Monday, December 19, 2011

Hacienda Luisita and Gen. Antonio Luna: The Untold Origin


What is the untold origin of Hacienda Luisita?

This is the untold history of Hacienda Luisita, the most controversial estate in the Philippines today.



Antonio Luna y Novicio (October 29, 1866 - June 5, 1899) was a Filipino pharmacist and general who fought in the Philippine-American War. He was also the founder of the Philippines's first military academy.


Antonio Luna was born in Urbiztondo, BinondoManila. He was the youngest of seven children of Joaquín Luna, from Badoc,Ilocos Norte, and Spanish mestiza Laureana Novicio, from Luna, La Union. His father was a traveling salesman of the products of government monopolies. His older brother, Juan, was an accomplished painter who studied in the Madrid Escuela de Bellas Artes de San Fernando. Another brother, José, became a doctor.


At the age of six, Antonio learned reading, writing, and arithmetic from a teacher known as Maestro Intong. He memorized theDoctrina Cristiana (catechism), the first book printed in the Philippines.
His early schooling was at the Ateneo Municipal de Manila, where he received his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1881. He went on to study literature and chemistry at the University of Santo Tomas, where he won first prize for a paper in chemistry titled Two Fundamental Bodies of Chemistry. He also studied pharmacy, swordsmanship, fencing, military tactics, and became a sharpshooter. On the invitation of his brother Juan, Antonio was sent by his doting parents to Spain, to acquire a licentiate and doctorate in Pharmacy.
He obtained the degree of Licentiate in Pharmacy from the University of Barcelona. He pursued further studies and in 1890 obtained the degree of Doctor of Pharmacy from the Universidad Central de Madrid.


In Spain, he became one of the Filipino expatriates who mounted the “Propaganda Movement” and wrote for La Solidaridad, published by the reformist movement of the elite Filipino students in Spain. He wrote a piece titled Impressions which dealt with Spanish customs and idiosyncrasies under the pen-name "Taga-ilog".
Luna was active as researcher in the scientific community in Spain, and wrote a scientific treatise on malaria titled El Hematozoario del Paludismo (Malaria), which was favorably received in the scientific community. He then went to Belgium and France, and worked as assistant to Dr. Latteaux and Dr. Laffen. In recognition of his ability, he was appointed commissioner by the Spanish government to study tropical and communicable diseases.
In 1894, he went back to the Philippines where he took the competitive examination for chief chemist of the Municipal Laboratory of Manila, came in first and won the position. He also opened a sala de armas, a fencing club, and learned of the underground societies that were planning a revolution, and was asked to join. Like other leaders, he was in favor of reforms rather than independence as goal to be attained. Nevertheless, after the Katipunan's existence was leaked in August 1896, the Luna brothers were arrested and jailed in Fort Santiago for their participation in the reform movement. Months later José and Juan were freed, but Antonio was exiled to Spain in 1897, where he was imprisoned at the Cárcel Modelo in Madrid.
His more famous and controversial brother Juan, who had been pardoned by the Spanish Queen Regent herself, left for Spain to use his prestige to intercede for Antonio. With Juan's influence working, Antonio's case was dismissed by the Military Supreme Court and was released.
Antonio prepared himself for the revolutionary war he had decided to join. First, he went to Madrid and other cities in Germany and Belgium, studied field fortifications, guerrilla warfare, organization, and other aspects of military science. He studied military tactics and strategy under Gerard Leman in Belgium.
In Hong Kong, he was given a letter of recommendation to Emilio Aguinaldo by the Filipino revolutionaries. He returned to the Philippines in July 1898, wary of American treachery.

