Home PEx Campus University of Santo Tomas

Jun Lozada is a Thomasian!

13

Comments

  • AltweggAltwegg PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Oh may Mass for Truth daw this Sunday sa UST Chapel. Magkita-kita tayo!
  • AltweggAltwegg PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    UST to host Holy Mass for TRUTH on March 2

    Fellow Thomasians: We will host a Holy Mass for TRUTH on Sunday, 02 March 2008 at 10:00 in the morning at the UST Chapel (Santisimo Rosario Parish). The Father Rector, Fr. Rolando V. de la Rosa, OP will be the main celebrant and homilist. Engr. Jun Lozada, Jr. and his family will be attending.

    Let us also welcome back our fellow Thomasian, Engr. Lozada and pray together that truth will prevail! Please wear yellow.


    http://alumni.ust.edu.ph/events_read_content.php?id=166
  • So UST already dipped its hand in this mess...and in favor of this so-called "hero" and his INCREDIBLE conquests. While I am a Thomasian and I love UST so much, this is one issue wherein I am not one with UST. And I think I'm not the only one. Mr. Lozada being a Thomasian does not make me believe him more in the same way that GMA being from another school make me believe her less.
    And I'm also not buying the reason said by a UST student council member on TV regarding their support for Lozada based on the lack of due process. [Mukhang puro emotions lang ang ginamit as basis for the conviction, di talaga pinag-aralan/I]. Mr. Lozada is being given due process and the government is ready to battle it out in the proper forum.

    I still firmly believe that Mr. Lozada should bring his issues to the Court where he can present any evidence to justify his claims. So far, what he has done is to blurt away with accusations which require substantiation in court, and unfortunately for unknown reasons, he can't produce one. And the sad thing is, the opportunists (the opposition Senators, militant groups, some church leaders) are using him and his issues as a rallying point to take away power from this government. It looks as if everything was done in bad faith (he had communications with Sen. Lacson, a known anti-GMA as early as December).

    And now, he goes on speaking engagements with different groups urging them to "stand for truth" but in reality if you read between the lines to "pin this government down." And he even rakes in money for his cause. For me Mr. Lozada is not a "hero" but a mere spin doctor soon to be destabilizer.

    We have the institutions created by law for this kind of matter and let the truth come out through them not through some grandstanding personalities and mob rule.

    PEACE!!!
  • Just because Lozada is a Thomasian doesn't mean he's more credible. Remember people!
  • Just because Lozada is a Thomasian doesn't mean he's more credible. Remember people!

    yeah.. remember Kit Tatad?:angry:
  • "The Thomasian community, however, did not seem to share the sentiments of opposition and civil society groups for the resignation of President Macapagal Arroyo, or her ouster through people power."
    - PDI News Story (March 2, 2008) in reaction to the homily by Rector Magnificus Roland de la Rosa, OP.

    Eto ang ilan sa mga nasabi ni Father Rector kanina sa misa sa UST na dinaluhan ni Jun Lozada at ilang mga pulitiko tulad ni Cory. (Masyadong OA na yung mga madre at yung isang la sallian brother na parating bumubuntot kay lozada):

    "Let's face it, we delude ourselves that by removing the President from Malaca?ang, just as we did with Marcos and Erap, integrity and honesty will be restored. We must stop looking for scapegoats to ease our burden, our guilt. We seem to have a penchant for putting the blame on just one person or a group of persons in order to take the heat off ourselves."

    "It would be simplistic and hypocritical to say that the problem of our country is only the President and the men and women behind her. The integrity crisis involves not just the President and the men and women behind her. It involves us all."

    -Fr. Roland de la Rosa, OP
  • Ang galing ng homily ni Father Rector kaninang umaga. Para sa akin, si Fr. de la Rosa ang best rector ng UST.

    After listening to his homily, nawalan ako ng gana sa mga sinasabi ni Cory and company. I was thinking, yes there may be a mistake but will forcibly removing someone from office solve our country's miseries? As fritz, MD mentioned, there are proper procedures to be observed.

    I didn't even bother finishing Lozada's speech. Not that I don't care. I just wasn't in the mood to listen anymore. Father Rector was right, we should first look into ourselves and see if we have the integrity to validly push for the changes that we want.

