these new trends may alter images of female power.

NOTES {. Oliver Wolters, History, Culture and Region in Southeast Asian Perspective (Sin-

gapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1982), pp. 6, 101-4; Oliver Wolters, Dai-Viet in the Fourteenth Century (New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asian Studies, 1988), pp. xxill, xxx, xxxiv, 9.

2. See, for instance, Benedict Anderson, “The Idea of Power in Javanese Culture,” in Culture and Politics in Indonesia, ed. Claire Holt (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1972), pp. 1-69. 3. Doris Nuyda, The Beauty Book: A History of Philippine Beauty from 1908-1980 (Manila: Mr. & Ms. Publishing, 1980), no page numbers. 4. Krishna Sen, “Indonesian Women at Work: Reframing the Subject,” in Gender and Power in Affluent Asia, ed. Maila Stivens and Krishna Sen (London: Routledge, 1998). 5. Beverley Hooper, ““Women, Consumerism and the State in Post-Mao China,” Asian Studies Review 17, no. 30 (April, 1994).

6. Stephanie Fahey, “Vietnam’s Women in the ‘Renovation’ Era,” in Gender and Power in Affluent Asia, ed. Stivens and Sen; Esta Ungar, “Gender, Land and Household in Vietnam,” Asian Studies Review, 17, no. 3 (April, 1994); Viviane Lowe, “Women in Arms: Representations of Vietnamese Women at War 1965-1975” (paper presented at the Workshop on Southeast Asian Women, Monash University, Melbourne, September 29, 1994).

7. Interview with Congresswoman Consuelo “Baby” Puyat-Reyes, Makati, Metro-Manila, January 11, 1994. 8. Cited in Miguela Gonzalez-Yap, The Making of Cory (Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 1987), p. 107. 9, Interview with Congressional Candidate Sally Zaldivar Perez, Makati, MetroManila, February 2, 1993. 10. Quoted in Manuel F. Almario, “Should Politicians Be Saints?” Philippine Graphic, March 16, 1992, p. 43. 11. Carmencita T. Aguilar, “Filipino Women in Electoral Politics,” in Filipino Women and Public Policy, ed. Proserpina Domingo Tapales (Manila: Kalikasan Press for the University of the Philippines, Center for Women’s Studies, 1992), p. 27. 12. Philippines Free Press, September 20, 1947, p. 18. 13. Weekly Graphic, January 19, 1966, pp. 12-13.

4, 1993. 184 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics

, 14. Interview with Senator Eva Estrada Kalaw, Manila, Metro-Manila, February

15. “Some Facts on the Candidacy of Mrs. Eva Estrada Kalaw,” n.p., n.d., Eva Estrada Kalaw File, Manila Times morgue, Lopez Museum, Manila. See also cam- ,

paign leaflets in the same file. , , 16. Campaign leaflet for Eva Estrada Kalaw, ibid.

17, Senator Helen Benitez was president of PWU from June 27, 1966 to 1968, and then again from June 16, 1973 to 1976, and then again from June 1987 to 1992. See Gertie Ampil Tirona, Ezmpowering Woman: The Helen Z. Benitez Herstory (Metro-

, Manila: Helen Z. Benitez Heritage Foundation, 1995, pp. 218-219; and Maria J. | Empig, Helen Z. Benitez: The Educator (Metro-Manila: Helen Z. Benitez Heritage _ Foundation, 1994), p. 93; Isabel A. Santos and Pricilla G. Cabanatan, Helen Bayanihan and the Filipino: A Trilogy for Culture (Metro-Manila: Helena Z. Benitez Heritage

, Foundation, 1994). | 18. Tirona, Empowering Women, p. 220. oe

19, Interview with Marinela Katigbak Fabella, daughter of Senator Maria Kalaw Katigbak, New Manila, Metro-Manila, January 24, 1994.

_ 20. Monina Allarey Mercado, “She Gets There by Marriage: Women in Con-

gress,” Weekly Graphic, January 19, 1966, p. 13. ,

21. Interview with Congresswoman Consuelo “Baby” Puyat-Reyes.

, 22. Interview with Assemblywoman Edith Nakpil Rabat, Mandaluyong, Metro-

Manila, February 7, 1994.

23. “What Is the Congressional Spouses Foundation all About?” manuscript given to the author by Mrs. Gina de Venecia, wife of Speaker of the House Jose de Venecia. (The manuscript was written around the close of 1992.) 24. Meeting of the Congressional Spouses Foundation Inc., Quezon City, MetroManila, January 27, 1994.

25. Interview with Mrs. Gina de Venecia, wife of the Speaker of the House Jose de Venecia and president of CFSI, Makati, Metro-Manila, January 29, 1993. 26. Interview with Mrs. Gloria “Baby” Angara, wife of Senate President Edgardo _ Angara and president of the Senate Ladies, Makati, Metro-Manila, January 22, 1993. 27. Interview with Mrs. Annie de Guzman, wife of Secretary-General of the Batasan Assembly Antonio de Guzman, Quezon City, Metro-Manila, February 2, 1995. 28. Emmie G. Velarde, “A Dream of Peace,” Philippine Graphic, January 6, 1992, pp. 18-19; Gamela Arpa, “Celia Diaz-Laurel, ‘Waiting in the Wings,’ ” Philippines

Free Press, October 6, 1990, pp. 30-32; M. Duefias, “1991 ‘Woman for Peace

1994.

Award,’ ”’ Philippines Free Press, January 25, 1992, p. 29; interview with Mrs. Celia

Diaz Laurel, Mandaluyong, Metro-Manila, January 26, 1994.

29. Interview with Mrs. Cristina Ponce Enrile, Makati, Metro-Manila, January 26, 30. “JAKA Board Chair Gets Papal Award,” The Manila Times, October 15, 1994, p. A-7; “Papal Award for Mrs. Enrile; Adieu to Oliver,” Philippine Daily Inquirer,

October 23, 1994, p. C8. — ,

31. Miriam Defensor Santiago, Cutting Edge: The Politics of Reform in the Philippines

Woman Today Publications, 1994), p. 64. oe -(Metro-Manila: 32. Ibid., chapters 2 and 3. | | 33. Miriam Defensor Santiago, How to Fight Graft and Corruption (Metro-Manila: Movement for Responsible Public Service, 1991; Miriam Defensor Santiago, How

Beauty Queen, Moral Guardian, Inang Bayan, and Militant Nun 185 to Fight Election Fraud (Metro-Manila: Movement for Responsible Public Service, 1991).

34. Belinda A. Aquino, “Introduction: Editor’s Note on Moral Recovery,” in Moral Recovery and Philippine Development, Proceedings of the Consultant Forum on Moral Recovery, ed. Belinda A. Aquino Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, March 2-3, 1991 (Metro-Manila: Raintree Trading and Publishing, 1991), p. 1. 35. See, for example, Senator Leticia Ramos Shahani, Building a Filipino Nation, the Power of Human Values, Moral Recovery Program I (n.p., 1991); Shahani, Paghubog sa Mamamayan, Katatagan ng Bayan, Pagpapanumbalik ng Moralidad, Programa I (Metro-Manila: Senado ng Kongreso ng Pilipinas, n.d.); and Shahani, Pilipino Values and National Development, Readings on the Moral Recovery Program (MetroManila: Economic Development Foundation, 1992). 36. Leticia R. Shahani, “Value Formation and National Development,” in Fi/zpino Values and National Development, p. 64.

37. Ibid. 38. Interview with Senatorial Candidate Marrietta Primicias Goco, Quezon City, Metro-Manila, February 2, 1994. Books like Filipino Values and National Development: Readings on the Moral Recovery Program were published by Kabisig People’s Movement in 1993.

tober 7, 1994, pp. 18-19.