Luna first saw action in Manila on August 13, 1898. Since June, Manila had been completely surrounded by the revolutionary army. Luciano San Miguel occupied Mandaluyong; Pio del Pilar, Makati; Mariano Noriel, Parañaque; Pacheco, Navotas, Tambobong, and Caloocan. Gregorio del Pilar marched through Sampaloc, taking Tondo, Divisoria, and Azcárraga; Noriel cleared Singalong and Paco, held Ermita and Malate. Luna thought the Filipinos should just walk in and enter Intramuros. But Aguinaldo, heeding the advice of General Merritt and Commodore Dewey, whose fleet had moored in Manila Bay, sent Luna to the trenches where he ordered his troops to fire on the Americans. After the disastrous farce of the American Occupation, Luna tried to complain to US officers at a meeting in Ermita about the disorder, the looting, rape, mayhem by US troops.
To quiet him, Aguinaldo appointed Luna as Chief of War Operations on September 26, 1898 and assigned the rank of Brigadier General. In quick succession, he was made the Director of War and Supreme Chief of the Army, arousing the envy of the other generals. Luna felt that bureaucratic placebos were being thrown his way, when all he wanted was to organize and discipline the enthusiastic, ill-fed and ill-trained young troops into a real army.[1]
Luna saw the need for a military school, so that he established a military academy at Malolos the 'Academia Militar' (October, 1898- March, 1899), the precursor of the present Philippine Military Academy. He appointed (former Guardia Civil) Captain Manuel Bernal Sityar, a mestizo, as superintendent. He recruited other mestizos and Spaniards who had fought in the Spanish army in the 1896 revolution for training.
A score of veteran officers became the teachers at his military school. He devised two courses of instruction, planned the reorganization, with a battalion of tiradores and a cavalry squadron, set up an inventory of guns and ammunition, arsenals, using convents and town halls, quartermasters, lookouts and communication systems. He even asked his brother Juan to design the uniforms, and insisted on strict discipline over and above clan and clique loyalties.
Luna proved to be a strict disciplinarian and thereby alienated many in the ranks of the soldiers. An example of this occurred during the "Fall of Calumpit" wherein Luna ordered Tomás Mascardo to send troops to bolster his defences. However, Mascardo ignored orders; an angry Luna left the frontlines to confront Mascardo. Upon returning to the field, the Americans had broken through his defenses at the Bagbag River, forcing him to withdraw.[citation needed]
Luna fought gallantly at battles in BulacanPampanga, and Nueva Ecija against the better equipped US forces. In the battle at Caloocan, the Kawit Battalion from Cavite refused to attack when given the order. Because of this, he disarmed them and relieved them of duties.
Knowing that the Revolution and the infant republic were a contest for the minds of Filipinos, Antonio Luna turned to journalism to strengthen Filipino minds with the ideas of nationhood and the need to fight a new imperialist enemy. He decided to publish a newspaper, “La Independencia.” This four-page daily was filled with articles, short stories, patriotic songs and poems. The staff was installed in one of the coaches of the train that ran from Manila to Pangasinan. The paper came out in September 1898, and was an instant success, a movable feast of information, humor and good writing printing 4,000 copies, many more than all the other newspapers put together.
When the Treaty of Paris (where Spain ceded the Philippines to the US) was made public in December 1898, Luna quickly realized that only decisive military action could save the republic. His strategy was to bottle up the Americans in Manila before more of their troops could land, execute surprise attacks while building up strength in the north and, should the enemy pierce his lines, wage a series of delaying battles and prepare a fortress in the northern highlands of Luzon. This was turned down by the High Command.
The Americans gained the time and the opportunity to start hostilities with the Filipinos at the place and time of their choice. On the night of February 4, 1899, a weekend when they knew most of the Filipino generals were on furlough in Bulacan, the Americans staged an incident along the concrete blockhouses in Sta. Mesa near the San Juan del Monte bridge. An American patrol fired on Filipino troops, claimed afterwards that the Filipinos had started shooting first (thus ensuring that the US Congress would vote for annexation) and the whole Filipino line from Pasay to Caloocan returned fire and the first battle of the Filipino-American War broke out. It had become a war of conquest, occupation and annexation which Luna,Mabini, among others, had predicted and repeatedly warned Aguinado and his generals against.
Luna was at the front line, leading three companies to La Loma, to engage General Arthur MacArthur's forces. Fighting went on at Marikina, Caloocan, Sta. Ana, and Paco. The Filipinos were subjected to a carefully planned attack with naval artillery, with the Dewey's US fleet firing from the Manila Bay. Filipino casualties were horrific; Luna personally had to carry wounded officers and men to safety.
On February 7, Luna issued detailed orders with five specific objects to the field officers of the territorial militia. It began “By virtue of the barbarous attack upon our army on February 4,” and ended with “War without quarter to false Americans who wish to enslave us. Independence or death!” Since the outbreak of war the US forces had continued bombardment of the towns around Manila, burning and looting whole districts.
A Filipino counter-attack began at dawn on February 23. The plan was a pincer movement, using the battalions from the North and South, with the sharpshooters (the only professionally trained troops) at crucial points. It was only partly successful because at a moment of extreme peril, with some companies already bereft of ammunition, the battalion from Kawit, Cavite refused to move, saying they had orders to obey only instructions directly from Aguinaldo.
That kind of insubordination had been plaguing the Filipino forces. Most of the troops owed their loyalty to the officers from their provinces, towns or districts and not to the central command. The hostility of the Caviteños towards the Manileños was an old wound. The Manileño ilustrado, Antonio Luna, was resented by companies or battalions commanded by warlords and landlords from other provinces. At one point, Luna had to be restrained from shooting a Caviteño colonel.
Nevertheless, despite their superior firepower and more newly arrived reinforcements, the Americans were so compromised that General Lawton, still in Colombo in Ceylon with his troops, received a cabled SOS, “Situation critical in Manila. Your early arrival great importance.”
And so it went, battle after battle, incident after incident until Luna proferred his resignation, which Aguinaldo hesitantly accepted. Luna was absent from the field for three weeks, during which the Filipino forces suffered several defeats and setbacks. Swallowing his pride, Luna went to Aguinaldo and asked to be reinstated, begging for more powers over all the military chiefs, and Aguinaldo agreed.
At the end of May, Colonel Joaquín Luna, Antonio’s brother, warned him about a plot concocted by “old elements’ of the Revolution (who were bent on accepting autonomy under American sovereignty to stop the terror of “the American rampage” that was ravaging the country) and a clique of army officers whom Luna had disarmed, arrested, or insulted. Luna shrugged off all these threats and continued building defenses at Pangasinan where the Americans planned a landing.
On June 2, 1899 he received two telegrams. One asked for help in a counter-attack in San Fernando, and the other, “purportedly” signed by Aguinaldo, ordering him to come to headquarters, a convent at CabanatuanNueva Ecija, to form a new cabinet. Having high hopes that he would be promoted as Premier and Secretary of War, Luna set off; first by train, then on horseback and eventually in three carriages to Nueva Ecija with his aides. Two of the carriages broke down and he proceeded in the only one left, with Colonel Francisco Román and Captain Eduardo Rusca, having earlier shed his cavalry escort. Upon arriving at Cabanatuan on June 5, Luna proceeded to the convent, alone. As he went up the stairs, he ran into an officer whom he had previously disarmed for cowardice, and an old enemy, whom he had once threatened with arrest, a hated “autonomist,” and was told that Aguinaldo had left forSan Isidro, Tarlac in Tarlac. Enraged, Luna asked why he had not been told the meeting was canceled.
As he was about to depart, a single shot from a rifle on the plaza rang out. Outraged, and furious, he rushed down the stairs and met Captain Pedro Janolino, accompanied by some of the Kawit troops he had previously dismissed for insubordination. Janolino swung his bolo at Luna, wounding him at the temple. Janolino's cohorts fired at Luna, others started stabbing him, even as he tried to bring his revolver to bear. He staggered out to the plaza where Román and Rusca were rushing to his aid, but they too were set upon and shot. As he laid dying, blood gushing from multiple wounds, Luna uttered his last words: “Cowards! Assassins!” He was hurriedly buried in the churchyard, after which Aguinaldo relieved Luna's officers and men from the field.
The demise of Luna, the most brilliant and capable of the Filipino generals, was a decisive factor in the fight against the American forces. Even the Americans developed an astonished admiration for him. One of them, General Hughes, said of his death, probably relishing the irony, “The Filipinos had only one general, and they have killed him.[2]
Subsequently, Aguinaldo suffered successive, disastrous losses in the field, retreating towards northern Luzon. In less than two years, he was captured in PalananIsabela by American forces, led by General Frederick Funston and their Kapampangan allies, the Macabebe mercenaries. Aguinaldo was later brought to Manila, and made to pledge allegiance to the United States.


La Paz is a 4th class municipality in the province of TarlacPhilippines. According to the latest census, it has a population of 61,324 people in 10,361 households.

The municipality has a total land area of 114.33 km², which represents 2.34% of the entire provincial area. La Paz is politically subdivided into 18 barangays, of which barangays San Isidro and San Roque are considered as urban areas and the rest of the barangays are considered rural areas.

