Hubbry Logo
search
logo

First Quarter Storm

logo
Community Hub0 Subscribers
Read side by side
from Wikipedia

First Quarter Storm
Sigwa ng Unang Sangkapat (Filipino)
Part of Opposition to the Marcos Regime
DateJanuary—March 1970
Location
Manila, Quezon City and various parts of Rizal province
Caused by
Goals
  • remove internal issues in schools (e.g. tuition hikes)
  • address poverty, economic crisis
  • call for systemic change in the government (non-partisan constitutional convention)
Methods
  • demonstrations, protests, and marches by students, labor unions, and civic groups
Resulted inViolent dispersal of protesters by government forces; radicalization of opposition; used by Marcos as justification for establishing dictatorship
Parties

Moderate Opposition


Radical Opposition
Lead figures

The First Quarter Storm (Filipino: Sigwa ng Unang Kuwarto or Sigwa ng Unang Sangkapat), often shortened into the acronym FQS, was a period of civil unrest in the Philippines which took place during the "first quarter of the year 1970". It included a series of demonstrations, protests, and marches against the administration of President Ferdinand Marcos, mostly organized by students and supported by workers, peasants, and members of the urban poor, from January 26 to March 17, 1970.[1][2][3] Protesters at these events raised issues related to social problems, authoritarianism, alleged election fraud, and corruption at the hand of Marcos.[4][5]

Violent dispersals of various FQS protests were among the first watershed events in which large numbers of Filipino students of the 1970s were radicalized against the Marcos administration. Due to these dispersals, many students who had previously held "moderate" positions (i.e., calling for legislative reforms) became convinced that they had no choice but to call for more radical social change.[6]

Similar watershed events would later include the February 1971 Diliman Commune; the August 1971 suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in the wake of the Plaza Miranda bombing; the September 1972 declaration of Martial Law; the 1980 murder of Macli-ing Dulag;[7] the August 1983 assassination of Ninoy Aquino; and eventually, allegations of cheating during the 1986 Snap Elections which led to the non-violent 1986 EDSA Revolution.[4]

Sociopolitical context

[edit]

Ferdinand Marcos was re-elected for a second term as president on November 11, 1969. This made him the first and last Filipino president of the Third Philippine Republic to win a second full term.[8][9][10][11]

Inflation and social unrest

[edit]

Marcos won the November 1969 election by a landslide, and was inaugurated on December 30 of that year. But Marcos's massive spending during the 1969 presidential campaign had taken its toll and triggered growing public unrest.[12] During the campaign, Marcos spent $50 million worth in debt-funded infrastructure, triggering a balance of payments crisis.[13] The Marcos administration ran to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for help, and the IMF offered a debt restructuring deal. New policies, including a greater emphasis on exports and the relaxation of controls of the peso, were put in place. The Peso was allowed to float to a lower market value, resulting in drastic inflation, and social unrest.[12]

Marcos's spending during the campaign led to opposition figures such as Senator Lorenzo Tañada, Senator Jovito Salonga, and Senator Jose W. Diokno to accuse Marcos of wanting to stay in power even beyond the two term maximum set for the presidency by the 1935 constitution.[12]

The nation was experiencing a crisis as the government was falling into debt, inflation was uncontrolled and the value of the peso continued to drop. The slight increase of the minimum wage was countered by continuous price increases and unemployment.[14][15] Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino Jr. remarked that the nation was turning into a 'garrison state' and President Marcos himself described the country as a 'social volcano.'[14][16]

Constitutional Convention

[edit]

Various parties had begun campaigning to initiate a constitutional convention that would change the 1935 Constitution of the Philippines in 1967,[17] citing rising discontent over wide inequalities in society.[18] On March 16 of that year, the Philippine Congress constituted itself into a Constituent Assembly and passed Resolution No. 2, which called for a Constitutional Convention to change the 1935 Constitution.[19]

Marcos would eventually surprised his critics by endorsing the move, but later historians would note that the resulting Constitutional Convention laid the foundation for the legal justifications Marcos used to extend his term past the two four-year terms allowable under the 1935 Constitution.[18]

The first First Quarter Storm rally held on January 26, 1970, coincided with the State of the Nation Address where Marcos was expected to talk about the 1971 Constitutional Convention.[4]

"Moderate" and "radical" opposition

[edit]