39, Edmund Valen, “Drugbusting Lady of Quezon City,” Philippine Graphic, Oc-

40. Interview with Former First Lady and now Congresswoman Imelda Romualdez Marcos, Makati, Metro-Manila, February 13, 1993. 41. Ibid. 42. Interview with Senator Anna Dominique “Nikki” Coseteng, Manila, MetroManila, February 16, 1993; interview with Mrs. Gretchen Cojuangco, New Manila, Metro-Manila, February 16, 1993. 43. “May Ganda, May Utak—Maria Kalaw Katigbak,” paid advertisement, Phi/ippines Free Press, November 4, 1961, p. 37; “Villanueva-Kalaw-Katigbak Family,” paid advertisement, Philippines Free Press, November 4, 1961, pp. 64-65. 44. Interview with Mrs. Gretchen Cojuangco. 45. “Our Opponent Does Not Manicure Her Nails,” Mr & Ms, special edition, January 17-23, 1986, pp. 1-2. 46. Interview with Marinella Katigbak Fabella, daughter of Senator Maria Kalaw

Katigbak; interview with Edith Nakpil Rabat. |

47. Nuyda, The Beauty Book, no page numbers. 48. Ibid.; interview with Mrs. Cristina Ponce Enrile. 49, Ricky Lopez, “Days of Wine and Laurels,” Metro, April 1993, pp. 39-42. 50. Leon O. ‘Ty, “Mrs. Roxas Moves to Malacafian,” Philippines ree Press, June 8, 1946, p. 2. See also Nuyda, The Beauty Book, no page numbers.

51. Bayani S. San Diego, “The Importance of Being Baby Arenas,” Philippine Graphic, October 5, 1992, p. 10. 52. Interview with Mayor Adelina Rodriguez, Mandaluyong, Metro-Manila, January 26, 1995, 53. Interview with Gloria Diaz, Makati, Metro-Manila, January 20, 1995; interview with Carmen Guerrero Nakpil, mother of Gemma Cruz, Makati, Metro-Manila, March 9, 1996. 54. Interview with Gloria Diaz.

186 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics 55. Chay Florentino-Hofilena, “Gemma Cruz: A Charmed Life,” Filipinas, No-

vember 1994, pp. 12-13. |

56. Interview with Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Quezon City, MetroManila, January 27, 1993. 57. Miriam Defensor Santiago wrote two autobiographies. Cutting Edge: The Politics of Reform in the Philippines concentrated on her career from judge to commissioner of immigration and deportation, to cabinet secretary (agrarian reform), to presidential candidate. The other one, Reinventing Myself (Quezon City: New Day, Publishers, 1994), focused on her childhood and youth. The quote is from Defensor Santiago, Cutting Edge, p. 127. Since 1997, another book, A Frabjous Day, was published. 58. Miriam Defensor Santiago, The Miriam Defensor Santiago Dictionary, (Makati:

: Movement for Responsible Public Service, 1991), cover and p. 22.

59. Ibid., p. 2; Defensor Santiago, Cutting Edge, p. 122.

62. Ibid., p. 23. ,

— 60. Defensor Santiago, The Miriam Dictionary, p. 16.

61. Ibid., p. 28.

65. Ibid. , 63. Defensor Santiago, Cutting Edge, pp. 190-191. , 64. Interview with Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago.

66. Napoleon G. Rama, “War of the Women,” Philippines Free Press, October 16, 1965, p. 2. 67. “Women Power,” Asiaweek, June 9, 1995, p. 38.

68. Ibid., pp. 30-38. .

69. “Word War of Widows ‘Turns Nasty,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, January 20, 1996, p. 1; “Imelda to Cory: Put Up or Shut Up,” The Manila Chronicle, January 20, 1996, p. 1; “Shut Up, Imelda Tells ‘Ugly’ Cory Aquino,” Today, January 20, 1996,

p. I. , 70. Newsweek, March 11, 1996, p. 9. 71. Interview with Sister Mariani Dimaranan, president of Task Force Detainees, New Manila, Metro-Manila, February 3, 1995. 72. Interview with Sister Mariani Dimaranan; interview with Sister Christine Tan, member of Task Force Detainees and GABRIELA, Leverisa, Malate, Metro-Manila, February 7, 1995; interview with Sister Mary John Mananzan, president of GABRIELA, Manila, Metro-Manila, February 4, 1994.

, 73. Sister Stella L., 1984. See also Emmanuel Reyes, Notes on Philippine Cinema (Manila: De La Salle University Press, 1989), pp. 10-15.

74. Interview with Sister Christine ‘Tan. ,

75. “Panayam Sa Isang Babaeng NPA,” Malayang Pilipina, Pahayagan ng Naki-

kibakang Kababaihan, 2, 9, 1974; p. 5. , 76. The Sunday Times Magazine, November 26, 1967, pp. 42-43; Corazon C. Fiel, “Breakfast with Maita and Nikki,’ Mr. & Ms., May 24-30, 1985, pp. 28-31. 77. Luzviminda G. Tancangco, “Voters, Candidates, and Organizers: Women and Politics in Contemporary Philippines,” in Filipino Women, ed. ‘Vapales, p. 70. , 78. Interview with Fe Arriola, one of the founders of GABRIELA, Makati, MetroManila, January 26, 1995. 79, Interview with Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago. 80. Viola J. Ann G. Torres, “Voice of the South,” The Philippine Starweek, August 9, 1992, p. 8.

Beauty Queen, Moral Guardian, \nang Bayan, and Militant Nun 187 81. Interview with Congressional Candidate Sally Zaldivar Perez. 82. Francoise Joaquin, “Many Faces of Eve,” Mr. & Ms., November 1-7, 1985, p. 12. 83. Quoted in Stanley Karnow, In Our Image: America’s Empire in the Philippines (New York: Random House, 1989), p. 426. 84. Interview with Sister Mary John Mananzan, chair of GABRIELA, Manila,

February 4, 1994; interview with Sister Christine Tan, member of the board of GABRIELA; interview with Sister Mariani Dimaranan, president of ‘Task Force Detainees; interview with Fe Arriola, a founder of GABRIELA. 85. “Midwives for Change: Militant Nuns Here to Stay,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, February 5, 1995, p. 18.

Blank Page

6 Conclusion: Empowering Women Women have been political agents at least since the independent Philippine republic was inaugurated in 1945. As political agents they had to negotiate the various competing and conflicting discourses, such as kinship politics, nationalism, modernity, democracy, communism, feminism, and unofficial

power. While it is true that men also had to engage with similar cultural conflicts, the gendering of power and politics meant that women’s experiences were more complex and acute. Because women traditionally have been allocated unofficial power, must a feminist opt only for official power? Unlike women’s experiences of official power, unofficial power has no glass ceiling. Women who have exercised unofficial power have certainly been more successful than the handful of women who have gained official power. Those holding official power have been compelled to play according to maledominated rules in a male-dominated field. Women political activists who joined the Communist Party and the KASAPI, for instance, were relegated to auxiliary roles, fed crumbs of power while the males feasted on the choice cuts. And yet modernist discursive practices frown on unofficial power, see-

ing it as somehow illegitimate because of the contrast in perceptions of power: while Filipinos recognize power held by the kinship group, the “modern” democratic view of power is that power could only emanate from the individual in office. ,

Women in post-war Philippines have nonetheless exercised at least four types of power: unofficial power, moral power, official power, and the rebel

190 Women, Power, and Kinship Politics power of political activism. Comparatively speaking, unofficial power has so

far proved to have been the most effective for women. Although women | have acquired official power as politicians in both local and national politics, they have had to contend with a male-dominated environment and compete with male-centered established networks. The absence of the women’s vote and the lack of support for an all-women’s party, coupled with the society’s _ apparent distaste for feminist ideology, have blunted women’s efforts at making official power work for them. Yet there were some distinct advantages in being a female even in the grand inner circles of official power. Women

could rely on their charm, applying cariio or lambing to lobby for their political agendas in the legislature or to gain the necessary funds for their political or community projects. Asked in interviews whether it was an ad- vantage or a disadvantage to be a woman in politics, most women politicians replied they were convinced that the advantages far outweighed the disadvantages. In a nonconfrontational society where people are reluctant to say

no in public and risk loss of face, it is much harder to refuse a woman’s request, for instance, for funding for a civic work project. Given that women as political agents daily confront these conflicts and —