The early history of La Paz is told in a legend. Once upon a time there was an old, old pueblo called "Cama Juan" situated right along the bank of the Chico River bordering the province of Tarlac and Nueva Ecija. When the Chico River overflowed during a storm, a great flood swept the entire pueblo at an unholy hour when the entire populace was asleep. The flood left in its wake a picture of total devastation claiming scores of human life.
This forced the inhabitants of "Cama Juan" to evacuate the place and look for a better place to settle in. The old site (Cama Juan) is known as "Balen Melakwan" or "Abandoned Town".
The inhabitants chose a field of evergreen grass and shubbery, which they named "Matayumtayum". Hard work and determination enabled the town to prosper and in time peace and order reigned in the settlement.
Towards the end of the nineteenth century, Francisco Macabulos and Captain Mariano Ignacio selected a more centrally located site for the future town to be known as La Paz. But La Paz existed then only as a barrio of the town of Tarlac until 1892. When it was separated from the latter and rechristened in honor of its patron saint Nuestra Senora de La Paz y Buen Viaje. Its emergence as a new town gave its citizens a chance to run their own government with Martin Aquino as the first Governadorcillo.
In due time, due to the heroic exploits of its own force La Paz was made first seat of the revolutionary government of the province of Tarlac during the Spanish regime with Gen. Francisco Makabulos as its first provincial governor.




Hacienda Luisita is a 6,435-hectare sugar plantation estate located in the province of TarlacPhilippines, owned by the Cojuangco family, which includes the late former PresidentCorazon Aquino and her son, incumbent President Benigno Aquino III. It spans various municipalities in the province, including the capital Tarlac City. The hacienda is primarily within the province's 1st and 2nd legislative districts.
The estate is as large as the cities of Makati and Pasig combined.


Hacienda Luisita was once part of the holdings of Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas, Sociedad Anónima, better known as Tabacalera, which was founded on November 26, 1881 by a Spaniard from Santander, Cantabria and Santiago de Cuba, Don Antonio López y López. He was the first Marques de Comillas and was famous for being an associate of the first Spanish Prime Minister with foreign blood, the Spanish-Filipino mestizo Don Marcelo Azcárraga y Palmero. His relative on his Spanish side, Ricardo Padilla, married Gloria Zóbel y Montojo (younger half sister of Mercedes Zóbel de Ayala de McMicking, largest Zóbel owner in the Ayala group of companies) and was an aide-de-camp of Juan de Borbón, Count of Barcelona, father of the current King of Spain, His Majesty Don Juan Carlos de todos los Santos de Borbón y Borbón-Dos Sicilias. The estate was named after Antonio's wife, Luisa Bru y Lassús. Their son, Claudio López, the second to hold the title , donated some of the profits to the Jesuits to create the Pontifical University of Comillas, a university outside Madrid. López acquired the estate in 1882, a year before his death. López was a financial genius who parlayed his work adventures in Cuba and Latin America into a steamship, companies and trading businesses. He was the most influential Spanish businessman of his generation and counted the Prime Minister and the King of Spain as his personal friends. Tabacalera was a private enterprise he founded with the sole intention of taking over the Philippine Tobacco Monopoly from the Spanish colonial government. This included the Hacienda Antonio (named after his eldest son), Hacienda San Fernando and Hacienda Isabel (named after his eldest daughter) in Cagayan and Isabela provinces where the legendary La Flor de Isabela cigar was cultivated. Tabacalera’s incorporators were the Sociedad General de Crédito Inmobiliario Español, Banque de Paris which is now Paribas and Bank of the Netherlands which is now ABN-AMRO. The sugar and tobacco in the Philippines were the reason why the López de Comillas family were able to donate such a huge pontifical university to the Jesuits on top of lavishing on their home, the Palacio de Sobrellano in Comillas and the Güell park (designed by Gaudí) in Barcelona. Don Alfonso Güell y Martos born in 1958, the fourth Marquis of Comillas, currently holds the title. He is also the Count of San Pedro de Ruiseñada, the third to hold that title. Both are grandee status in Spain and as such can address the King as "mi primo" or "my cousin."


Contrary to what was expected, Spanish-owned Hacienda Luisita did not languish when the Americans took full control of the Philippine government. In fact, Tabacalera as a whole experienced prosperous times because of the legendary sweet tooth of the Americans. With Cuban sugar not enough for their domestic market, the Americans tapped the Philippines for its sugarcane requirements. At one point during pre-war Manila times, Hacienda Luisita supplied almost 20% of all sugar in the United States. Luisita sugar became popular among Filipino (specifically Ilocano) expatriates in America just as much as Victorias sugar was popular among Manila’s elite circles back home. The Americans also brought the centrifugal-based machinery which doubled the production of the estate and therefore did not require the cane to be loaded by truck to Laguna to be squeezed in the haciendas there, including those of the Roxas y Zobel families. As this new technology swept in Luzon and the sugar mills consolidated, many wealthy families fell into foreclosure or combined their resources. Some of the brave few like Honorio Ventura (who paid for Diosdado Macapagal’s schooling), the De Leons, Urquicos, Lazatins and the Gonzálezes did just that--- which is how PASUDECO came into being. Structurally, there was little change in the hacienda; Tabacalera y Compañía positioned Spanish-Filipino and American-Filipino encargados and administradores to manage the vast estate.


Central Azucarera de Tarlac
During the Spanish regime in the Philippines, a group of Spaniards operating under the corporate name of Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas (more popularly called Tabacalera) was awarded under the royal grant of the Spanish throne vast tracts of lands in the country.

When the tobacco monopoly was abolished in 1881, Tabacalera was concerned about continuing operations of their cigar factories in Manila. The company's governing body, the Consejo de Administracion, decided to send Señor Lope Gisbert to scout for fertile areas of development. Learning that the railroad would be extended from Manila to Dagupan, Señor Gisbert recommended the acquisition of some 12,000 hectares surrounding the railroad. Tabacalera was able to acquire the said property in 1907 after a long and tedious process, and was registered under the name of Hacienda Luisita after Doña Luisa the wife of the first Marques de Comillas, also the founder and first president of Tabacalera.

The sugar mill, Central Azucarera de Tarlac was erected within the estate in 1927, and started its milling operations in Crop Year 1928-29, and every year thereafter except during the War years of 1943-46.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Here are some of my recent findings, not as a professional historian, but as a curious individual.

These findings are based on commercial and legal documents whose original purposes were for documentation as required by law and contracts.

Yet, such documents are a very important source of history.

After all, history is sourced from documents, not the other way around.

Now, let us proceed to the untold history of Hacienda Luisita.