The media reports of the time classified the various civil society groups opposing Marcos into two categories.[20][21] The "Moderates", which included church groups, civil libertarians, and nationalist politicians, were those who wanted to create change through political reforms.[20] The "radicals", including a number of labor and student groups associated with the National Democracy movement, wanted broader, more systemic political reforms.[20][4]

The "moderate" opposition

[edit]

With the Constitutional Convention occupying their attention from 1971 to 1973, statesmen and politicians opposed to the increasingly more-authoritarian administration of Ferdinand Marcos mostly focused their efforts on political efforts from within the halls of power.[18]

Student demonstrators, for example, made a manifesto for the constitutional convention, containing the following provisions:[15]

  • the non-partisan election of delegates to the national convention
  • the non-partisan composition of poll inspectors and provincial board of canvassers
  • public officials who will run as candidates should be made to resign or forfeit their seats upon filing of candidacy
  • the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) must regulate the election propaganda and expense of the candidates
  • the delegates to the convention must be made ineligible to run for any public office in the elections immediately after the convention
  • the age requirement of delegates should be lowered from 25 to 21 years old.

Student groups considered "moderate" at the time included:

  • the National Union of Students of the Philippines (NUSP),
  • the National Students League (NSL), and
  • the Young Christian Socialists Movement (CSM), communitarian-socialist organization.[4]

A few days before the rally on January 26, Manuel F. Martinez, former Dawn (the weekly student newspaper of the University of the East) editor commented:

Now is the time for all troublemakers to come to the aid of the country. For the only chance for exploiters to triumph is for revolutionaries to do nothing [...] We must make trouble in the constitutional convention, trouble for vested interest, trouble for the profligate rich, trouble for the denizens of this detestable establishment and abominable status quo [...] The convention must be scuttled or wrecked if it is dominated by the very same interests against which stands the very spirit of change inherent in convening a constitutional convention. For conceived in greed, born in mischief and nurtured in iniquity, the spirit of wanton capitalism has never failed to bend human institutions to the service of injustice and sin.[22]

To clarify, he explained that the word 'trouble' was used not in its literal sense, but rather that the youth should get involved in the coming convention, which they have been striving to do.

Later "moderate" groups would include the Movement of Concerned Citizens for Civil Liberties or MCCCL, led by Senator Jose W. Diokno.[21] The MCCCL's rallies are particularly remembered for their diversity, attracting participants from both the moderate and radical camps; and for their scale, with the biggest one attended by as many as 50,000 people.[21]

The "radical" opposition

[edit]

The other broad category of student groups who participated in the first quarter storm were those who wanted broader, more systemic political reforms, usually as part of the National Democracy movement. These groups were branded "radicals" by the media,[20][4] although the Marcos administration extended that term to "moderate" protest groups as well.[22]

Groups considered "radical" at the time included:[4]

Kabataang Makabayan
[edit]

Kabataang Makabayan (KM) is a political organization founded by Jose Maria Sison on November 30, 1964, intended to be a nationwide "extension" of the Student Cultural Association of the University of the Philippines (SCAUP), which is also an organization of student activists founded by Sison in 1959 that moved towards "academic freedom in the University against the combined machinations of the state and the church."[23][24] The KM advocated for liberation from American imperialism, which "made the suffering of [the] people more complex and more severe." Their first demonstration, which took place at the U.S. Embassy on January 25, 1965, was held to this effect. The KM had since been active in various rallies and demonstrations such as those condemning the Laurel-Langley agreement, Parity Amendments, Mutual Defense treaty, the state visit of South Vietnam Premier Cao Ky in 1966, the state visit of President Marcos to the U.S., the October 24, 1966, Manila Summit conference, the killings of Filipinos in American bases, and the visit of President Nixon—events which they believe contribute to the feudalistic nature of the country.[23]

The rally held against the Manila Summit Conference on October 24 to 25, 1966, was among those that ended in violence.[14] The media and government officials reminded the public to be polite to the country's visitors and display 'traditional Filipino hospitality,' expecting the KM to stage a demonstration. Furthermore, the Manila mayor's office announced that permits to demonstrate against the Manila Summit will not be issued. On the day before the beginning of the summit, as summiteers began to arrive, a group of students waved around name-calling placards, defending that they were not demonstrating, just picketing. They were taken by police and informed that they would be charged with demonstrating without a permit. On October 24, KM held a demonstration in front of Manila Hotel to protest against American involvement in Vietnam which resulted in a violent dispersal. One student had died, several were injured, and seven were arrested, charged with breach of the peace.[22]