    We should never be hypocrites.
  • galileo_ wrote: »
    (Masyadong OA na yung mga madre at yung isang la sallian brother na parating bumubuntot kay lozada):

    Oo nga.

    Si Sr. Mary John Mananzan, OSB ng St. Scholastica's College at si Bro. Armin Luistro, FSC ng De La Salle University 'yun.
  • i attended the Mass for Truth yesterday. ang haba bg speech ni J.Lo grabe. im not being apolitical, pero kahit Thomasian siya i won't truly believe his statements unless proven and had undergone the legal process of the court.

    Isa sa mga natandaan ko sa homily ni Fr. Dela Rosa yesterday:
    "We're always in a hurry, but we're always late."

    oo nga naman!
  • I also heard excerpts from Fr. Rector's homily. Medyo kumambyo si Father. While I still don't believe Mr. Lozada, I can't help but admire Fr. Rolando dela Rosa's homily because it clarifies some issues regarding the University's stand in this political circus. It gave me some sigh of relief upon knowing that UST, unlike the other high profile schools (you all know them naman di ba?!), is not for the extraconstitutional ouster of this present government. EDSA1 1 is the grandest display of democracy, EDSA 2 is an affirmation of that democracy, but another People Power would only mean that our democracy did not mature.
  • LITHIUM478LITHIUM478 PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    /me taas na rin ng kamay....

    Thomasian din ako pero it doesnt follow that I will support Lozada, him being a "fellow" Thomasian.

    And kids wag naman kayo uto uto.

    I believe they (anti-Glorias) are using the strategy of the 70s (Marcos Era), na 'nililigawan' nila ang mga students to join their ranks. Pamparami sa hanay, kahit taga sigaw lang at taga palakpak.

    Notice them visiting top schools, La Salle, Ateneo, UP etc... hoping to collect crowds with anti-Gloria sentiments.
  • i heard a while ago at TV patrol world that there will be another interfaith rally on march 14 to be held at UST!!! even if i haven't been in UST for quite awhile, i know UST's stand in this issue. though some schools/universities mock us for being "so silent" about this issue, i don't believe going to the streets is the best/mature way to voice our concerns regarding this government. i don't think another people power will be the answer, will end the present crises.
  • yeah, i've heard about this prayer rally. naiisip ko parang sumusunod na lang ang ust sa mga ginagawa ng ibang schools. nakakasawa na yang mga rally na yan. ang sakin lang, hindi por que thomasian si j.lo the dominicans should support him all the way. give j.lo the spiritual guidance he needs. yun lang.
  • At ang sabi din ni Father Rector sa homily nya:

    We have so much freedom that's why we are lost.

    Ang galing talaga ng homily nya. UST should publish Father de la Rosa's homily in the major papers and make it UST's OFFICIAL stand on the Lozada brouhaha.
  • I chanced upon Fr. Ranhilio Aquino's stand on the zte issue. I wish our people especially the youth would pay attention to the arguments raised by Fr. Aquino.

    Why I will not support calls for resignation
    By Fr. Ranhilio Aquino

    I AM not an apologist for President Arroyo. I have received no favors from her. I believe that she is a competent president and I also believe in the Rule of Law, no matter that the law may, in several respects, be infirm. And by the precepts of the Rule of Law to which I adhere, pressuring the President into resigning by swaying public opinion away from her and alienating the allegiance of the military is anathema. My own reflections on the moral dimensions of the problems confirm me in the legal position I have so far taken.

    1. I have followed with keen attention the proceedings in the Senate. Joey de Venecia’s testimony clearly implicates the First Gentleman. Under the current legal doctrine of individual responsibility, there is no justification to impute to the President whatever wrong-doings the First Gentleman may be guilty of. I am not yet conceding that he is guilty.

    2. The testimony of Lozada, while rich in many details, contains not a single incriminatory statement against the President. There are innuendos that the deal was known to , if not brokered, by some Malacañang personalities, but innuendo is never evidence, and when we take so a serious move as urging the people to press for the resignation of the President, such a call must, by all moral precepts, rest on moral certitude!

    3. Much of the testimony of Lozada in the Senate would fail the test of judicial admissibility. The Senate does not adhere to the Rules of Evidence. It is not required to because its task is not judicial.