What is the untold origin of Hacienda Luisita?

Here is what history books do not tell us. This origin is taken from a document. Remember, documents were not written for history. There were encoded and entered as transactions in the ordinary course of business on a day to day basis. Unlike history, documents do not make up angles or perspectives or interpretations.

One document, a certificate of land title, numbered OCT-01-4 which was created formally in 1764 (yes, it's that old), was preserved, and re-constituted, and re-created and re-registered whenever the land registration laws changed over the years, contains certain annotations at the back.

One such annotation is relevant to:

Hacienda Luisita

This annotation was dated Feb 7, 1899 and the annotation was numbered DC-074 S-2-7-1899.


DC-074
S-2-7
1899
Entry No EDC 073-S-2-6 1898, Real Estate Mortgage amounting to U.S. dollar 20,000,000.00 secured by this Land Title OCT No. T-01-4, embracing the area of Hacienda Mabiga, Pampanga, Kuliat and Capaz, Tarlac to Banco Español-Filipino has been cancelled and this released forever of Real Estate Mortgage has been executed by the Bank in favor of the owner with the full payment of said principal loan and an interest US Dollar 2,000,000.00, the payment of which has broken as follows: General Miguel Malvar correspondingly acquired the area of Tanauan, Batangas and had paid the account of US Dollar 3,300,000.00; Don Servillano Aquino acquired the whole area of Bamban and Capaz, Tarlac and correspondingly paid the account the sum of US Dollar 3,300,000.00; General Antonio Luna acquired the whole San Miguel, Tarlac and La Paz, Tarlac and he paid the account of US Dollar 2,000,000.00, the land was given as a gift to his girlfriend, Miss Luisita Cojuangco: Don Mariano Tayag acquired the area of Kuliat and Mabiga 1,500 hectares (Pampanga) correspondingly paid the account, the sum of US Dollar 3,300,000.00; Don Francisco Macabulos acquired the area of Sta. Ignacia, Tarlac and had paid correspondingly the account, the sum of US Dollar 2,400,000.00; Don Juan Ejercito acquired absolutely the San Juan Del Monte Hacienda embracing up to Sitio Mandaluyong consisting an area of 3,154 hectares and had correspondingly paid the account of US Dollar 3,300,000.00 and DonEsteban Benitez Tallano (Tagean) maintained his rights being the owner over the unacquired Estate and had paid the balance of 6,600,000.00 U.S. Dollar.
(Sgd) BENITO LEGARDA
Ad Interim Land Registrar
February 7, 1899






What does the above transactional annotation document in the land title OCT-01-4 tell us?

It tells us what history books have failed to capture.

1. General Antonio Luna, the Philippine hero, had US$ 2 million.

2.  We did not know how he obtained such amount.

This annotation is about the redemption of Hacienda Mabiga from Banco Espanol-Filipino with a principal loan amount of $20 million with interest of US$2 million per annum.

Note the names of the people involved in this annotation. General Servillano Aquino, and Francisco Macabulos, General Antonio Luna were revolutionary generals.

Where did these generals get millions of dollars?

And how come these generals were the ones who redeemed the Real Estate Mortgage of Hacienda Mabiga from Banco Espanol-Filipino (now Bank of the Philippine Islands or BPI?)

In an earlier annotation to this title, in fact the immediately preceding annotation, the Tallano mortgaged Hacienda Mabiga to Banco Espano-Filipino (now BPI). (See separate article on this annotation).

Note that Hacienda Mabiga was mortaged by Tallano family with Banco Espanol-Filipino for US$20 million and this amount was the same money used by the US government to the Spain as payment for the Philippines under the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898.


Also, note that this annotation was dated Feb 7, 1899. This was after the Treaty of Paris (Dec 10, 1898) for which the United States paid US$20 million to Spain.

In another annotation, you will be able to cross-corroborate that the Tallano family was the source of the US$20 million used by the Americans to pay the Spaniards!

In another notation, you will also be able to cross-correlate the money paid to the Revolutionary Leaders also came from the Tallano Family.


3. General Antonio Luna purchased the entire, yes, the entire areas of San Miguel Tarlac, and La Paz Tarlac.

4. The total land area was not mentioned.
Today, La Paz Tarlac is 11,400 hectares. 
Hacienda Luisita now spans various municipalities in the province, including the capital Tarlac City. The hacienda is primarily within the province's 1st and 2nd legislative districts.

5. General Antonio Luna donated the land as a gift to his girlfriend.

6. General Antonio Lunas' girlfriend was Miss Luisita Conjuangco.

As you have noticed, the annotations and the history accounts dovetail in agreement.

This is what the history books failed to capture, but in reality was documented not by a historian, but by an officer who was doing his work in the ordinary course of business on day to day basis.


And this is a validation, once again, of the existence, the validity, and the authenticity of Torrens Title OCT-01-4 issued in favor of


"Prince Lacan Acuña Tallano Tagean (formerly Tagean Clan), married with
Princess Rowena Ma. Elizabeth Overbeck Macleod of Austria,
the owner in Fee simple of certain lands, known as HACIENDA FILIPINA"

(email me to get a scanned copy of the title issued by the register of deeds)

Note: The early transcriptions were in Spanish but the government had its translated into English through the efforts of then Solicitor General Felix Makasiar under Pres. Diosdado Macapagal (who later become Chief Justice under Marcos). Therefore, the government itself has consistently recognized the validity and the authenticity of OCT 01-4.


History from original source documents! What a refreshing perspective!

Saturday, December 17, 2011

President Manuel Roxas and the Real Owner of 7,169 Philippine Islands: The Untold History


This is the untold history of the newly created Republic of the Philippines under President Manuel Roxas and the real owners of the Philippines islands  - the Tallano family.


Here are some of my recent findings, not as a professional historian, but as a curious individual.

These findings are based on commercial and legal documents whose original purposes were for documentation as required by law and contracts.

Yet, such documents are a very important source of history.

After all, history is sourced from documents, not the other way around.

Now, let us proceed to the untold history of President Manuel Roxas and the real title of the real owners of the islands of the Philippines.
What is the Philippines' untold origin?

Here is what history books do not tell us. This origin is taken from a document. Remember, documents were not written for history. There were encoded and entered as transactions in the ordinary course of business on a day to day basis. Unlike history, documents do not make up angles or perspectives or interpretations.

One document, a certificate of land title, numbered OCT-01-4 which was created formally in 1764 (yes, it's that old), was preserved, and re-constituted, and re-created and re-registered whenever the land registration changed over the years, contains certain annotations at the back.