December of the same year, Sison was in Ateneo de Manila University to talk about the events of the October 24 movement. Sison highlighted the parallels between the state at current time and the state during the 1896 Philippine Revolution against Spain:

If the brilliant students - Dr. Jose Rizal, Emilio Jacinto and Gregorio del Pilar - had merely concentrated on stale academic studies, and pursued successful professional careers and married well - in the accomplished style of Señor Pasta in El Filibusterismo - they would be worthless now to this nation, as worthless [...]. Our elders who take pride on their sheer age and their sense of caution should learn from the [...] revolutionary and nationalist youth movement of 1896 and of today. The elders [...] should not now assume the function of censors and the black judges who condemned [...] patriots of the old democratic revolution as subversive heretics.[22]

In general, during 1968, there have been many local student demonstrations trying to address internal issues, "ranging from stinking toilets to increased tuition fees."[14] "At the Araneta University, for example, according to Cesar Bercades, president of its student council, the demonstrations there resulted in the damage of school property amounting to P56,920.34 and the dismissal of eight students from the university and all schools."[25]

Major demonstrations

[edit]

While the period from January to March 1970 was one of significant social unrest in the Philippines and there is no definitive record of all protests or demonstrations in the country, seven protests in the area of Metropolitan Manila have come to be considered the historically notable demonstrations of the time, even being branded the "7 deadly protests of the First Quarter Storm" in some media accounts.[2]

January 26: 1970 State of the Nation Address protest

[edit]
January 26, 1970 - Protesters crowd Marcos and company as they enter his limousine. From Manila Bulletin.

The beginning of what is now known as the "First Quarter Storm" was marked by a demonstration on January 26, 1970, at the opening of the Seventh Congress, during which President Ferdinand Marcos gave his fifth State of the Nation Address (SONA).[26][4]

The protest was primarily organized by the National Union of Students of the Philippines (NUSP), and was meant to coincide with the first State of the Nation Address of Marcos' second term. It included "moderate" groups such as the NUSP, who wanted Marcos to promise he would not seek power beyond the two terms allowed him by the 1935 Philippine Constitution;[20][21] and more "radical" groups such as the Kabataang Makabayan, who wanted greater systemic political reforms.[4]

The protest was largely peaceful until the end of the planned program, when a disagreement broke out between the moderate and the radical groups for control over the protest stage. This disagreement was ongoing when Marcos, having finished his speech, walked out of the legislative building.[26] He and the First Lady Imelda Marcos were greeted by an agitated crowd that jeered and hurled at them with pebbles, paper balls, and effigies, one resembling a crocodile (a representation of greed) and another a coffin (symbolizing the death of democracy).[27]

The two escaped to the presidential limousine, leaving the police - consisting of the Manila Police District (MPD) and elements of the Philippine Constabulary Metropolitan Command (MetroCom) - to disperse the crowd. This led to hours of bloody confrontation between the protesters and the police, ending with at least two students confirmed dead and several more injured.[1][2]

January 30: Battle of Mendiola

[edit]

Four days after the SONA, to condemn "state fascism" and police brutality, protesters, mostly students, marched back to the Congress.[28] The rally lasted until 5pm.[14] As one of the leaders was saying the closing remarks with a microphone, shouts of "Malacañang! Malacañang!" were heard mainly from the side of the students from Philippine College of Commerce, University of the Philippines Diliman, and University of the Philippines Manila. This led to many people getting pushed by a wave of protesters as they sang protest songs and chanted "Makibaka, huwag matakot!" They began to move towards Ayala Bridge, with the Philippine flag raised, and decided to march directly to Malacañang and protest in front of Marcos' doorsteps, hearing gunfire as they slowly closed by the Palace. Some of the more militant rallyists were charging the metal fence that separates them from the Palace.[29]