, negotiate their way in the clash between kinship politics and modernity, they

| face a number of choices in their quest for real and effective power. This book has focused on some of these choices. Many malakas, women subscrib-

- ing to traditional notions of women’s power, fulfilled political roles and ex-__ ercised kinship politics as wives of politicians. Some of these dynamic women metamorphosed into politicians themselves. In this sense these women savored two types of power: official and unofficial. ‘Their experiences so far suggest that perhaps the best road to official power is via unofficial power. As wives of politicians, they tapped into the male-dominated networks and wallowed in the dynamics of patronage politics as well as the personalized political party structure that is still largely male directed. Instead of running for office as an unknown woman in KAIBA having to compete with male candidates who were clearly linked with powerful, long-established political

| alliance networks, these wives of politicians cum political candidates were already firmly entrenched in hands-on experience in their husbands’ organ-izational machines. Well-placed and already well-known in the kinship group’s political bailiwick, the wife of a politician who used her position to , launch civic projects and practice kinship politics enjoyed a great advantage over her female counterpart who was running for election for the first time. The significant number of women who chose this option revealed how lines between unofficial power and official power are blurred in women’s expe-

riences.

There were even women who happily exercised unofficial and official power simultaneously, if they were lucky enough to be both politicians themselves and the wives of politicians at the same time! Senator Leticia Shahani is a major public figure with impressive clout in the Senate not just because

Conclusion 191 she is a senator, but also because she is the sister of the president. At times one cannot determine whether her malakas status stems from her official or her unofficial power. President Ramos has been known to disagree with her; in 1995 he clearly allied with the Speaker of the House against his sister’s choice for governor of Pangasinan. On the other hand, there remains the perception that her colleagues in the Senate are intimidated by her because

she is the sister of the president.' Among women who embody or have embodied both official and unofficial power are Congresswoman Kate Gordon, who is the wife of former Mayor of Olongapo Richard Gordon, now administrator of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority; Governor Margarita “Tingting’ Coyuangco, married to Congressman Jose “Peping” Cojuangco; Mayor Adelina Rodriguez, devoted spouse of Governor Isidro Rodriguez (martial law era); Congresswoman Lualhati Antonino, wife of the mayor of General Santos City; Congresswoman Tecla San Andres Ziga, who, prior to her reign in the Senate, was concurrently the wife of the governor of Albay,

Venancio Ziga (in the republican period, 1945-1972); and Governor of Metro-Manila Imelda Marcos, who was simultaneously the First Lady (in the martial law era). Perhaps one could argue that these women were the most empowered of Filipino political agents, since they exercised both types of power at the same time. The militant nuns have opted for the traditional method of exercising women’s power, although their brand of unofficial power, moral power, differs strongly from the kinship-based power used by most wives and kin of politicians. ‘The source of the nun’s unofficial moral power comes from their cultural capital as religious and moral figures representing modern and even Western (since Christianity is a Western religion) notions of virtousness, goodness, and legitimacy. Although highly visible in demonstrations and publicly vocal about their attitudes toward kinship politics, corruption, social injustice, and women’s issues, they nonetheless refrained from seeking official power, preferring to use moral power in the traditional way women exercised power——behind the scenes. Sister Christine Tan, for example, was a member of the 1986 constitutional convention but since then has returned to her devout work in Leverisa, an urban slum area in Malate, Manila. There can be no doubt that moral power was very effective, so much so that at the height of martial law, First Lady Imelda Marcos summoned Sister Christine

Tan, then president of the Association of Major Religious Superiors of Women, to Malacafiang for a talk.* So attuned was Mrs. Marcos to Sister Christine’s moral power that she thought it politically imperative for the Marcos administration to dialogue with a nun. These nuns’ experiences reveal that the exercising of female power can produce ambivalent choices; for

instance, there is an inherent contradiction in becoming a radical political activist espousing modernist ideologies (including the various feminisms) while steadfastly choosing to exercise power in the most traditional of ways for women.

192 , Women, Power, and Kinship Politics On the other hand, those women in radical politics who joined the militant organizations encompassing members of both sexes appeared to have chosen

the most impotent or feeblest alternative. In their attempts to rid society of kinship politics, these women shunned unofficial power. Unfortunately for them, radical organizations like the Communist Party of the Philippines, the Social Democrats, and even the human rights groups were patterned after

, Western modernist ideologies inheriting Western chauvinist attitudes toward women. Thus, while theoretically ideologies such as socialism and com-

munism proposed equality for women and consequently official power for women, in practice, Filipino women in these organizations were even more marginalized from power than they ever would have been under traditional dynamics. While traditional kinship politics discouraged women from gaining official power, at least women could be malakas as members of the kinship alliance group. In the case of radical political organizations, unofficial power was frowned upon, but women were denied important leadership roles. Pushed to the sidelines and reinvented as “auxiliaries” or “auxiliary rebels,” these women were marginalized from both official and unofficial

power. ,

Confronted with these complex choices—to be powerful but not officially recognized, officially powerful but marginalized, morally powerful but subservient to a male hierarchy through vows of obedience, or a political activist

with neither unofficial or official power—women need to decide whether real or actual power is more important than the invented institutional symbols of office. Filipino feminists have to question the premises of First and Third World feminisms, because these paradigms have made no allowance for unofficial power. Women have to come to terms with the use of unof-

ficial power, its strengths and limitations. , Is official power the best option for women in the Philippines? Shouldn’t

| actual power, whether unofficial or official, be the goal of women who gen- , uinely seek full empowerment? After all, official power is not worth much

| if is not used. The contrast between President Corazon Aquino, who was timid in her use of official power, and Mrs. Imelda Marcos, who abused her exercise of unofficial power, demonstrates that the road to women’s empowerment does not necessarily imply a cry for official power exclusively. Observations of how women’s power has been deployed in the nonpolitical arena

| might provide some insights for women seeking political power. Women in business corporations (usually family business corporations, since business also follows the kinship alliance structures) have been known to choose to exercise unofficial power. A woman will give her husband or brother the title of company president while she actually runs the business and makes all the decisions. Although the male holds the institutional symbols of office and

the cultural capital associated with the title of president or chairman of the board, the woman is the real power holder. Furthermore, the perception that she is the one in charge is well known publicly despite the fact that

Conclusion 193 formally the male enjoys all the prestigious titles. This arrangement has proved effective for many large businesses (the Rustan’s Commercial Corporation and Philippine Women’s University readily come to mind), precisely because the role of women as someone in the support system operating behind the scenes is much more accepted in the society than a visibly aggressive woman who outshines her husband in the public limelight. Understandably, feminists of any color will balk Gf not be completely outraged) at the thought of a woman subsuming her identity, belittling her success, and giving credit for work she has done to some impotent male who then reaps all the cultural capital. Nevertheless, the Filipina feminist challenge lies precisely in exploring the vast potentials of unofficial power, reworking tradi-

tional codes, practices, and even the dynamics of kinship politics—to maximize empowerment for Filipino women. For women to gain official power in a male-dominated structure with male-created rules would prove Pyrrhic if it is at the sacrifice of the existing unofficial power that women | already wield at present.

NOTES 1. Interviewee, who works in the Senate, requests anonymity. 2. Interview with Sister Christine ‘Tan, Leverisa, Malate, Metro-Manila, February 7, 1995.

| Blank Page |

Bibliography PRIMARY SOURCES

Newspapers and Periodicals Note: The collections of the underground press were incomplete, thus, only the issues available are included.