One such annotation is relevant to:

The new Republic of the Philippines and the Tallano clan.

This annotation was dated July 5, 1946 (one day after the creation of the Republic of the Philippines!!!) and numbered GLRO-079 S-4-7-1946

GLRO-079
S-4-7-1946
Letter of Declaration respecting Private Rights of Don Esteban Benitez Tallano, heir of late Prince Julian Macleod Tallano over the 7,169 Islands of the archipelago including the Freedom Islands, Turtle Islands and the Sabah Islands evidenced by OCT No. T-01-4 in consonance with the declaration of U.S. President Harry S. Truman with U.S. Congress Joint Resolution No. 93 of June 29, 1946 and the December 10, 1898 Treaty of Paris, that United States withdraws and surrenders all rights of possession including lands and supervision, jurisdiction, control of sovereignty and recognized the independence of the Philippines.
Date of the Document:  June 7, 1946
(Sgd)  MANUEL A. ROXAS
Philippine President
July 5, 1946




What does the above transactional annotation document in the land title OCT-01-4 tell us?

It tells us what history books have failed to capture.

1. The Republic of the Philippines was just created (July 4, 1946 is the independence date from the Americans)

2. One day after the creation of the Republic of the Philippines (i.e. July 5, 1946), no less than the highest officer of the new Republic, President Manuel Acuna Roxas signed an annotation at the back of the title OCT-01-4.

3. The annotation is a Letter of Declaration by no less than the President of the Republic of the Philippines Manuel Acuna Roxas.

4. According to Pres. Manuel Roxas, such Letter of Declaration was in consonance with 
- Declaration of US Congress Resolution No. 93 of June 29, 1946 and the
- Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898

5. That the Letter of Declaration respects:
- The private rights of Don Esteban Benitez Tallano (heir of Prince Julian MacCleod Tallano)
- Such private rights are evidenced by OCT 01-4.
- OCT 01-4 covers ownership over the 7,169 islands of the archipelago including
                    - Freedom Islands
                    - Turtle Islands
                    - Sabah Islands

6. The date of such Letter of Declaration was June 7, 1946


As you have noticed, the annotations and the history accounts dovetail in agreement.

This is what the history books failed to capture, but in reality was documented not by a historian, but by an officer who was doing his work in the ordinary course of business on day to day basis.


And this is a validation, once again, of the existence and the authenticity of Torrens Title OCT-01-4 issued in favor of


"Prince Lacan Acuña Tallano Tagean (formerly Tagean Clan), married with
Princess Rowena Ma. Elizabeth Overbeck Macleod of Austria,
the owner in Fee simple of certain lands, known as HACIENDA FILIPINA"

(email me to get a scanned copy of the title issued by the register of deeds)

History from original source documents! What a refreshing perspective.

P.S. Can you imagine that? No less than President Manuel Acuna Roxas, President of the newly created Republic of the Philippines, in a very public Letter of Declaration dated June 7, 1946, and annotated on title OCT 01-4 public recognizes the ownership of the Tallano clan over the entire 7,169 Philippines islands and other islands including Sabah!!!!

What else do you need as legal proof?


































University of the Philippines Diliman Campus: The Untold Origin


This is the untold origin of the University of the Philippines.

Here are some of my recent findings, not as a professional historian, but as a curious individual.

These findings are based on commercial and legal documents whose original purposes were for documentation as required by law and contracts.

Yet, such documents are a very important source of history.

After all, history is sourced from documents, not the other way around.

Now, let us proceed to the untold origin of the University of the Philippines.

Have you read the news lately about the land titling issues around the UP Diliman Campus?

Here are clippings:

39-year-old Technohub land dispute continues
(This report was first published in print in issue 20 of the Philippine Collegian on 12 December 2011.)
by Isabella Patricia Borlaza
A 39-year old land dispute involving a private individual’s claim of a part of UP Diliman property is set to be reviewed once again, after the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) submitted a second motion for referral to the Supreme Court (SC) on November 24.
And also this case:
This treats of the Report submitted to this Court by the Former Special Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals, dated July 30, 2003, pursuant to our Resolution, dated December 7, 2001, directing said court to receive evidence on the conflicting claims over the subject properties covered by TCT Nos. 52928 and 52929 between private respondents Jorge H. Chin and Renato B. Mallari, on the one hand, and intervenor University of the Philippines (UP), on the other.
The case at bar is another crass attempt to grab part of the Diliman Campus of the University of the Philippines. Over and over again, this Court has ruled that the title of UP over its Diliman Campus is indefeasible and beyond dispute. We cannot deviate from this ruling.

You can google for more UP land grabbing, land scamming cases.

What is the University of the Philippines' untold origin?

Here is what history books do not tell us. This origin is taken from a document. Remember, documents were not written for history. There were encoded and entered as transactions in the ordinary course of business on a day to day basis. Unlike history, documents do not make up angles or perspectives or interpretations.

One document, a certificate of land title, numbered OCT-01-4 which was created formally in 1764 (yes, it's that old), was preserved, and re-constituted, and re-created and re-registered whenever the land registration changed over the years, contains certain annotations at the back.

One such annotation is relevant to:

University of the Philippines Diliman Campus

This annotation was dated May 5, 1939 and numbered CLRO 0101 S-5-5-39


GLRO 0101
S-5-5-39
In conjunction with the establishment of University of the Philippines and the place thereof from Manila to Diliman embodied under Act No. 1870, and in honor of his cousin: Conrado Benitez, and a tribute to his second cousin, late Ignacio Villamor, its first President, Don Esteban Benitez Tallano extended a Deed of Donation of around seventy five (75) hectares of land in Diliman District for the permanent location of University of the Philippines.
(Sgd)  TEODORO GONZALES
Register of Deeds
May 5, 1939

What does the above transactional annotation document in the land title OCT-01-4 tell us?

It tell us what history books have failed to capture.

1. Don Esteban Benitez Tallano donated 75 hectares in Diliman, to the University of the Philippines.
2. The purpose was the establishment of UP Diliman as an extension campus of UP Manila under Act. 1870.
3. He donated it in honor of his cousin, Conrado Benitez.
4. And as a tribute to his second cousin, who had died, Ignacio Villamor, the first President of UP.
5. The donation was annotated by the Teodoro Gonzales, Register of Deeds in 1939.
6. Yes, as recently as 1939, the OCT 01-4 has been recognized as authentic and existing title.

As you have noticed, the annotations and the history accounts dovetail in agreement.