While this was happening, different student leaders were already in Malacañang having a meeting with Ferdinand Marcos to make the following demands: "the holding of a nonpartisan constitutional convention; the commitment that Marcos, a two-term president, would not suddenly change the rules forbidding a president from seeking a third term; the resignation of the Manila Police District top brass; and the disbandment of paramilitary units in Central Luzon."[28] Since half past three in the afternoon, Portia Ilagan of Philippine Normal College, Edgar Jopson, other student leaders, and other members of the NUSP were allowed to be present in an audience with Marcos to urge the president to have a nonpartisan constitutional convention and to avoid running for the presidency for the third time.[14][30]

Marcos said that he was not interested in a third term and Jopson demanded that he put that down in writing, which led to Marcos lash out at him by calling him as merely the son of a grocer. The President did not agree to their terms and their meeting ended at around 6pm. As they headed to the front door of Malacañang Palace, they heard the sounds of glass breaking and pillboxes exploding.[14] As the students' dialogue with the president was happening inside the Palace, the students outside the Palace were confronted with their own difficulties. Due to a loud call from someone outside the Palace to turn the lights on, the Palace did just that to accommodate the request, which led to a rock crashing to one of the lamps. Thinking that this was a rock thrown from inside the Palace and aimed at the students outside, the students threw rocks at the Palace in return.[31]

Protesters claimed that Malacañang guards started the violence by throwing pellets at them from inside, which led them to take over a fire truck (driven by Tony Tayco, now a priest of the Philippine Independent Church.) and smashed it into Malacañang's Gate 4. Once the gate broke and gave way, bold protestors charged into the Palace grounds tossing rocks, pillboxes, Molotov cocktails (using a San Miguel Pale Pilsen beer bottle). The Presidential Guard Battalion then came out in full force with their guns. The protestors drew back but not before inflaming the fire truck and a government car.[14]

January 30, 1970 - Demonstrators ramming a fire truck into Malacanang Gate 4

Protesters ran towards Arguelles Street to evade the explosions in front of the Palace. Student protesters were steadily driven out of J.P. Laurel and farther down Mendiola, where they built a barricade to stop the riot police and armed soldiers from the Palace. As students from nearby dormitories joined them, protesters grew in numbers. Everything was improvised and they did not have any organized plan. The protestors fought the armed forces and defended themselves with sticks and pillboxes. Eventually, the troops succeeded in separating the protestors, putting an end to the rally.[29] Many were severely injured, and since police forces retaliated with live bullets, it led to bloodshed. Bullets were shot at the protesters, killing four students: Ricardo Alcantara of the University of the Philippines, Fernando Catabay of Manuel L. Quezon University, Feliciano Roldan of Far Eastern University, and Bernardo Tausa of Mapa High School.[28] The armed forces were claimed to attack unarmed students.[32] It was a seesaw battle between the youth and the military. Students and military alternatively held Mendiola Bridge, until nine o'clock in the evening, when finally it finally fell to the military.[14] While troops were able to disperse the militants, they failed to clear the streets of M. Aguila, Legarda, and Claro M. Recto and in Quiapo from other rallyists. Doors were opened to these rallyists, and through gestures from people at second-floor windows, they were warned about the presence of armed forces in the streets.[33]

Reactions in the international media were mixed: Singapore's Eastern Sun wrote that Marcos was right for "taking the hard line" in dealing with the demonstrators while an independent Chinese newspaper in Hong Kong thought otherwise. Both publications believed that the charge regarding the involvement of Chinese communists in the violence was exaggerated.[34]

Marcos saw the January 30 protest and siege in Malacañang not only as a personal assault but also as an assault to the presidency itself.[35] He thought of the protests as an insurrection, and only a part of a plot to overthrow the government by force.

Juan Ponce Enrile, who was then Secretary of Justice, recalled in his memoir that at the time of the January 30 Malacañang attack, President Marcos nearly announced Martial Law.[29] President Marcos suspected that a coup was being arranged against him as none of his generals are present, and he immediately evacuated Imelda and their children to a navy ship in Manila Bay.