Ang Bayan (Cultural Center of the Philippines Library)

23, 1972 ,

March 30, November 30, December 15, 1971 January 3, January 28, January 30, February 12, May 1, 19, August 21, September 8, March 3, 5, 29, 1973 October 1974 July 1, August 15, October 6, December 3, 1975 March 1976 February 15, 28, March 3, 15, 31, April 15, 30, May 31, June 15, July 15, August 31, November 15, 30, 1978 January 15, 31, February 15, 1979

Balita ng Malayang Pilipinas (Cultural Center of the Philippines Library)

May 16, June 20, 17, August I, 1973

October 2, December 4, 1974 , April 15, July 2, 16, 30, August 27, September 10, 24, 1975

196 Bibliography June 15, 1976 February 25, April, 1, 15, May 1, July 1, 8, 15, 29, August 5, 12, 19, 26, 1978 January 15, 31, February 15, March 4, 11, 18, 25, 1979

Bandilang Pula (Cultural Center of the Philippines Library) (Opisyal na pahayagan ng Samahang Demokratiko ng Kabataan) March, June, September, November 1971 January, July 26, November 7, December 8, 1972

August 21, 1973 ,

Currents (Collection of Sister Mariani Dimaranan) (Published | , fortnightly by the Task Force Detainees of the Philippines)

October-December January—April 19941993 ,

Library)

Far Eastern Economic Review (Central Queensland University

——- 1986-1996

| Liberation (Cultural Center of the Philippines Library) January 22, March 29, April 21, 26, May 9, June 29, September 23, 30, November

12, 1973 os

January 31, March 21, April 15, June 15, July 31, December 31, 1978 February 1, 1979 May, June 1980

August 1983 , Malayang Pilipina (Cultural Center of the Philippines Library) (Pahayagan ng Makibakang Kababaihan) November 1974

Pahatid Kapatid (Armando Malay Papers, University of the Philippines Library) (some issues held by the Cultural Center of the Philippines Library) (Published by Kapatid—Kapisanan para sa Pagpapalaya at

, Amnestiya ng mga Detenido sa Pilipinas [The Society for the Freedom and Amnesty of Detainees in the Philippines] April, June, July, August 1980

April, May, June, July, August 1981 — March, April, May, August 1982 March, August 1985

Philippines Free Press (Lopez Museum Library)

1945-1972

| 1986-1996

. Bibliography | 197 Philippine Human Rights Update (For political prisoners) (Armando Malay Papers, University of the Philippines Library) September—December 1992

Signs of the Times (Association of Major Religious Superiors Library) (Bulletin published by the Association of Major Religious Superiors in the Philippines)

April 2, 5, 9, 12, 16, 23, May 5, 12, 19, 22, 26, 31, 1976 Weekly Graphic (Also called Philippine Graphic) (Lopez Museum Library) 1965-1972 1986-1996

Ynang Bayan (Cultural Center of the Philippines Library) January 1, September |, October 1, November 16, 1977

Individual Articles in Periodicals and Periodical Issues “Also for the Liberation of Men.” Mr. & Ms., March 8-14, 1985. “Arenas Gets ‘Advice’ on Pavarotti.” Manila Chronicle, January 26, 1994. “Arenas Is IBP Guest of Honor.” Philippine Daily Inquirer, October 23, 1994. Castillo, Lydia. “An Honorary Woman.” Starweek, the Sunday Magazine of the Philippine Star, March 6, 1994. “Civic Leader at Cebu Arts Center Groundbreaking.” Philippine Daily Inquirer, September 25, 1994. “Cory, Coups and Corruption.” Time, January 15, 1990. “Cory Orders Probe of $1M Casino Payoff.” The Manila Chronicle, November 6, 1987,

Custodio, Catherine. “A Consistent Voice and Will for the Filipino Poor.” The Manila Chronicle, October 14, 1986. Danguilan-Vitug, Marites, and Glenda Gloria. “Past Relationship Impinges on Present Affairs of State.” Philippine Daily Inquirer, October 11, 1993. David, Rina Jimenez. ““Time to ‘Cut and Cut Cleanly.’” Philippine Daily Inquirer, October 14, 1993. Daza, Julie Yap. “Hindi Ako Malakas—Baby.” Manila Standard, October 19, 1994. Enriquez, Marge C. ‘The Enigma that Is Judy Roxas.” Philippine Daily Inquirer, Sunday Lifestyle, December 13, 1994. Esplanada, Jerry. “Baby A: Involved but Not Meddling.” Philippine Daily Inquirer, October 29, 1993. Fiel, Corazon C. “Breakfast with Maita and Nikki.” Mr. & Ms., May 24-30, 1985. First Woman Senate-President-Pro-Tempore Leticia Ramos Shahani.” Cover. Philippine Panorama, Sunday Magazine of The Manila Bulletin, March 6, 1994. Gloria, Glenda, and Marites Danguilan-Vitug. “Socialite Seeking Legitimacy.” Philippine Daily Inquirer, October 12, 1993.

198 Bibliography Goertzen, Donald. “Working and Praying for Peace.” Midweek, March 9, 1988.

, Guimaras Report, October 1995.

“Imelda to Cory: Put Up or Shut Up.” The Manila Chronicle, January 20, 1996. “JAKA Board Chair Gets Papal Award.” The Manila Times, October 15, 1994. Japitana, Norma. “Baby Sings the Moods of Xmas.” Manila Standard, December 3, 1993.

- Joaquin, Francoise. “Many Faces of Eve.” Mr. & Ms., November 1-7, 1985. Jurado, Emil P. “The Backlash Favors Baby.” The Manila Standard, October 14,

1993. ,

———. “Letty’s Paranoia over Baby.” Manila Standard, April 7, 1995. Logarta, Lita T. “GABRIELA’s Women Cook Up Something.” Mr. & Ms., Septem-

, ber 21-27, 1984.

Lopez, Ricky. “Days of Wines and Laurels.” Metro, April 1993.

‘The Lopez Touch Transforms Dirt-Poor Guimaras.” Asiaweek, August 10, 1994. _ Luciano, Leonor Ines. “Justice Cecilia Mufioz Palma: Feminist.” Philippine Panorama, November 21, 1993. “Make Mine Mozart.” Today, February 10, 1996. The Manila Chronicle, November 7, 13, 14, 27, 1987, and February 1, 1994. “Midwives for Change: Militant Nuns Here to Stay.” Philippine Daily Inquirer, Feb-

ruary 5, 1995. , Mr. & Ms., September 21-27, 1984. , “The Miracle Worker.” Asia Magazine, January 6-8, 1995.

Newsweek, March 11, 1996.

Olivares-Cufianan, Belinda. “Judy Araneta-Roxas: Lady Caught between the Feudin’ ~& Fussin’ Kalaw & Salonga.” Mr. and Ms., October 4-10, 1985. “$1M Casino Payoff Came through MIA.” The Manila Chronicle, November 2, 1987. “Ople Urges Arenas to Run for Public Office.” Philippine Daily Inquirer, October 30, 1993.

“Our Feminism Needs a Third World Perspective.” Manila Standard, April 21, 1987.

17-23, 1986. ,

“Our Opponent Does Not Manicure Her Nails.” Mr. & Ms., special edition, January “Papal Award for Mrs. Enrile; Adieu to Oliver.” Philippine Daily Inquirer, October 23, 1994. ‘Pavarotti Concert Chairman and Malaysian Royalty.” Philippine Daily Inquirer, February 6, 1994. Philippine Daily Inquirer, September 25, October 23, December 18, 1994, and June 16, 1996. “Protests Spread Nationwide.” Philippine Daily Inquirer, January 31, 1996. Quiyano de Manila. “Baby Reminiscences.” Mirror Weekly, August 22, 1994.

, “Ranjit Could Be an Alien—Baby.” Manila Standard, April 9, 1995. Red, Isah Vasquez. “Gina on the Go!” The Standard Magazine, November 4, 1994. “Shut Up, Imelda Tells ‘Ugly’ Cory Aquino.” Today, January 20, 1996.

The Sunday Times Magazine, November 26, 1967. ,

Torres, Viola J. Ann G. “Voice of the South.” The Philippine Starweek, August 9, 1992.