This is what the history books failed to capture, but in reality was documented not by a historian, but by an officer who was doing his work in the ordinary course of business on day to day basis.

And this is a validation, once again, of the existence and the authenticity of Torrens Title OCT-01-4 issued to the name of

"Prince Lacan Acuña Tallano Tagean (formerly Tagean Clan), married with
Princess Rowena Ma. Elizabeth Overbeck Macleod of Austria,
the owner in Fee simple of certain lands, known as HACIENDA FILIPINA"

History from original source documents! What a refreshing perspective.


Centro Escolar University: The Untold Origin

This is the untold origin of Centro Escolar University.

Here are some of my recent findings, not as a professional historian, but as a curious individual.

These findings are based on commercial and legal documents whose original purposes were for documentation as required by law and contracts.

Yet, such documents are a very important source of history.

After all, history is sourced from documents, not the other way around.

Now, let us proceed to the untold origin of Centro Escolar University.

From CEU's website you can find this entry:

"A Brief History

Centro Escolar University was established on June 3, 1907 by Doña Librada Avelino and Doña Carmen de Luna for the instruction and training of the youth in all branches of the arts and sciences. With some benches, a single blackboard and a few books, the two educators steadfastly nurtured a dream of establishing a nationalistic center of learning for Filipino women. The first college, that of Pharmacy, opened in 1921. The College of Liberal Arts, Education and Dentistry followed one after the other. Three years later, the College of Optometry was established."

What is Centro Escolar University's untold origin?

Here is what history books do not tell us. This origin is taken from a document. Remember, documents were not written for history. There were encoded and entered as transactions in the ordinary course of business on a day to day basis. Unlike history, documents do not make up angles or perspectives or interpretations.

One document, a certificate of land title, numbered OCT-01-4 which was created formally in 1764 (yes, it's that old), was preserved, and re-constituted, and re-created and re-registered whenever the land registration changed over the years, contains certain annotations at the back.

One such annotation is relevant to:

Centro Escolar University.

This annotation was dated January 20, 1904 and numbered CLRO 01122 S-1904

CLRO
01122
S-1904
A Deed of Donation of 1 hectare lot in San Miguel, Manila has been executed by Don Esteban Benitez Tallano in favor of Doña Librada Avelino to locate finally the school, Centro Escolar de Senoritas (now Centro Escolar University), as a birthday gift to the lady that become his girlfriend for years.
Date of the Document:  January 18, 1904
(Sgd)  H. K. SLEEPER
Land Registration Officer
January 20, 1904

What does the above transactional annotation document in the land title OCT-01-4 tell us?

It tell us what history books have failed to capture.

1. Don Esteban Benitez Tallano considered Dona Librada Avelino as a long time girl friend.
2. He donated 1 hectare of land to her.
3. The donated land was located in San Miguel Manila.
4. The purpose was for the final location of a school named Centro Escolar de Senoritas
5. The school has been renamed Centro Escolar University later
6. The annotation was signed by H.K. Sleeper, the Land Registration Officer at the time (American occupation)
7. Three years after the donation, the construction of the school was finished and it opened on June 3, 1907.

As you have noticed, the annotations and the history accounts dovetail in agreement.

This is what the history books failed to capture, but in reality was documented not by a historian, but by an officer who was doing his work in the ordinary course of business on day to day basis.


And this is a validation, once again, of the existence and the authenticity of Torrens Title OCT-01-4 issued to the name of

"Prince Lacan Acuña Tallano Tagean (formerly Tagean Clan), married with
Princess Rowena Ma. Elizabeth Overbeck Macleod of Austria,
the owner in Fee simple of certain lands, known as HACIENDA FILIPINA"


History from original source documents! What a refreshing perspective.



Friday, November 18, 2011

Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan


Excerpts from the book "Certiorari Conundrum" by Thads Bentulan


Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
The Sandiganbayan is a special court. It has both original and appellate jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) are now of the same level as the Court of Appeals (CA). It decides cases in divisions similar to the Court of Appeals. Similar to the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan en banc cannot decide cases unlike the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA).

Sandiganbayan: Original exclusive jurisdiction
The Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over the following cases:
1.              Violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices), RA 1379 (unlawfully acquired property), and the Revised Penal Code (Book II, Title VII, Chapter II, Section 2), and,
2.              Other offenses  committed by public employees (and government-owned or controlled corporations) in relation to their office and private individuals charged with them, where one of the accused is an official occupying the following positions (permanent or interim) at the time of the commission of the offense:
2a.            Officials of the executive branch classified as Grade 27 or higher;
2b.            Members of the Judiciary
2c.            Members of the Constitutional Commissions
2d.            Members of Congress
2e.            All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 or higher.
3.              Civil and criminal cases filed under EO 1,2,14, and 14-A (RA 7975 Sec. 2, RA 8249)

Sandiganbayan: Concurrent original jurisdiction with the SC
Under EO 1,2,14, and 14-A (RA 7975 Sec. 2, RA 8249), the Marcos ill-gotten wealth cases, the Sandiganbayan has concurrent original jurisdiction with the Supreme Court in the
1.      special civil actions of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and quo warranto,
2.      the special proceeding of habeas corpus, and
3.      provisional remedies of injunction and ancillary writs in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.

Sandiganbayan: Appellate jurisdiction
1.                 The Sandiganbayan has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the RTC in the exercise of the latter’s original or appellate jurisdiction under PD 1606 as amended (RA 8249 Sec. 5). The notice of appeal must be filed with 15 days of the promulgation of judgment. Rule 122 of the Rules of Court provide the manner for this appeal.
2.                 Note: In my opinion, under the doctrine of judicial hierarchy enunciated in both St Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC, and People vs. Mateo, whenever the RTC imposes the death penalty, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment under BP129 and RA8249 instead of the case being elevated directly to the Supreme Court, by implication of People vs. Mateo, the RTC judgment must be reviewed first by the Sandiganbayan. I will discuss the People vs. Mateo case, decided July 7, 2004, in the next part of this series.

Monday, October 03, 2011

Hyperwage Theory vs. Cause-Oriented Groups

What is the difference between Hyperwage Theory and the wage increase demanded by cause-oriented groups?

I have been asked this many times, and I think it is time to write down this reply for the convenience of those conducting research on Hyperwage Theory.

1. The main difference is in the theory: The theory behind the demand for higher wages by cause-oriented groups is social justice while the theory behind Hyperwage is economic wealth creation.