February 12: Rally at Plaza Miranda

[edit]

After the violence of the Battle of Mendiola, the Movement for a Democratic Philippines (MDP) organized a rally at the Plaza Miranda outside the Quiapo Church on February 12, 1970. With ten to fifty thousand people present, it became known for being the largest rally to take place in Plaza Miranda.[14]

This rally was nearly called off when some conservative MDP leaders initially agreed to have a discussion with the President Marcos that evening, about concessions he was supposedly willing to offer if the leaders would call off the rally. However, KM leaders insisted on proceeding and made assurances that provocateurs would be kept out of the proceedings.[2]

The protesters sat on the streets, climbed trees, and stood on the roofs of low buildings to spend hours listening to speakers discuss and oppose the concepts of imperialism, feudalism, and fascism.[33]

February 18: First "People's Congress" and demonstration at the U.S. Embassy

[edit]

The MDP-organized[2] protest on February 18, 1970, was dubbed the "People's Congress,"[14] and involved about five thousand protesters who gathered at Plaza Miranda.[2] At some point during this gathering, a group of protesters left the Plaza Miranda venue to stage a demonstration at the U.S. Embassy, which was nearby.

Chanting "Makibaka! Huwag matakot!," some of them broke off from the crowd and marched toward the U.S. Embassy. This group attacked the embassy with rocks and pillboxes as a way of expressing their denunciation of U.S. imperialism, and accusing the US of being fascist and of supporting Marcos.[30] This continued for hours, lasting until the evening before the police arrived.[14]

The next day, the American ambassador sent a note to the government protesting the "wanton vandalism" that took place the night before, and the Philippine government replied with a note of apology within three hours.[14]

February 26: "Second People's Congress" demonstration

[edit]

MDP militants planned what they dubbed a second "People's Congress" on February 26, 1970, despite not being granted a permit to rally. The radicals insisted on their right to assembly, insisting that the rally would go on with or without a permit.[14]

The Manila police and MetroCom attacked the rallyists even before they settled down at Plaza Miranda, causing the militants to disperse. So the activists reassembled at the Sunken Garden outside the walls of Intramuros, and after a few speeches continued to march to the U.S. Embassy. They stoned the Embassy and fought against the police that arrived. The activists then fled and regrouped hours later on Mendiola to reenact the protest of January 30.[14]

The police retaliated by breaking into the Philippine College of Commerce, hitting the students and professors, and ransacking the offices and classrooms.[2]

March 3: The People's March from Welcome Rotonda to Plaza Lawton

[edit]

The protest of March 3, 1970, was organized by the MDP students and urban groups in support of jeepney drivers who held a citywide strike on that date to protest "tong"(bribe)-collecting traffic policemen. Dubbed the "Peoples’ March," it involved a protest march from Welcome Rotonda on the boundary of Quezon City and the City of Manila, and passed by Tondo and Plaza Lawton before ending up at the U.S. Embassy.

According to reports, this march ended in one-sided battles between gun-toting police riot squads and stone-hurling demonstrators, seems to give people an endless number of reasons[editorializing] to hold mass gatherings of students, farmers, and laborers.[36]

Even though the protest involved long walks from one assembly point to another, the organizations participating in the march multiplied. When the protesters reached the U.S. Embassy, where they again struggled with the police.[14] The police were more aggressive this time, chasing the activists all over the city.[14]

Enrique Sta. Brigida, a student of the Lyceum of the Philippines, was caught and tortured to death by the police. Poet Amado V. Hernandez wrote a poem, "Enrique Sta. Brigida: Paghahatid sa Imortalidad," (Tagalog "Deliverance to Immortality") which was read at Sta Brigida's funeral on March 10.[37][2]

March 17: Second "People’s March" and "People’s Tribunal" at Plaza Moriones

[edit]

Militants organized a second "People’s March" on March 17, in what would come to be recognized as the last major demonstration during the First Quarter Storm proper.[14]

This second March was longer than the March 3 event. Since the protest focused on the issue of poverty, the march's route took it through the poor ghettos of Manila. Finding police already positioned at the Embassy when they arrived, and wanting to avoid a confrontation, the activists instead proceeded to Mendiola, where they made bonfires in the middle of the road. But the police followed them to Mendiola, dispersing the activists by releasing tear gas.[14]

Dissipation after March 17

[edit]

The March 17 demonstration is generally acknowledged as the last of the major events of the First Quarter Storm, because the demonstrations had largely been led by student groups, who had at that point reached the end of the Philippines' school semester. Many of the students left Manila to go home to the provinces for summer vacation, leading to a lull in protest actions.[38]

However, numerous protests, including the Diliman Commune and the Movement of Concerned Citizens for Civil Liberties rallies led by Senator Jose W. Diokno continued in the period between the dissipation of the First Quarter Storm and the 1972 declaration of Martial Law.