Vanzi, Sol Jose. “Imelda Does it Again!” Lifestyle Asia, January-February 1996. Williams, Louise. “Cory Muddles Through.” Sydney Morning Herald, December 1, 1988.

Bibliography 199 ———. “Ving Ting Named in Gambling Rights Deal.” The Manila Chronicle, November 1, 1987. Williams, Louise, and Andrew Keenan. “The Lord, the White Lady and $1 Million.” The Manila Chronicle, November 2, 1987. “Women Power.” Aszaweek, June 9, 1995. “Word War of the Widows Turns Nasty.” Philippine Daily Inquirer, January 20, 1996.

Interviews Alabado, Ceres. Quezon City, Metro-Manila, January 25, 1995. Alcantara, Odette (member, GABRIELA). Makati, Metro-Manila, January 19, 1995. Almendras, Adelaida “Baby” (wife of Congressman Alejandro D. Almendras, widow of Senator Genaro Magsaysay, and daughter of Senator Fulogio “Amang” Rodriguez). Quezon City, Metro-Manila, January 27, 1994. Angara, Gloria Manalang (wife of Senator [former Senate President] Edgardo Angara). Makati, Metro-Manila, January 22, 1993. Angara-Castillo, Congresswoman Bellaflor (sister of Senator Edgardo Angara), Makati, Metro-Manila, January 13, 1994. Antonino, Congresswoman Lualhatt. Quezon City, Metro-Manila, January 31, 1995. Aquino-Oreta, Congresswoman ‘Tessie. Greenhills, Metro-Manila, January 31, 1994. Arenas, Mrs. Rosemarie “Baby” (senatorial candidate). Makati, Metro-Manila, February 16, 1993. Arriola, Fe (a founder GABRIELA). Makati, Metro-Manila, January 26, 1995. Benitez, Senator Helen. Manila, Metro-Manila, January 25, 1996. Cojuangco, Governor Margarita “Tingting.” Makati, Metro-Manila, February 5, 1994.

Cojuangco, Gretchen (wife of former mayor, governor, and presidential candidate Eduardo “Danding’ Cojuangco), New Manila, Metro-Manila, February 16, 1993.

Coseteng, Senator Anna Dominique “Nikki.” Manila, Metro-Manila, February 16, 1993.

de Guzman, Annie (wife of Secretary-General of the Batasan Antonio de Guzman). Quezon City, Metro-Manila, February 2, 1995. Del Rosario, Milagros “Inday” (wife of Congressman Rodolfo P. Del Rosario). Quezon City, Metro-Manila, January 27, 1994. de Venecia, Gina (wife of Speaker of the House Jose de Venecia). Makati, MetroManila, January 29, 1993.

Diaz, Gloria (Miss Universe 1969 and wife of Councillor Bong Daza). Makati, Metro-Manila, January 20, 1995. Dimaranan, Sister Mariani (president, ‘Cask Force Detainees of the Philippines). New Manila, Metro-Manila, February 3, 1995. Diokno, Nena (wife of Senator Jose Diokno). New Manila, Metro-Manila, February 15, 1993.

Enrile, Cristina Ponce (wife of Defense Minister, now Senator Juan Ponce Enrile). Makati, Metro-Manila, January 26, 1994. Estrada, Loi Ejercito (wife of Vice President Joseph Estrada). Greenhills, MetroManila, March 15, 1996.

200 oo Bibliography Gonzales, Senator Pacita Madrigal. Makati, Metro-Manila, January 30, 1996. Gordon, Congresswoman Kate. Quezon City, Metro-Manila, January 31, 1995. Kalaw, Senator Eva Estrada. Manila, Metro-Manila, February 4, 1993. Katigbak Fabella, Marinela (daughter of Senator Maria Kalaw Katigbak). New Ma-

nila, Metro-Manila, January 24, 1994. . Laurel, Celia Diaz (wife of former Senator and Vice President Salvador Laurel),

, Mandaluyong, Metro-Manila, January 26, 1994. Legarda, Loren (broadcast journalist). Makati, Metro-Manila, January 20, 1995.

, Licaros, Councillor Nini. Makati, Metro-Manila, January 27, 1993. Licuanan, Dr. Patricia. Quezon City, Metro-Manila, January 19, 1993.

Lopez, Governor Emily. Makati, Metro-Manila, May 11, 1988. , oe Lopez, Vice President Fernando. Pasig, Metro-Manila, April 8, 1988. — , Macapagal, Senator Gloria. Manila, Metro-Manila, February 3, 1993. Malay, Carolina “Bobbie” (wife of Satur Ocampo, leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines). Quezon City, Metro-Manila, February 1, 1994. Mananzan, Sister Mary John. Manila, Metro-Manila, February 4, 1994, and July 20, 1995.

, — 1993. ,

Marcos, Congresswoman Imelda Romualdez. Makati, Metro-Manila, February 13,

Manila, January 27, 1994.

Mastura, Lourdes (wife of Congressman Michael Mastura). Quezon City, Metro-

Montforte, Chita Guevarra (wife of Congressman Narciso Montforte). Pasig, MetroManila, February 1, 1994.

Nakpil, Carmen Guerrero. Makati, Metro-Manila, March 9, 1996.

1995. ,

Nakpil Rabat, Assemblywoman Edith. Mandaluyong, Metro-Manila, February 7, 1994,

Nuval (Baffrey), Doris. Quezon City, Metro-Manila, February 4, 1996. Palma, Supreme Court Justice Cecilia Mufioz. Quezon City, Metro-Manila, July 11,

- Perez, Sally Zaldivar (congressional candidate). Makati, Metro-Manila, February 2,

21, 1996. , 1993, and Manila, Metro-Manila, June 18, 1996.

Perpifian, Sister Soledad. Quezon City, Metro-Manila, April 20, 1996. Planas, Vice Mayor Charito. Quezon City, Metro-Manila, July 5, 1995, and March

Primicias-Goco, Marietta (senatorial candidate). Quezon City, Metro-Manila, Feb-

— ruary 2, 1994. Puyat-Reyes, Congresswoman Consuelo “Baby.” Makati, Metro-Manila, January 11, 1994.

Rasul, Senator Santanina. Manila, Metro-Manila, February 3, 1993.

March 15, 1996. :

Roces, Angelita (wife of Congressman Joaquin R. Roces). Greenhills, Metro-Manila,

1994. , , 1995.

Rodriguez, Mayor Adelina (wife of Governor Isidro Rodriguez). Mandaluyong, Metro-Manila, January 26, 1995.

Romulo, Lovely (wife of Senator Alberto Romulo). Pasig, Metro-Manila, January 25,

Roxas, Judy Araneta (wife of former Senator Gerry Roxas and mother of Congress- |

men Dinggoy and Mar Roxas). Quezon City, Metro-Manila, February 7,

bibliography 201 Salonga, Lydia Busuego (wife of Senate President Jovito Salonga). Quezon City, Metro-Manila, June 11, 1996. Santiago, Senator Miriam Defensor. Quezon City, Metro-Manila, January 27, 1993. Shahani, Senator Leticia. Manila, Metro-Manila, February 15, 1993. ‘Tan, Sister Christine. Leverisa, Malate, Metro-Manila, February 7, 1995. Tafiada, Karen. Quezon City, Metro-Manila, February 7, 1996.

Tinga, Attorney Marichu (wife of Congressman Dante Tinga). Tagig-Pateros, Metro-Manila, January 27, 1995. Valenzuela, Mila Magsaysay (daughter of former President Ramon Magsaysay). Makati, Metro-Manila, February 17, 1993.

Archival Materials | House of Representatives. “Bills and Resolutions Authored by Women Congress-

, men,” as of February 1996, Republic of the Philippines, House of Representatives. Disk contents provided by Lorna O. Quismundo, Bills and Index Division, House of Representatives, Congress, the Philippines. House of Representatives. Information Pack on Republic Act 7877, HB No. 09425, House of Representatives Legislative Archives. Senate, “List of Senate/House Bills and Resolutions,” Republic of the Philippines. Senator Santanina Rasul as author, Senator Nikki Coseteng as author, Senator Leticia Shahani as author, and Senator Gloria Macapagal as author. Computer printout provided by the office of Senator Edgardo Angara.