    4. The Senators are not the impartial investigators and judges that judicial proceedings call for. Most of the Senators are political adversaries of PGMA. The witness answers as he is led by the questions. In court, most o these questions are characterized as “leading,” and are disallowed in direct examinations because they lead the witness to the kind of answer the proponent of the question—in this case, the senators—wish to elicit from the witness.

    5. Section 15 (1) of Republic Act 6770 vests in the Ombudsman the power to investigate “any public officer of employee, office or agency” when an act or omission complained of appears to be illegal or even merely improper. I do not read, nor is there reason to read, the exclusion of the President from the power of the Ombudsman to investigate. Section 22 is in fact express about its power to investigate impeachable officials. I would like to hear the Ombudsman tell us whether or not there is probable cause in the first place because this, the Senate of its own cannot determine, nor does it possess the power to do so!

    6. What shocks me is the irresponsibility with which a lawyer and a Senator of the Republic should prejudice the Ombudsman and dissuade the public from lending credence to the Ombudsman. Why should he? The reason is not too difficult to fathom: Since this particular senator has always wanted the President ousted, he wants public attention focused on the Senate, majority of whose members are having a heyday with the investigations at which they get the chance to bash the President. Proceedings before the Ombudsman should be more sedate, more orderly, more rational.

    7. The contention that the Ombudsman and the DOJ Secretary cannot conduct credible investigations because they are presidential appointees is specious! Were that so, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the associate justices of the High Court, the justices of all superior courts, judges of courts, members of the Constitutional Commissions—all would lack credibility because all are presidential appointees. Is it then our sad fate in this blighted Republic that only the Senators are to be trusted? All the clowning that has taken place in the Senate thus far convinces me otherwise: That it is one of the least credible institutions in this country.
    8. Is it really the truth we seek? I have the sickening feeling that the President’s foes have already decided what the “truth” is—that she is guilty. If the Ombudsman were to find no probable cause against the President nor reason to indict the President in the Lower House (that is tasked with filing the articles of impeachment) after a thorough investigation, would the members of the opposition and the media be willing to accept this as “true”? I have my serious doubts. But that is exactly the trouble: If they have decided before hand what “true” is, then all investigations are unavailing.

    9. When one protests his earnestness in search of the truth and at the same time presses for the resignation of the President, one is guilty of a “performative contradiction.” If you search for the truth, you do not yet know whether or not she is guilty. But if you do not know this yet, what reason is there to ask her to resign?

    10. Asking for the President’s resignation gives now the military the signal to shift allegiances: From following the chain of command to breaking it. I find pathetic and ludicrous Jose Ma. Sison’s call to the military to shift allegiances.

    11. When did all these coup attempts disruptive of civil government start? They all started with the politicization of the military. While we lauded their role in the first EDSA People Power revolution, we also opened a Pandora’s Box—the ugly prospect of the military dictating upon civilian government and making the latter hostage to it. How shall we ever have a government that truly subjects military authority to civilian rule if we court military support for the ouster of civilian government?
    1
    1. The two EDSA People Power exercises we have gone through got us the results we wanted THEN—the ouster of Marcos, the ouster of Erap. But have these resulted in the strengthening of democratic institutions? They definitely have not. And when the institutions of democracy and justice are weakened by extra-systemic measures like people power, snap elections, pre-mature departures from office of duly constituted authorities we deter the maturing of our democracy.

    12. It has been repeatedly argued that the President’s resignation is not unconstitutional. But forcing her to by inviting the military for example to disavow obedience to their Commander-in-Chief and the civilian population not to submit to authority is certainly unconstitutional.
  • Below is Father de la Rosa's beautiful homily during the March 2 Mass for Truth held at the UST Santisimo Rosario Chapel.

    “If you look at something for the 100th time, you are in danger of seeing it for the first time.” G.K. Chesterton wrote this enigmatic line to remind us that familiar things become strange when we look at these intently. The most ordinary things can reveal an extraordinary significance that we can grasp only when we focus on it with attention. Perhaps this is the reason why we say: “Pay attention.” Why not give, or share, or spare our attention? We say “pay attention” because attention is the price we pay in order to capture, even only in part, the superabundant meaning of reality.

    Paying attention entails, not only the use of our eyes. Something monopolizes our attention when it captures our heart. That is why lovers say: “I only have eyes for you.” In a very real sense, we only see, and our way of seeing is determined, not so much by the clarity of our eyesight, but by the disposition of our heart. The way we see things reveal, not the way things are, but the way we are. A person with a clean heart will see beauty and peace around him. A person whose heart is clouded by suspicion and mistrust will see nothing but betrayal and deception. The roots of our eyes are in the heart.