Aftermath

[edit]

Senate investigation

[edit]

The Senate convened a special committee to investigate the violence that had occurred at the January 1970 rallies. The committee released its findings on March 12, 1970.[39] The committee said that the demonstrators did not have any firearms and questioned the military's decision to fire its weapons.[39]

Compensation for victims

[edit]

A bipartisan bill was passed identifying 6 demonstrators killed by law enforcers during the January 30 incident (including 2 who died of gunshot wounds days after the incident). The bill ordered the Department of Social Welfare to administer assistance to the families of the victims. Marcos signed the bill into law on September 30, 1971.[39] Some of the PHP 500,000 compensation fund was distributed to claimants, though in 1977, during martial law, Marcos declared the compensation fund dormant and PHP 272,000 of the unclaimed amount reverted to the general fund.[39]

Radicalization of the moderate opposition

[edit]

Violent dispersals of various FQS protests were among the first watershed events in which large numbers of Filipino students of the 1970s were radicalized against the Marcos administration. Due to these dispersals, many students who had previously held "moderate" positions (i.e., calling for legislative reforms), such as like Edgar Jopson, became convinced that they had no choice but to call for more radical social change.[6]

Similar watershed events would later include the February 1971 Diliman Commune; the August 1971 suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in the wake of the Plaza Miranda bombing; the September 1972 declaration of Martial Law; the 1980 murder of Macli-ing Dulag;[7] the August 1983 assassination of Ninoy Aquino; and eventually, allegations of cheating during the 1986 Snap Elections which led to the non-violent 1986 EDSA Revolution.[4]

In the aftermath of these events, Marcos lumped all of the opposition together and referred to them as communists, and many former moderates fled to the mountain encampments of the radical opposition to avoid being arrested by Marcos' forces. Those who became disenchanted with the excesses of the Marcos administration and wanted to join the opposition after 1971 often joined the ranks of the radicals, simply because they represented the only group vocally offering opposition to the Marcos government.[40][41]

Lead Up to martial law

[edit]

The demonstrations that took place during the first quarter storm are historically remembered as the first stirrings of the social unrest which would eventually lead to Martial Law - what Petronilo Daroy referred to as "a torrent of mass protest actions against everything that was construed as ‘establishment.’"[21]

In an editorial published in Philippine Panorama, Fred Reyes remarked that these bloody demonstrations may be the signs of an upcoming revolution, shying away from 'traditional Filipino values' such as bahala na, pakikisama, and utang na loob that have long hindered radical change. He also stressed that while it seems to be clear to all that change was needed, no one seemed to know what change was needed. He also noted the slight difference in tone regarding communism, as people seemed to be more understanding of their cause. He had also noted that despite the government's accusations, no communists were produced from the riot groups.[42]

The First Quarter Storm was followed by a year of demonstrations, varying from picketing, long marches, live theater, people's tribunal, and parliament of the streets.

These demonstrations contributed to the image of a communist insurgency, which was used as justification for the declaration of Martial Law.

Pro-Marcos responses

[edit]

Veterans' March for Democracy

[edit]

The Veterans Federation of the Philippines arranged a "March for Democracy" where the veterans strode around Intramuros, Rizal Park, Luneta grandstand, and then to the Sunken Garden, where speeches and a pledging ceremony were held. Col. Simeon Medalla, head of the Veterans Federation of the Philippines, explains that the rally was not Marcos-inspired, contrary to allegations sprung from rumors of American officials or allies being seen at the rally and the fact that the President himself was the most decorated veteran of the previous war. Their purpose, rather, was to "preserve the ideals and principles for which the people fought during the war," a statement inscribed on the large banner carried during the march. When the veterans' march was cast in a negative light by media the following morning, Medalla remarked in jest, "Was it because there was no violence in our rally?" On that note, Ben Florentino, head of the United Disabled Veterans Association of the Philippines, commented that if the 'young radical activists' had experienced the hardships of war as they had, then they would not be advocating violence.[43]

Florentino and Medalla further stressed that veterans were the first group to stage demonstrations for the sake of demanding legitimate reforms from the government. They also felt the need to call for reforms but believed that these should be achieved peacefully and undergoing democratic processes. COMELEC Chairman Jamie N. Ferrer attributed the student demonstrations to the rampant corruption in the political system, while Civil Service Commissioner Abelardo Subido attributed them to the lack of dialogue between the youth and their elders, calling on parents to tell their children "what we need is a change through peaceful means to achieve economic independence."[43] Although many veterans were gladdened by the spark of student activism, they denounced the emergence of some sectors seeking to harness student power for their own ends.

