Fighting from a Distance: How Filipino Exiles Helped Topple a Dictator

Chapter 11. Reviewing the Decade: Adding Up the Losses and Wins

Chapter 11 Reviewing the Decade Adding Up the Losses and Wins When MFP delegates assembled for a three-day conference in Illinois beginning on September 2, 1983, they chose a site owned by a religious order, the Society of the Divine Word (SVD), located in the Chicago suburb of Techny. The SVD has sent hundreds of missionaries overseas since 1909. The conference rooms were designed to showcase some of the countries where they were assigned. There was, for example, a Philippine room. One of the SVD’s Filipino missionaries, Fr. Edicio de la Torre, had been in military detention in Manila for eight years, a political prisoner charged with rebellion by the Marcos government. The MFP was marking its tenth year. It had a new chairman, Dr. Renato “Ato” Roxas, who, together with some other doctors, had founded the chapter in Detroit, Michigan, in 1973. He had been the assistant head of the Department of Anesthesia at the Children’s Hospital of Michigan for the previous fourteen years. On the day Roxas was elected, May 14, 1983, Manglapus observed that since the organization’s founding ten years earlier, it had reached “a level of maturity. As a result, more leaders developed from the Filipino community, greater initiatives were mobilized from the local levels to help the Movement.”1 In addition, its structure had been decentralized a year earlier, allowing its eight regions more autonomy from central control in Washington, D.C. Having been relieved of the organizational duties attendant to the office of chairman, Manglapus declared that he would concentrate on representing the MFP before the U.S. government, international organizations, and the various opposition groups in the Philippines . The Manila Bulletin, a pro-government newspaper, was quick to 88 . Chapter 11 proclaim the event. It cited, without attribution, remarks from members about “disillusioned officers . . . weakening . . . diminishing financial support . . . a vehicle for his personal ambition.”2 The members had expected the distorted spin from a government-controlled publication. There was a disconsolate mood to this anniversary gathering. Aquino had been assassinated barely a month earlier. The White House had submitted a five-year, $900 million bases “compensation package” for Congress to approve. An extradition treaty between the Philippines and the United States, signed in 1981, had been cleared by the relevant House and Senate committees and was on its way to the full chambers for floor debate. The U.S. media warned that Marcos might attempt to use it as a tool for persecution against his enemies in the United States. Over the previous year, a grand jury had been impaneled to look into the MFP, fulfilling a promise to Marcos by the new Reagan administration that it would start cracking down on his political enemies in the U.S. It was time to analyze the record of their ten-year struggle. They agreed that the movement had earned recognition from the various audiences they had targeted—the Filipino community, the U.S. Congress, the media. The Filipino community, by and large, looked to them as a more acceptable organization than the leftist opposition groups. The MFP’s many appearances before House and Senate committees and its close ties with several legislators from both U.S. political parties had strengthened its access to Congress and gained it some influential advocates. It had established valuable contacts in the media by providing them with useful information on developing their stories (the fake Marcos medals, the nonexistent Maharlika , and the Manhattan real estate acquired by Mrs. Marcos). Although it disagreed with the ideological focus of the other opposition groups, it had participated in their forums, rallies, and other public activities in the name of unity. With respect to the MFP’s organizational maturation, its acceptance of its members’ differing views had been both an asset and a liability. In an internal memorandum, Tom Achacoso, a member, wrote: Pluralism was an important feature of MFP in order to accommodate the diversity of views of its members. Commitment to its goals ranged from total to segmental participation, from the “paper” variety to a vague restlessness about change. Many look on with interest but remain distant due to the more immediate needs and worries of day-to-day living. Crucial issues developed from the distinction between a powerful and Reviewing the Decade · 89 authoritative day-to-day leadership and the less routine and less regular membership. As a consequence, the MFP was required to...