    In the first reading, God warned the prophet Samuel who was examining the candidates for the Kingship of Israel: “Do not judge by his looks or by his stature. Yahweh does not judge as men judge. For human beings see with their eyes; Yahweh sees with the heart.”


    Despite the fact that David was barely a teenager, inexperienced and lacking in worldly wisdom, God chose him to rule over Israel. He saw something in David that made him fit to be a king. And even when he committed abominable sins that cried to heaven for justice, David remained “close to God’s heart.” What did God see in David? It must be David’s humility. In moments of triumph, he would glorify God in songs and uninhibited dancing. In moments of defeat and utter failure, he would cry to God for mercy and pardon. Even when David was deserted by his army, cursed by his friends, and abandoned by his children, David had the humility to seek refuge in God. David had taught us this lesson: It is only in utter humility that we realize God is all we need because, after all, God is all we have.


    The blind man in the Gospel who was healed by Jesus had the same human quality that David had. He was humble. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that “humility is truth”. Humility comes from the word “humus”, which means solid or ground. A humble person has his feet set firmly on the ground of his being. A humble person accepts the truth about himself; he does not pretend to be somebody else. He does not wear a mask, unlike the Pharisees whom Jesus called “hypocrites” and “whitened sepulchers”.


    After he was healed, the blind man declared without equivocation: “I am the one”. Take me for who I am: “This is me.” When he was brought to the Pharisees, and was asked to testify about his healing, he simply stated the truth, without adornment or exaggeration. He said: “He put paste on my eyes, and I washed, and now I see.” And when the Pharisees, the experts in the law subjected him to cross-examination, asking him: “What do you think of this man who opened your eyes?” His answer was straightforward: “He is a prophet.”


    It was his humility that made the truth of his statement unassailable. His humility also allowed him to see Jesus no longer as a man, or a healer, but as God. He exclaimed before the very human Jesus: “Lord, I believe.” Not only did Jesus heal his blindness; he also led him to faith and conversion. From that moment on, he learned to see, no longer with his eyes, but with his heart. Like King David, the blind man had taught us a lesson: God choose people to witness the truth, not because they are blameless but because something has happened to them.


    We can see the truth only if we first have it in our hearts. Let us offer this mass for ourselves: to make us humble, truthful, honest, like David and the blind man whose sight was restored. If there is one word that can contain these three qualities, the word would be INTEGRITY. The word comes from integer which means “whole”. A person with integrity has a sense of wholeness or consistency within him. His thought is consistent with his words, which in turn are consistent with his actions. Truth must be true in all its part. A half-truth is a whole lie. We cannot be warriors of truth if we are not men and women of integrity.


    It would be simplistic and hypocritical to say the problem of our country is the President and the men and women who are behind her. This is a dangerous misunderstanding of the crisis we are facing today. The integrity crisis involves not just the President and the men and women behind her. The integrity crisis involves us all. In the body of Christ, we belong to one another, we affect one another, and we cannot escape one another. St. Paul wrote: “If one member of the body suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.” Whether we like it or not, for better or for worse, we are all connected. Sin, even the most private, eventually destroys society.


    The crisis of integrity involves us all. Who of us have a corner on virtue that we can say we have never lied to other people? Or worse, lied to ourselves? Jesus said: Do not judge. His command is not against making a true and righteous judgment. It asks us to beware, lest in our haste to judge others, we might be like the hypocrites: judging others as absolutely corrupt simply because we are blinded by our exaggerated piety and moral smugness.


    It is easy to tell the truth; but the next easiest is to believe our own lie. Self-deception is easy especially for people who know that the discovery of their bad deeds can be devastating to their self-image and sense of well-being. Self-deception is the most abominable species of lying. Why? Because a person can become so submerged in the intricate details and implications of the lie, that the continuation of the lie becomes second nature.


    If we want to restore truth and integrity in society, government, and the churches, we must stop looking for scapegoats to ease our burden of guilt and failure. We seem to have a penchant for putting the blame on just one person or a group of persons in order to take the heat off ourselves. We tend to shift attention away from our inability to govern ourselves to our self-appointed role as a social critic and reformer.