Social justice is a concept of entitlement. Labor is entitled to a certain portion of profits.
Hyperwage is based on economic principles: Higher wages causes higher demand, then higher sales, then higher production, then higher employment, then even higher purchasing power of the newly employed who purchase more goods.

Hyperwage, therefore, is not based on social justice, but on the concept of demand and supply. Higher purchasing power increases demand which requires more employment, and also more taxes collected by the government.

2. For example, the cause-oriented groups demand an across-the-board P125 daily wage increase in the wages (for both minimum wage earners and non-minimum wage earners).

3. Their demand is not based on economic theory (at least until they began changing their tune when they read Hyperwage Theory in 2002 and 2005). It is based on the concept of social justice: that workers should share in the fruits of business.

4. The amount demanded by cause-oriented groups are targeted at obtaining a living wage.

5. Hyperwage Theory rests on a different foundation: That economic wealth creation for the entire economy is based on one single variable -- the minimum wage.

6. Hyperwage Theory is not anchored in social justice, although, lo and behold, social justice is a necessary results of implementing Hyperwage Theory.

7. The cause-oriented groups recognize that increasing wages threatens the survival of the businesses and for this reason, their demand is only for such an increase to attain a living wage. This is why until now, no cause-orient group has come out in the open to support Hyperwage Theory. They themselves are not convince of hyperwage salaries.

8. On the other hand, Hyperwage Theory starts with including domestic helpers in the coverage of the minimum law. Hyperwage Theory proposes that the higher the wage of the domestic helpers the better for the economy.

9. Why are the cause-oriented groups demanding for a different minimum wage for janitor and a different minimum wage for domestic helpers? It is because the leaders of cause-oriented groups have domestic helpers and that the former do not want to give P20,000 per month to the latter?

10. As you can see, the cause-oriented groups are half-hearted in their demand for wage increases because their advocacy is not anchored on economic principles but on the concept of social justice. Their demand is limited because they are not Hyperwagers at heart.

They have not yet appreciated the idea that Hyperwage Theory automatically includes social justice,  economic wealth creation, and the solution to insurgency, crime rates, mendicancy, inefficiency, brain drain, etc.

11. How does Hyperwage affect the economy beneficically? This is answered in the book. Read it.

12. Hyperwage rests on one economic variable - the minimum wage and the higher it is, the better for the economy.

Saturday, July 02, 2011

The Blessing, the Curse, and the Hope of Democracy

Is knowledge, truth?

Is knowledge, truth?

By Thads Bentulan

The greatest faculties of man that separate him from other animals are the faculties of thought, imagination, and reason.

And from man’s faculties of thought, imagination and reason, arise concepts not enjoyed by other species such as the concepts of equality, freedom, and truth – and then, there is that concept invented by modern society – the concept of profit.

Summum Bonum

And all of these are just means to obtain man’s summum bonum, the highest good.

However, between the spheres of the highest good, on one side, and man’s essence, on the other, is man’s existence.

With man’s existence, the concepts of equality, freedom, and truth occupy greater relative value than the summum bonum. Not because the former are more important than the latter, but simply because equality, freedom, and truth are more temporally current than the summum bonum.

In a way, the concerns of today outweigh the concerns of the future.

Implements

Yet, even given the currency of man’s existence, the concepts of equality, freedom, and truth are situational – that is, their relative value depends on the situation.

Perhaps, there is no debate as to what is meant by equality, freedom, and truth when man’s actions, and his interactions with other men, and with society in general, are questions of life and death. There is no ambiguity, there is no middle ground, there is no spectrum of gray, when life and death are involved.

Torture, murder, and genocide are situationals that require no debate: man’s inhumanity to man ought to be preempted by the implementation of the concepts of equality, freedom, and truth.

In our times, the implementation of equality is democracy. The implementation of freedom is rebellion when oppressed. The implementation of truth is the freedom of the press.

Truth conundrum

And now comes, the Truth Conundrum – the relevant truth versus the irrelevant truth.

When the truth does not directly impact a particular man’s life: Does that particular man deserve the irrelevant truth?

Specifically, in no other era in the history of man has there been a wholesale leakage of the truth and lies maintained by enterprises and governments than that one offered by Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

Some of these truths and lies are irrelevant to others. Do they deserve this wholesale truth?

Lie Conundrum

After the truth conundrum, comes the lie conundrum.

The Lie Conundrum: To preempt man’s inhumanity to man, does society need to rely on deliberate lies as part of its survival strategy?

The social contract requires individuals to surrender certain rights and freedoms to enable the state to sustain society’s survival. Does this include deliberate lies as part of the disinformation strategy? Does this include the withholding of truth? The absence of truth is but another form of a deliberate lie.

Man’s inhumanity to man

The common thought used in the justification of the lie conundrum as part of the survival strategy of the state is the reality of the evil human mind.

It is man’s capability and intention to inflict inhumanity to other men that requires the existence of a system of confidential flow of facts, information, and most of all opinion.

State defense and secrets rely heavily on candid and frank formation of opinions about other states, persons, event, or ideas. And indeed, a case can be made for such opinions to be confidential in nature.

Shades of gray

The truth has its own spectrum; the lie has its own spectrum.

Does man’s survival depend on his ability to manage the shades of gray?

The reality of human interaction is that, on a day to day basis, it is extremely difficult, even for a reasonable man, to judge in which part of the gray spectrum he is currently in.

At what point of the spectrum does he realize he has switched to the side of evil in the fight between good and evil?

At what point of the spectrum does the state realize it has switched to the side of evil in the battle between democracy and terrorism?

At what point of the spectrum does the fourth estate realize it has unnecessarily exposed the security of the state in revealing the wholesale truth?

Wholesale truth

Never in the history of human civilization has there been a technology that enabled a single person to distribute information directly – yes, directly - to every other person in the world in a matter of seconds far more efficiently than the internet.

The World Wide Web, like any new technology, is a double-edged sword. It could be equally used for good and evil. What if the wholesale truth is available to the terrorists?

Security and leakages during the Cold War are nothing compared to the potential information leaks of today. There were a few dozen spies who came in from the cold but the information and disinformation they brought in were sealed among a few in the intelligence community.

The secret of the atomic bomb was revealed by a spy deep within the Manhattan project but such leakage was limited to a few persons.

But the frightening speed and dispersion of the web mixed with the never ending debate on individual liberties and his social contract with the state is a thermonuclear combination of damaging consequences.

Information voyeurism

Technology-enabled wholesale truths and lies are now available even to persons would find this information irrelevant.