Books, Speeches, and Essays by Women in Power Aquino, Corazon. In the Name of Democracy and Prayer: Selected Speeches of Corazon C.

Aquino. Metro-Manila: Anvil Publishing, 1995. ————. The State of the Nation, 1991: A Report to the Filipino People, 22 Fuly 1991. N.p., n.d. Katigbak, Maria Kalaw. Few There Were (Like My Father). Manila: Teodoro M. Kalaw Society, Inc., 1974. Mananzan, Sr. Mary John. The Woman Question in the Philippines. Pasay City: Saint Paul Publications, 1991. Marcos, Imelda Romualdez. The Compassionate Society and Other Selected Speeches of Imelda Romualdez Marcos. Edited by Ileana Maramag. Metro-Manila: n.p., 1973.

————. The Ideas of Imelda Romualdez Marcos. 2. vols., Edited by Teana Maramag.

Metro-Manila: National Media Production Center, 1978. santiago, Miriam Defensor. Cutting Edge: The Politics of Reform-in the Philippines. Metro Manila: Woman Today Publications, 1994. ———. How to Fight Election Fraud. Metro-Manila: Movement for Responsible Public Service, 1991. ———. How to Fight Graft and Corruption. Metro-Manila: Movement for Responsible Public Service, 1991. ———. The Miriam Defensor Santiago Dictionary. Makati: Movement for Responsible Public Service, 1991.

202 Bibliography —_——. Reinventing Myself. Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 1994.

, Shahani, Leticia. Building a Filipino Nation, the Power of Human Values. N.p., 1991. ———. Filipino Values and National Development: Readings on the Moral Recovery Pro-

gram. Metro-Manila: Economic Development Foundation, 1992.

—_——. Foreign Policy for Our Future. N.p., 1992. , ———. Paghubog sa Mamamayan, Katatagan ng Bayan. Metro-Manila: Senado ng Kongreso ng Pilipinas, n.d. ———., Towards the Pacific Century: Essays on Philippine Foreign Policy. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 1989.

Curriculum Vitae, Manuscripts, Campaign Leaflets, Library Files, and Miscellaneous Material Asuncion, Filomena. File. Bantayog ng Mga Bayani Foundation Library, Pasig, Metro-Manila.

Balando, Liza. File. Bantayog ng Mga Bayani Foundation Library, Pasig, Metro-Manila. Barros, Lorena. File. Bantayog ng mga Bayani Foundation Library, Pasig, MetroManila. Benitez, Helen. File from Manila Times morgue, which includes campaign leaflets. Lopez Museum, Pasig, Metro-Manila. Bernard, Sr. Mary. File. Bantayog ng mga Bayani Foundation Library, Pasig, MetroManila. Catalla, Cristina. File. Bantayog ng Mga Bayani Foundation Library, Pasig, Metro-

; Manila. ,

CSFI. “What Is the Congressional Spouses Foundation All About?” Manuscript given to the author by Mrs. Gina de Venecia, January 29, 1993. “Faith, Truth, Justice, Freedom: A Souvenir of Recollections, Parangal Kay Justice

Cecilia Mufioz Palma, 80th Birthday Anniversary.” November 22, 1993, Manila Pavilion Hotel, Manila. Hilao, Liliosa “Lilli” y Rapi. File. Bantayog ng mga Bayani Foundation Library,

Pasig, Metro-Manila. } Information Brochure on the Gerry Roxas Foundation. Manuscript given to the au-

thor by Mrs. Judy Roxas, chair of the foundation.

, Kalaw, Eva Estrada. File from Manila Times morgue, which includes campaign leaf-

lets. Lopez Museum, Pasig, Metro-Manila. :

Katigbak, Maria Kalaw. File from Manila Times morgue, which includes campaign leaflets. Lopez Museum, Pasig, Metro-Manila. ——. Personal papers. Courtesy of Marinela Katigbak-Fabella, New Manila. Ladlad, Leticia. File. Bantayog ng Mga Bayani Foundation Library, Pasig, Metro-

Manila. ,

Legarda, Loren. Curriculum vitae, 1995. Manuscript given to author. | Puyat-Reyes, Consuelo. Curriculum vitae, 1995. Manuscript given to author.

Salvador, Soledad. File. Bantayog ng Mga Bayani Foundation Library. Santiago, Miriam Defensor. Curriculum vitae, 1993. Manuscript given to author.

Bibliography 203 Films and Documentaries Sister Stella L. 1984. Gerry Roxas Foundation. Video promotion, 1995.

Personal Papers and Scrapbooks Association of Major Religious Superiors. Papers. Quezon City. Mananazan, Sister Mary John. Personal scrapbook. With newspaper clippings about her. Nursia, Institute of Women’s Studies, St. Scholastica’s College, Manila. Tan, Sister Christine. Personal scrapbook. Compiled by her godchild Paulette and containing newspaper clippings about her. Paulette is at the Women’s Desk, Association of Major Religious Superiors, Quezon City, Metro-Manila.

Other Primary Sources Published as Books, Collections, _ or Anthologies Abueva, Jose V., and Emerlinda R. Roman, eds. The Aquino Presidency and Administration (1986-1992): Contemporary Assessments and “The Judgement of History.” Vol. 2, UP Public Lectures on the Aquino Administration and the Post-EDSA Government (1986-1992). Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 1993. ————. Corazon C. Aquino: Early Assessments of Her Presidential Leadership and Ad-

ministration and Her Place in History. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 1993. The Aquino Administration Record and Legacy (1986-1992): President Corazon Aquino and Her Cabinet. Vol. 1, UP Public Lectures on the Aquino Administration and the Post-EDSA Government (1986-1992). Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 1993. Espiritu, Augusto Caesar. How Democracy Was Lost: A Political Diary of the 1971-1972 Constitutional Convention. Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 1993.

Garcellano, Rosario, Elizabeth Lolarga, and Anna Leah Sarabia, eds. Sisterhood Is

1989. ,

Global Dialogues in the Philippines. Quezon City: Circle Publications, 1992. Mata, Nestor. Cory of a Thousand Days. Metro-Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House,

Mijares, Primitivo. The Conjugal Dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos I. San Francisco: Union Square Productions, 1976.

SECONDARY SOURCES Aguilar, Carmencita T. “Epilogue: The 1992 Election: Women Candidates and Incumbent National Legislators,” In Filipino Women and Public Policy, ed. Proserpina Domingo ‘Tapales. Manila: Kalikasan Press, 1992. ——. “Filipino Women in Electoral Politics.” In filipino Women and Public Policy, ed. Proserpina Domingo ‘Tapales. Manila: Kalikasan Press, 1992.