    Let’s face it. We delude ourselves if we think that by driving Gloria Arroyo away from Malacanang, as we did with Marcos and Erap, integrity and honesty will be restored. The two previous People Power events have not produced this desired result.


    It is true, we can now boast of our democratic institutions. Last Thursday, a successful Chinese businessman told me how fortunate we Filipinos are. “People in China are progressing by leaps and bounds” he said, “but they do not enjoy the freedom that Filipinos have.” Ah, freedom. I muttered to myself: “We are so free, that’s why we are so lost.”


    Democracy exists where reciprocal bonds, governed by truth and justice, link people to one another. Democracy exhibits the belief that human beings are capable of making correct judgments and responsible human decisions. But take a look at our elections. This process is supposed to be our most palpable way of manifesting to the world that we are indeed a democracy. But Gore Vidal’s criticism of the American election also applies to ours: “Our system of electing politicians to office is rotten and corrupted to its core, because organized money has long since replaced organized and enlightened public opinion. And most of it comes from rich people and corporations, who now own our political process –lock, stock and pork barrel.”


    Many present-day elected officials are mere surrogates of hidden power-brokers who, after election, take back what they had invested in. This deeply entrenched system of patronage easily lures honest officials into the despicable practice of graft and corruption.


    If we want to restore integrity and honesty in the government, the best way is not through a rigodon of leaders who are forcibly removed through People power, but through an enlightened, educated and conscientious electoral process. WE HAVE 26 MONTHS BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION. We have enough time TO PREPARE OURSELVES SO WE CAN VOTE WISELY. Let us use People Power during election time, not only before or after. It has happened in the past, in Pampanga, in Isabela, and in other less known places in our country. We can make it happen again.


    As early as now, schools, colleges, and universities, and conscientious government officials as well as churches, NGO’s, and the rest of civil society can adopt this as their advocacy going into 2010.


    You may object: The present government leadership will not allow us to do that. Well, this happens only because our brand of democracy is obsessed with leadership. We idolize our government leaders and place our destinies in their hands. In truth, democracy will not work without conscientious constituents. We have to discard that model of democracy which portrays government leaders as the active molders, and we their constituents as the passive clay. Our task as voters is not only to elect our officials but to keep them in their proper place, which is to be our SERVANTS, not our lords and masters. We have to make them aware that they are accountable to us.


    What our country needs at this crucial stage of our history are voters with an enlightened will, voters who will not elect officials who will treat them like doormats, citizens who will not exchange their conscience for convenience, nor their principles for monetary gain.


    Bertrand Russell once wrote that democracy, the leader cannot be more stupid than his constituents. For, the more stupid he is, the more stupid still are his constituents for electing him.


    People may again raise this objection: “The next election is still too far ahead. We have to settle this corruption mess immediately. We have to bring to the light those who are guilty right now.” Indeed, we have to do that. But it seems that People power appears to be our way of saying: We want it bad and we want it now, not sooner or later, but NOW. We are obsessed with speed. We want everything quickly and instantaneously. Even our prayers are done in a fast forward mode to save time. We become impatient when we don’t get what we want. Don’t you notice? We are always in a hurry but always late. Life is not a matter of speed but depth. The faster we go through life, the shallower our understanding of it becomes. Quick successes usually are a fluke. Real and lasting victories take time.


    Finally, why do we march for truth? What motivates us? Is it love for truth or are we simply furious at the people whom we want to punish? We must remember that prolonged and habitual anger can be very exhausting. Anger can turn even the most reasonable man into a fanatic. Fanatics are hopelessly one-sided. They are filled with an almost infallible certainty of their rectitude, and an equally infallible certainty of the iniquity of those whom they think are evil.


    Unrequited anger festers into hatred. This is even more destructive because hatred makes it almost impossible for us to forgive. Contrary to what we think, forgiveness is not the prerogative of all. Not everyone can forgive. A cockroach cannot pardon a horse for trampling it to death. The power to forgive is correlative with the capacity to punish. We exercise our ability to forgive when, even if we have the right and the power to inflict punishment, we show the strength of will to control our desire to destroy and humiliate our opponent.


    Gandhi once asked: “What is victory if it is measured by the gauge of destruction?” Victory does not consist in conquering the enemy, but in conquering ourselves. As he beautifully puts it: “Strength does not come from physical power, but from an indomitable will to control our desire to retaliate.”