Thus, the mere thought of having access to such wholesale truths and lies have created a new addiction: information voyeurism.

Does the citizen deserve to know how an ambassador thinks of the credit card transactions of another diplomat? Of course, when it is information about genocide, the resolution of the debate is simple. How about cover-ups of military misjudgments? How about government Big Brother espionage of your neighbor’s trash?

Julian Assange and Wikileaks

Given man’s faculties of thought, imagination, and reason, it would not be illogical to contemplate on the ramifications of the web technology and the concepts of equality, freedom, and truth.

Thus, the emergence of Julian Assange and Wikileaks is a logical, rational, and natural consequence of the new technology and man’s faculty of reason. Have you noticed, this is exactly the process of thought and reasoning we followed in this discourse, leading to the possibility of wholesale leakages?

It is just coincidental that it had to be Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Were Assange unable to initiate Wikileaks, then in a mere matter of months, somebody else would have initiated it.

Empire

The reaction of the empires and states to Julian Assange and Wikileaks would go down in modern history as one of their greatest monumental strategic failures. It is a great loss of opportunity. It is history repeating itself.

Instead of cooperating with Julian Assange and Wikileaks, the states have chosen to wage war with him. History is replete with histories of empires and states that have been destroyed and created on the basis of equality, freedom, and truth. And the statistics and history have favored those who fought for these concepts.

After all, in the long run, how could not man’s essence of thought, imagination, and reason not side with concepts of equality, freedom, and truth?

Freedom and responsibility

Just because you have the freedom to act does not always mean that acting on it is the best course of action. Freedom comes with responsibility. The freedom to act, comes with the responsibility for the consequences.

It is probably the reason why, that with the invention of truth, comes the invention of lying.

Human relations is not all about the truth. Human relations is a main course of truth, with the occasional dessert of the lie. That is not the ideal situation, but then humans live in the stark realities of life, not in the concept of the ideal.

The states could have interacted with Julian Assange and Wikileaks on the basis of cooperation founded on freedom and responsibility, instead of choosing to wage war with a person standing on the pedestal of truth.

Profit

Profit as a legitimate, openly-discussed , socially-accepted goal, is a modern invention. How should freedom of the press handle the needs of the enterprises for confidentiality, which in turn is a basis for profit? For instance, a Wikileak exposé from government missive could mention about a corporate secret or strategy.

Quo Vadis?

The current debate on Julian Assange and Wikileaks and the states can be partitioned into these two areas: 1. The reaction of the states against the expose of Assange and Wikileaks and; 2. The thorny and difficult debate on the freedom of the press versus the security of the state.

The reaction of the states against Julian Assange and Wikileaks, although the most current and most heated debate involving the freedom of the press in the world today, is actually the easier one to resolve. This involves basically tactics and strategy.

The second main area of concern is extremely difficult to resolve, and one that involves long term solutions, and with deep ramifications.

This area of concern has been a recurring theme since the beginning of man. The other species do not have this problem because they do not have faculties of thought, imagination, and reason.

Being a recurring theme, these issues have been resolved with tenuous compromises. Our society has come to terms with the truth conundrum, the lie conundrum, the shades of gray, individual liberties and the social contract.

There is no ideal resolution because human relations is a complex web of compromises and consequences.

But the coals of almost forgotten fires have been rekindled into a conflagration of truth debates. This time the debate has enormous consequences.

Is knowledge, truth?

Julian Assange and Wikileaks have provided us with lightning-fast, mass-distributed, yet direct person-to-person information. But is such information, knowledge? And is such knowledge, the truth?

Is such unfiltered massive knowledge, the truth that we seek? Does freedom of the press contemplate knowledge or truth?

The marriage of technology and untruth, especially on issues not immediately identifiable as black or white, is a never ending struggle for the refinement of the tradeoffs between individual liberty and state security, given the extremes of potential exposition of information enabled by the speed and the dispersion of the web.

I do not see a simple resolution but we should not stop seeking for one. After all, we have the weapons and faculties to arrive at one. And don’t forget, the greatest faculties of man that separate him from other animals are the faculties of thought, imagination, and reason.

With these essential human faculties, adjusted for current technologies, we hope to originate a solution relevant for today and in the near future.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

My Appreciation For Your Theory

Subject: My Appreciation for Your Theory


Hello,
I had another look with your book, Hyperwage. And it was really very
entertaining. I do understand how completely you are endeavored with
the idea. I would also say I am a convert too.

Back in 2008, I took another stand when I was trying to see it on the
other side. I was very much skeptical about your theory.

I think it as a wishful thinking. I was a critique on it.

I posted a lot of opinions against it. I even had a debate with someone in the DYAB thread on it.

And so it happened that I completely ignored it and went into a deep hibernation especially last year.

I was in fact, one of your avid listener and trying to discredit the practicality of your theory.

And fast forward to October 2010, it took me 2 years to give your theory another try. I read your book for the second time around.

IT was then that I found out that I missed a lot.

being a critic at first took me no regret. We need critics in our life to look
at the other side.

The second time I took the book seriously, I find out many of its application
that is so vast that it really makes you worthy to get a Nobel Prize for it.

The idea is so good. I don't know if there are already some people embracing
the idea, but it is universally a very good idea that even seculars and clerics
must embrace it. It is an idea far greater than Marx.

It is the gospel that Christ preached! It is the golden rule!

Let me share my own view of your idea. We need a leverage in our
income in order for us to create another opportunity of doing economic transaction.

With 20% of our income pegged at basic needs, we can contribute the vast 80% of the
remaining income circulated in the economy.

A lot of people did not realize this fact.

Most of them are hired by rich people wanting only to enrich themselves.
It is sad to note that some of our so-called economic experts like _______
did not even consider your idea a far greater one.

Well, it is expected that they would not even consider it.

These guys are just plainly, intellectual prostitutes. They are prostituting their so called expertise to the rich people and yet no matter how experts they are, they have not even given a good theoretical foundation on how our economy must be based on.

I made this email to tell you how I embraced the whole idea so much.

Currently, I am working with the biggest bank in the world which attracts some talents here in Cebu.


And realizing how important it is to leverage our income, I could say, there is no other economist that the world must listen to and that is JT Bents, and there is no other program in radio to listen to and that is your program.

Also, thanks for sharing the Howard Schultz story. I had listened it one time and the whole series of it.

I share your views on democratizing economic ideas as well as democratizing wealth.

Wealth I think is not just a material wealth but knowledge also.

--
Kristian Iroy