204 , Bibliography ———. “Profile of Women Politicians in the Philippines.” Review of Women’s Studies,

2, no. 2 (1991-1992). | Aguilar, Delia D. The Feminist Challenge: Initial Working Principles Toward Reconceptualizing the Feminist Movement in the Philippines. Metro-Manila: Asian Social

Institute and World Association for Christian Communication, 1988. | ——. “Toward a Reinscription of Nationalist Feminism,” Review of Women’s Studwes, 4, no. 2 (1994-1995). Almanzor, Angelina. “Mary John Mananzan: Filipina Christian Activist.” In Exploring _ Feminist Visions, ed. Frances Maria Yasas and Vera Mehta. Bombay: Streevani

, Ishwani Kendra and International Association of Schools of Social Work, 1990. Aluit, Alfonso J. The Conscience of the Nation: A History of the Red Cross in the Philippines

1896-1972. Rev. ed. Manila: Philippine National Red Cross Silver Jubilee

Edition, 1972. , ,

Ancheta-Sabilano, Aura. Valiant Women. Quezon City: Giraffe Books, 1995. Anderson, Benedict. “Cacique Democracy in the Philippines: Origins and Dreams.” New Left Review 3 (May—June 1988). ———. ‘“The Idea of Power in Javanese Culture.” In Culture and Politics in Indonesia,

ed. C. Holt. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1972. a

Angeles, Leonora Calderon. “Feminism and Nationalism: The Discourse on the

Woman Question and Politics of the Women’s Movement in the Philippines.” M.A. thesis, University of the Philippines, 1989. Aquino, Belinda.‘‘Filipino Women and Political Engagement.” Review of Women’s Studies, 4, no. 1 (1993-1994). ——-. Moral Recovery and Philippine Development. Proceedings of the Consultant

Forum on Moral Recovery, Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, March 2-3, 1991. Metro-Manila: Raintree Trading and Publishing Inc., 1991. Arce-Herrera, Teresita. “Filipino Women: Transcending Their Marginalization in History.” In Filipinas in Dialogue, ed. Erlinda H. Bragado. Manila: De La Salle University Press, 1995. Atkinson, Jane Monnig, and Shelly Errington, eds. Power and Difference: Gender in Island Southeast Asia. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990. Azarcona-de la Cruz, Pennie S. From Virgin to Vamp .. . Images of Women in Philippine

, Media. Metro-Manila: Asian Social Institute, 1988.

Blackwood, Evelyn. “Senior Women, Model Mothers, and Dutiful Wives: Managing

, Gender Contradictions in a Minangkabau Village.” In Bewitching Women, Pious Men: Gender and Body Politics in Southeast Asia, ed, Aihwa Ong and Michael

Peletz. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. Bonner, Raymond. Waltzing with a Dictator: The Marcoses and the Making of American

Oo Foreign Policy. New York: Times Books, 1987. , Bragado, Erlinda H., ed. Filipinas in Dialogue: Muslim-Christian Women’s Response to

, Contemporary Challenges. Proceedings of the National Conference on MuslimChristian Women’s Dialogue, October 15, 1994, De La Salle University. Malate: De La Salle University Press, 1995. Brenner, Suzanne. “Why Women Rule the Roost: Rethinking Javanese Ideologies of Gender and Self-Control.” In Bewitching Women, Pious Men: Gender and Body Politics in Southeast Asia, ed. Aihwa Ong and Michael Peletz. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995.

Bibliography 205 Cabazor, Jose P. Helena Z. Benitez: Forward Vision Legislation. Metro-Manila: Helena

Z. Benitez Heritage Foundation, 1994. , ,

Camagay, Ma. Luisa. “Ang Buhay Pampamilya Noong Panahon ng Rebolusyon.” In Kumperensya ’93 Ang Papel ng Kababathan at Katutubo sa Rebolusyong 1896. Bag-

uio and Benguet: University of the Philippines Kolehtyo sa Baguio and Benguet State University, 1995.

———. “Ang Kababaihan at Pambansang Kamalayan.” Ma. Cecilia GastardoConaco (issue ed.). Gender Issues in Philippine Society. Philippine Social Sciences Review 52, nos. 1-4 (January—December 1995). ———. “Women through Philippine History.” In The Filipino Woman in Focus: A Book of Readings, ed. Amaryllis IT. ‘Torres. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Office of Research Coordination and University of the Philippines Press, 1989. ———. Working Women of Manila in the Nineteenth Century. Quezon City: University

of the Philippines Press and the University Center for Women’s Studies, 1995.

Carlson, Eric. Helena Z. Benitez and the United Nations. Metro-Manila: Helen Z. Benitez Heritage Foundation, 1994. Corpuz, Carmelita C. “Women in the Katipunan.” In Filipinas in Dialogue, ed. Erlinda H. Bragado. Manila: De La Salle University Press, 1995. Crisostomo, Isabelo T. Cory, Profile of a President: The Historic Rise to Power of Corazon

Cojuangco Aquino. Quezon City: J. Kriz Publishing Enterprises, 1986. Cruz, Romeo V. “Ang Pilipina sa Panahon ng Himagsikan at Digmaang PilipinoAmerikano.” In Women’s Role in Philippine History: Selected Essays. Quezon City: University Center for Women’s Studies, University of the Philippines, 1996.

———-. “The Filipina at the Time of Fil-American Revolution.” In Essays on Women, ed. Sr. Mary John Mananzan. Manila: Institute of Women’s Studies, St. Scholastica’s College, 1991. Daza, Julie Yap. Etiquette for Mistresses. Metro-Manila: n.p., 1993. De Dios, Aurora Javate. “Participation of Women’s Groups in the Anti-Dictatorship Struggle: Genesis of a Movement.” In Women’s Role in Philippine History: Selected Essays. Quezon City: University Center for Women’s Studies, University of the Philippines, 1996.

Dery, Luis C. “Woman Power: Notes on the Power and Influence of Women in Pre-Colonial Philippines.” In Kusmperensya °93 Ang Papel ng Kababaihan at Katutubo sa Rebolusyong 1896. Baguio and Benguet: University of the Philippines Kolehiyo sa Baguio and Benguet State University, 1995. Domingo, Lita J., Ma. Cecilia Gastardo-Conanco, Eileen S. Yordan, and Marie Joy D. Baltazar. “Women in Political Affairs: A Study of Women Councillors in 1990.” Ma. Cecilia Gastardo-Conanco (issue ed.). Gender Issues in Philippine Society: Philippine Social Sciences Review 52, nos. 1-4 (January—December 1995).

Eviota, Elizabeth U. “The Social Construction of Sexuality.” In Sex and Gender in Philippine Society, ed. Elizabeth U. Eviota. Manila: National Commission on

the Role of Filipino Women, 1994. ,

Fabella, Virginia M. M. Beyond Bonding: A Third World Women’s Theological Fourney.

Manila: Ecumenical Association of Third World Theologians and the Institute of Women’s Studies, 1993.

206 Bibliography Fahey, Stephanie. ““Vietnam’s Women in the ‘Renovation’ Era.” In Gender and Power in Affluent Asia, ed. Maila Stivens and Krishna Sen. London: Routledge, 1998. Feliciano, Myrna S. “The Filipina: A Historical and Legal Perspective.” In Women’s Role in Philippine History: Selected Essays. Quezon City: University Center for Women’s Studies, University of the Philippines, 1996. Fortich, Chic. Escape! Charito Planas: Her Story. Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 1991. Garcia, Lydia G. “Ang Kababaihan ng Bulakan at Ang Rebolusyon.” In Kumperensya 93 Ang Papel ng Kababaihan at Katutubo sa Rebolusyong 1896. Baguio and Ben-

guet: University of the Philippines Kolehiyoaesa Baguio and Benguet State University, 1995. Geremia, Ma. Milagros C. “Ang Babae at Babaylan sa Panrebolusyong Maragtas ng Panay.” In Kumperensya ?93 Ang Papel ng Kababaihan at Katutubo sa Rebolusyong

1896. Baguio and Benguet: University of the Philippines Kolehiyo sa Baguio

and Benguet State University, 1995. Gleeck, Lewis E. Jr. President Aquino: Sainthood Postponed. Metro-Manila: N.p., n.d. [post-1993].

Gomez, Maita. “Women’s Organizations as Offshoots of National Political Move-

, ments.” In Essays on Women, ed. Sr. Mary John Mananzan. Manila: Institute , of Women’s Studies, St. Scholastica’s College, 1991. Gonzalez-Yap, Miguela. The Making of Cory. Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 1987.