1970 Philippine Independence Day celebration

[edit]

On the evening of June 12, 1970, media reported that the 72nd anniversary of the declaration of Philippine independence would be celebrated differently from previous years. It was reported that there would not be a grand, colorful parade, in line with the Marcos administration's policy of fiscal restraint, but instead there would be a simple, public "military show" by the Philippine Military Academy, the Marine Drum and Bugle Corps, and the Blue Diamonds of the Philippine Air Force at eight o'clock in the morning. Furthermore, rather than tedious speeches in the middle of the day, the President would read a loyalty pledge to the Republic and the flag at seven o'clock in the morning, a time when demonstrators against the current regime could be avoided.[14][44]

Discussions on violence

[edit]

Demonstrations as 'portents of things to come'

[edit]

When the news of the January 30 riots broke out, spectators, especially parents of the students participating in the demonstration, were appalled by the military behavior in these riots, questioning the need for armed military men at Mendiola. Participating groups of the said riots claimed that the violence was sparked by Malacañang guards, who threw pellets at the protesters from the inside, thus provoking demonstrators to retaliate and to ram a fire truck into the Malacañang No. 4 gate. These incidents of violence were heightened to bloodshed by the arrival of MetroCom as some groups, such as Kabataang Makabayan, claim that the armed forces attacked the students, who were virtually unarmed.[32]

This brought into question the necessity of arms in instilling the change that these students were demanding. Dr. Nemesio Prudente, an educator and an ardent defender of students, predicted then that the January 26 and 30 riots were 'mere portents of what is yet to come if the leadership does not meet the demands of our students,' - demands which are clean, honest competent leadership, reforms, social justice, elimination of poverty, quality and inexpensive education for all, and the right to participate in decision making. He commented on the violence, saying that it will continue until there is no proper understanding and open communication between government leaders and student groups.

These encounters exhibited the then growing prevalence of student activism, parallel to demonstrations in other countries wherein students played a large role such as the toppling of the Sukarno regime in Indonesia and the collapse of the Soviet Union and the 1991 August Coup and that through the Prague Spring.[32]

Kabataang Makabayan's stand on violence

[edit]

Since KM was founded under the aspiration of resuming and completing the Philippine Revolution of 1896, now fighting "a new type of colonialism," it sought to inspire nationalism once more in a time wherein it was considered as a dangerous concept.[22] The organization's positive aspirations, however, are overlooked by due to the negative image of communism, brought about by the news of communist insurgents in other parts of the world and individual actions of KM members themselves, including the dissident movement in Negros, the capture of Leoncio Co and other youths in their alleged involvement in a Stalin university in Tarlak, and the rumored activism of founder Jose Maria Sison, alias Commander Guerrero, in the Huk movement in Central Luzon. As said by Astorga-Garcia:

The KM aims to break this monopoly of power by allying with workers, peasants, progressive intellectuals, professionals and the nationalist bourgeoisie in an effort to arouse and mobilize the masses towards the attainment of national freedom and democracy. This outlook, more than anything else, explains the persistent anti-American imperialist and anti-landlord tone in the programme, pronouncements and protest mass actions of the KM. This explains why it is for the scrapping of the parity, the abrogation of the Laurel-Langley, bases treaty, military assistance treaty, mutual defense treaty—in short, the elimination of RP-US 'special relations.' The KM stand on these and other important national issues have always been pursued by its members with a militance no other youth organization has equalled. That is why the military has long ago started a hate-KM campaign that has been equally militant, although oftentimes ridiculous and silly. Whenever violence erupts in a demonstration participated in by the KM, the military authorities are quick in pinpointing the KM as the instigator of violence.[45]

