No to monopoly on Ninoy’s legacy

There’s obvious selective outrage of self-appointed heirs of slain senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr. The statement issued by the August Twenty-One Movement, or ATOM for short, is revealing. It’s not because of what it says about Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano, but because of what it reveals about what ATOM has become.

Who composes the ATOM now? The ATOM was established 43 years ago by

Ninoy Aquino’s younger brother, the late senator Agapito “Butz” Aquino and the late political strategist and activist Reli German. The president of ATOM is identified as a certain Volt Bohol who is described as “an activist and leadership expert.”

Other ATOM leaders are listed as follows: Bien Gonzales (secretary-general/vice president); Michael “Xiao” Chua (“historian and prominent member” sic); Elyo Aquino (grandson of Butz Aquino) and a certain Mildred Juan.

These ATOM officials are new faces. The original ATOM was formed after the assassination of Ninoy on Aug. 21, 1983 and joined by prominent personalities from various civil society and pro-democracy organizations.

Since its inception, the ATOM has played a foundational role in the anti-dictatorship protests that culminated in the historic 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution. The group still actively campaigns against attempts to revise martial law history in the Philippines and advocates for the commemoration of the EDSA anniversary on its actual date from Feb. 22-25.

The leaders recently made news when ATOM held a protest rally and denounced Cayetano for his now controversial use of the historic “L” hand sign and assailed Cayetano’s comparisons of current Senate political tensions to the struggles of Ninoy.

The iconic “L” hand sign stood for Laban, or the acronym of the defunct political alliance Lakas ng Bayan which is roughly translated as people power. As a political alliance, Ninoy ran under Laban in the 1978 Interim Batasang Pambansa regional elections even while under military detention.

Led by Ninoy, 21 Laban candidates vied for the seats in Region IV-A (Metro Manila). Ninoy was allowed to run by his fellow partymates from the Liberal Party, which boycotted the election. He was not allowed to campaign but the Aquino family campaigned for him. The late president Ferdinand Marcos Sr. created the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (New Society Movement) as his political vehicle for the elections and fielded his wife, then first lady Imelda Marcos, and 20 other allies who all won the seats in Metro Manila.

Fast forward. Now, the ATOM organization presents itself as a guardian of Ninoy Aquino’s legacy. It invokes his name, his sacrifice and his struggle against authoritarianism. So they demonstrated outrage that Cayetano would draw parallels between today’s political tensions and the democratic struggles of an earlier generation.

Fair enough. Historical comparisons should always be scrutinized. But if one is going to claim the mantle of Ninoy, consistency matters. And that is where the problem begins.

The same group reacts with immediate fury whenever anyone from the camps of former president Rodrigo Duterte and his equally feisty daughter Vice President Sara Duterte invoke Ninoy’s memory but have been remarkably quiet about a far more obvious contradiction: the political collaboration between known members of Ninoy’s “L” tradition and the present administration headed by Mr. Marcos Sr.’s namesake son, President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. (PBBM).

One does not have to agree or disagree with that alliance to acknowledge that it exists. The question is simple: if Marcos Sr. represented the system Ninoy fought against, why is there outrage when a Duterte ally (Cayetano) references Ninoy’s struggle, but relative silence when known Ninoy’s “L” allies work alongside the political heirs of that same system?

Why does one provoke moral indignation while the other receives political accommodation?

Because the intellectually honest position for anyone who genuinely believes they are carrying Ninoy’s principles forward would be independence. Ninoy’s political identity was not built on loyalty to a family, a faction or a political machine. It was built on the willingness to confront power, regardless of who held it. Which brings us to the irony of the present moment.

There was a time when Senator Cayetano publicly challenged the entire political establishment and suggested that everyone – including himself – should be willing to resign if that was what it took to restore public trust in government.

Today, the ATOM now demands that Cayetano resign because they believe he has no right to invoke Ninoy’s legacy. But if invoking Ninoy’s legacy improperly is grounds for disqualification, what standard should apply to those who claim that “L” legacy while entering into political arrangements with the heirs of the very regime Ninoy opposed?

What of Sen. Paolo Benigno “Bam” Aquino IV? What of Sen. Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan? What of Sen. Risa Hontiveros and others who now find themselves politically aligned with the Marcos administration on critical national issues? Are they exempt from the standards they demand of others? Or do those standards only apply to political opponents?

The issue is not whether one supports Marcos, Duterte, Aquino or Cayetano. The issue is whether principles remain principles when they become inconvenient.

If Ninoy’s legacy means opposing authoritarianism, abuse of power and political expediency, then those standards must apply equally to everyone. If they do not, then what is being defended is not a principle but a preference.

And if the standards we demand of others are standards we cannot meet ourselves, then we have little standing to be outraged when others fall short.

The credibility of any movement rests not on the intensity of its anger but on the consistency of its convictions.

That is the real question raised by the ATOM’s statement. Not whether Senator Cayetano has the right to invoke the legacy of Ninoy. But whether those who claim to be Ninoy’s heirs are willing to live by the standards they demand of everyone else.

While he is now fighting his being Senate president before the Supreme Court, Cayetano’s gripe that no one has a monopoly on Ninoy’s legacy is valid though.