    As we continue with this Eucharistic celebration, it is good to remember the beautiful lines of Maya Angelou:


    History, despite its wrenching pain cannot be unlived.

    And if faced with courage, need not be lived again…

    Here on the pulse of this new day, you may have the grace to

    Look up and out;

    And into your sister’s eyes, into your brother’s face, your country

    And say simply, very simply with hope:

    Good Morning.


    Good morning. It means a good beginning. In humility, honesty, and integrity, let us ask God to make this beginning happen to us and in our country, through his unending grace. Amen.
  • ^ isang malaking sampal sa mukha ni santita cory ang homily ni rector.

    napakaganda ng kanyang homily. :)
  • Tama ka jan galileo.

    Sampal kay Cory at sa mga mae-epal na eskwelahan.

    Sobrang nag-enjoy talaga ako sa homily ni Father Rector. *okay*
  • Democracy is not people power. It should not be used as a pretext for mass-assembling on the streets to forcibly unseat a leader. The first people power against the Marcos dictatorship in 1986 should have been the first and the last after the groundwork for a germinating democratic state had been laid. Now that we have the 1987 Freedom Constitution (the fulfillment of the 1986 Edsa Revolution), we should now let the rule of law take its course. This is the reason why I am not in favor of unseating Gloria Arroyo from Malacanang through the so-called “people power” simply because it destroys our democratic institutions. Moreover, it gives an ugly impression to the community of nations that we Filipinos cannot have an upright leader. I was once a Cory supporter back in her glory days when world leaders would look up to her for her bravery in fighting the Marcos dictatorship. But what has Cory become after the two previous People Power events? Cory, once the epitome of democracy in Asia has now become a defector of what she has instituted some two decades back. How can we trust the sincerity of Cory every time she speaks against constitutional change if she cannot respect and trust the democratic institutions she herself created? If she is indeed a defender of democracy, she should have let the ombudsman do the investigation on the ZTE deal instead of going out the streets and encouraging people to withdraw their support to the President. Are we not ashamed that for two decades we have not matured as a democratic country?

    The biggest damage that this episode on the ZTE brouhaha has brought so far is not on the President. After all, none of the testimonies given by Lozada have directly linked the President to the “anomalous” ZTE deal. But of course, the anti-Gloria may argue that the executive privilege of preventing members of the President’s cabinet from testifying is tantamount to admission of guilt. But we must remember that the executive privilege was created out of the Senate’s own irresponsibility in grilling National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales two years ago. That privilege is constitutional and should not be used as a stratagem and decibel of the President’s participation in the ZTE project. And now that the President had acquiesced to the CBCP’s call to revoke the privilege, her critics were quick to assail her of insincerity. This kind of histrionics is not new anymore in a heavy politicized country like the Philippines.

    Going back to Cory Aquino, it would be good for her if she stops from joining rallies and making showy appearances in places that calls for the President’s resignation. She should let the due process of law impose verdict on the President and not indict her on the basis of mere hearsay, and worse, basing it on the histrionics of the senate. Sadly, Cory has not matured enough. She is creating damage to her stature as a champion of democracy let alone duplicities. She has become an irony of what the world used to know her.
  • galileo_ wrote: »
    ^ isang malaking sampal sa mukha ni santita cory ang homily ni rector.

    napakaganda ng kanyang homily. :)

    :lol: @ santita

    I used to adore her before but when I entered media, all respect I have for her was lost.

    I covered the Department of Agrarian Reform for sometime and I learned from its employees that Cory Aquino isn't really someone to look up to.

    As we all know, after she was installed in office in 1986, she signed the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law that seeks to provide lands to landless peasants in the countryside.

    But lo and behold, she excluded her clan's Hacienda Luisita in Tarlac from being covered by CARP.

    It was so disappointing because a few years back, farmers from the said hacienda went on a strike and asked the Cojuangcos to give them a share in the earnings of the land.

    Nagmamatigas pa noon ang mga 'yon hanggang sa mga nasaktan na at namatay dahil lang sa pakikipaglaban nila.

    Tsk, tsk. Ewan ko ba pero ngayon hindi na ko bilib kay Madam Cory.

    Pare-pareho lang sila sa tingin ko.
Sign In or Register to comment.