Grossholtz, Jean. Politics in the Philippines. Boston: Little, Brown, 1964. Guthrie, George M. The Psychology of Modernization in the Rural Philippines. In IPC Papers No. 8. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1970. Herrera, Alicia A. “Filipino Women’s Political Agenda.” Review of Women’s Studies

2, no. 2 (1991-1992). oe

Hilsdon, Anne-Marie. Madonnas & Martyrs: Militarism and Violence in the Philippines. , Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1995. Hollnsteiner, Mary. The Dynamics of Power in a Philippine Municipality. Quezon City: Institute of Philippine Studies, Ateneo de Manila University, 1963. ———. “Reciprocity in Lowland Philippines.” In Four Readings in Philippine Values,

, ed. Frank Lynch and Alfonso de Guzman II, IPC Papers, No. 2. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1973. Hooper, Beverley. “Women, Consumerism and the State in Post-Mao China.” Asian

a Studies Review 17, no. 30 (April, 1994). Hyndman, Nellie Nacima. “Speaking for the ‘Filipina’ Feminist Scholars and Na-

oe tional Liberation in the Philippines.” B.A. Honors thesis, Australian National

| University, 1992. | ,

Karnow, Stanley. In Our Image: America’s Empire in the Philippines. New York: Ran-

dom House, 1989. ,

Kerkvliet, Benedict. The Huk Rebellion. Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 1979. Komisar, Lucy. Corazon Aquino: The Story of a Revolution. New York: George Braziller, 1987. Lacaba, Jose, ed. Boss: 3 Case Studies of Local Politics in the Philippines. Metro-Manila: Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, Institute for Popular Democ-

, racy, 1995.

Bibliography 207 Lamphere, Louise. ‘““The Domestic Sphere of Women and the Public World of Men: The Strengths and Limitations of an Anthropological Dichotomy.” In Gender in Cross-Cultural Perspective, ed. Caroline B. Brettell and Carolyn F. Sargent. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1993. Landé, Carl. Leaders, Factions and Parties: The Structure of Philippine Politics. Mono-

eraph Series No. 6. New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asian Studies, 1965.

Laya 1, no. 2. Feminist Quarterly, (Second Quarter, 1992). Liswood, Laura A. Women World Leaders. London and San Francisco: Harper Collins, L995.

Logarta, Sofia. “The Participation of Women in the Huk Movement.” In Women’s Role in Philippine History: Selected Essays. Quezon City: University Center for Women’s Studies, University of the Philippines, 1996.

Lowe, Viviane. “Women in Arms: Representations of Vietnamese Women at War 1965-1975.” Paper presented at the Workshop on Southeast Asian Women, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, September 29, 1994. Lynch, Frank. “Social Acceptance Reconsidered” in Four Readings in Philippine Values,

IPC Papers, No. 2, ed. Frank Lynch and Alfonso de Guzman II. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1973. Maceda, Teresita G. “Imahen ng Inang Bayan sa Kundiman ng Himagsikan.” In Kumperensya °?93 Ang Papel ng Kababathan at Katutubo sa Rebolusyong 1896. Bag-

uio and Benguet: University of the Philippines Kolehiyo sa Baguio and Benguet State University, 1995. Mananzan, Mary John. “The Filipino Woman: Before and After the Spanish Conquest of the Philippines.” In Essays on Women, ed. M. J. Mananzan. Manila: Institute of Women’s Studies, St. Scholastica’s College, 1987. ————, ed. Essays on Women. Metro-Manila: ‘The Institute of Women’s Studies, St. Scholastica’s College, 1987. ———, ed. Woman and Religion. Metro-Manila: ‘The Institute of Women’s Studies, St. Scholastica’s College, 1988, rev. ed. 1992. Manapat, Ricardo. Some Are Smarter than Others, the History of Marcos’s Crony Capttalism. New York: Aletheia Publications, 1991.

Mangahas, Fe. “Ilang Tala Hinggil sa “Teorya O Perspektiba sa Papel ng Kababathang Pilipino sa Rebolusyon.” In Kumperensya ’93 Ang Papel ng Kababaiban at Katutubo sa Rebolusyong 1896. Baguio and Benguet: University of the Philippines Kolehiyo sa Baguio and Benguet State University, 1995. Mangahas, Fe B. and Mary John Mananzan, eds. Sarilaya: Women in Arts and Media (Metro-Manila: The Institute of Women’s Studies, St. Scholastica’s College, n.d. McCoy, Alfred W. “Politics by Other Means: World War IL in the Western Visayas, Philippines.” In Southeast Asia under the Fapanese Occupation, ed. Alfred W. McCoy. Monograph Series No. 22. New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asian Studies, 1980. ———. “Yloilo: Factional Conflict in a Colonial Economy, Iloilo Province Philippines, 1937-1955.” Ph.d. dissertation, Yale University, 1977. ———— , ed. An Anarchy of Families. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Center for Southeast Asian Studies, 1993.

208 Bibliography Medina, Isagani R. “Ang Kababaihan ng Kabite sa Rebolusyon ng 1896.” In Kumperensya ’93 Ang Papel ng Kababaihan at Katutubo sa Rebolusyong 1896. Baguio

State University, 1995. , ,

| - and Benguet: University of the Philippines Kolehtyo sa Baguio and Benguet — Mercado, Leonardo. The Filipino Mind. Philippine Philosophical Studies IT. Manila:

, The Council for Research in Values and Divine Word Publications, 1994. “Moving on ‘Toward Women’s Deliverance.” Babaylan, no. 1 (1984). Nakpil, Carmen Guerrero. Woman Enough and Other Essays. Quezon City: Vibal

, Publishing, 1963.

Neher, C. “Ambiguous Cebuana.” In Women of Southeast Asia, ed. Penny van Esterik.

Occasional Paper No. 9, DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Center for , Southeast Asian Studies, 1982. | Nuyda, Doris. The Beauty Book: A History of Philippine Beauty from 1908-1980. Manila:

Mr. and Ms. Publishing, 1980. ~ Ong, Aihwa, and Michael G. Peletz. “Introduction.” In Bewitching Women, Pious Men: Gender and Body Politics in Southeast Asia, ed. Aihwa Ong and Michael Peletz. , Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. Ortner, Sherry, and Harriet Whitehead, eds. Sexual Meanings: The Cultural Construction of Gender and Sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

, Paular, Regino P., and Augusto V. de Viana. “Women Katipuneros’ Counterespionage Activities.” In Kwmperensya ’93 Ang Papel ng Kababaihan at Katutubo sa Rebolusyong 1896. Baguio and Benguet: University of the Philippines Kolehtyo sa Baguio and Benguet State University, 1995. Pecson-Fernandez, Albina. “Why Women Are Invisible in History.” In Women’s Role

, in Philippine History: Selected Essays. Quezon City: University Center for Women’s Studies, University of the Philippines, 1996.

| Pedrosa, Carmen Navarro. The Rise and Fall of Imelda Marcos. Manila: n.p., 1987. _ Peletz, Michael. “Neither Reasonable nor Responsible: Contrasting Representations of Masculinity in a Malay Society.” In Bewitching Women, Pious Men: Gender and Body Politics in Southeast Asia, ed. Aihwa Ong and Michael Peletz. Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1995. Ramos, Victor C. “Ang Babaing Rebolusyonaryo ng 1896 Bilang Huwaran ng mga Kuwentong Pang-Mass Media.” In Kumperensya 93 Ang Papel ng Kababaihan at Katutubo sa Rebolusyong 1896. Baguio and Benguet: University of the Phil-

1989.

, ippines Kolehiyo sa Baguio and Benguet State University, 1995. - Reid, Robert H., and Eileen Guerrero. Corazon Aquino and the Brushfire Revolution. — Baton Rouge and London: Louisiana State University Press, 1995.

| Reyes, Emmanuel. Notes on Philippine Cinema. Manila: De La Salle University Press, Reyes, Socorro L. “Public Policy Advocacy in a Democratizing Society: ‘Tactics and Strategies for Women’s Groups.” In Women’s Role in Philippine History: Selected

Essays. Quezon City: University Center for Women’s Studies, University of.

, the Philippines, 1996, Rocamora, Joel. “Introduction.” In Boss: 5 Case Studies of Local Politics in the Philippines, ed. Jose Lacaba. Metro-Manila: Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, Institute for Popular Democracy, 1995. Roces, Alfredo, and Grace Roces. Culture Shock Philippines. Singapore: Times Books

International, 1985. , -

Bibliography 209 Roces, Maria Natividad. “I