However, the group justifies this violence by considering it as an objective reality while maintaining their position that, while KM has taken part in numerous demonstrations that had led to violence, the riots have been incited by the police and not their members. The KM was more concerned with the "politicalization of the masses," and if they wanted to stage an armed revolution, they would have come bearing arms to rallies.[32]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
The First Quarter Storm (FQS) was a period of intense civil unrest in the Philippines from January to March 1970, consisting of mass demonstrations and clashes primarily driven by student activists protesting economic hardships, corruption, and perceived authoritarian tendencies under President Ferdinand Marcos.[1][2] Organized by a coalition of student groups, including the moderate National Union of Students of the Philippines (NUSP) seeking reforms like opposition to Marcos' potential third term, and radical outfits such as Kabataang Makabayan (KM) and Samahang Demokratiko ng Kabataan (SDK) influenced by Maoist ideologies advocating revolutionary change, the protests drew tens of thousands to Manila streets amid grievances over inflation, neocolonial policies, and police actions.[1][3] Pivotal events included the January 26 rally of around 40,000 outside Congress during Marcos' State of the Nation Address, which devolved into the Battle of Mendiola with police charges injuring over 300 protesters and dozens of officers, followed by attempts to storm Malacañang Palace on January 30 involving arson against a fire truck and assaults on security forces.[1][2] While Marcos documented the unrest as riotous with public sympathy shifting toward the government due to protester aggression, authorities responded with arrests and force but refrained from immediate suspension of civil liberties, reflecting calculated restraint amid anti-communist concerns.[2][1] The FQS exposed fault lines of radical mobilization and state pushback, foreshadowing escalating instability that contributed to the 1972 martial law declaration, though its revolutionary aspirations faltered due to organizational fractures and overreliance on confrontational tactics without broader mass consolidation.[1][2]

Historical and Sociopolitical Context

Economic Pressures and Inflation

The Philippine economy in the late 1960s faced mounting pressures from inflation and balance-of-payments imbalances, which eroded purchasing power and fueled public discontent ahead of the First Quarter Storm. Consumer price inflation remained subdued at 1.96% in 1969, reflecting stable domestic conditions prior to the unrest, but escalated sharply to 14.38% in 1970 following the peso's effective devaluation.[4] This devaluation, which increased the average exchange rate by about 60% against the U.S. dollar, transmitted imported cost pressures into higher domestic prices for goods and services reliant on foreign inputs.[5] The underlying balance-of-payments crisis of late 1969 stemmed primarily from chronic trade deficits, with imports outpacing exports by an average of $270 million annually in 1968 and 1969, as import volumes surged due to robust domestic demand and rising global prices for key commodities like oil and raw materials.[6] While the major 1973 oil shock lay ahead, earlier upward trends in international energy and import costs—exacerbated by the ongoing Vietnam War's disruptions to global supply chains and heightened U.S. military-related expenditures in Asia—amplified the Philippines' external vulnerabilities as an import-dependent economy.[7] These factors highlighted structural fragilities rather than isolated domestic mismanagement, though fiscal expansion played a role in widening the gap. Domestic policies under President Ferdinand Marcos prioritized infrastructure and development spending, sustaining real GDP growth at around 5% annually through the 1960s, which supported job creation and output expansion amid population growth exceeding 3% per year.[8] However, this growth model increased budget strains and import reliance, culminating in the 1969 crisis where heavy public outlays—tied to infrastructure projects and the contentious presidential election—overheated the economy and depleted foreign reserves.[9] Empirical balance-of-payments data underscored external shocks and import surges as key drivers, with reserves covering only a few months of imports by late 1969, rather than attributing the pressures predominantly to internal fiscal indiscipline.[6]

Political Institutions and the Constitutional Convention

The 1935 Constitution of the Philippines established a unitary presidential republic with separation of powers, featuring a bicameral legislature, an independent judiciary, and executive authority vested in a president elected for a four-year term with eligibility for one reelection.[10] This framework, drafted under U.S. commonwealth oversight, included safeguards against executive overreach but was increasingly viewed as inadequate for postwar economic and social challenges, such as rigid land ownership restrictions limiting foreign investment and provisions tying fiscal policy to U.S. congressional approval.[10][11] By the late 1960s, these elements prompted calls for revision to enhance adaptability without undermining democratic foundations. President Ferdinand Marcos's reelection on November 11, 1969, exemplified the operational stability of these institutions amid multiparty competition. Running under the Nacionalista Party banner, Marcos defeated Liberal Party candidate Sergio Osmeña Jr. in a race characterized by intense rallies, media debates, and participation from established political families, reflecting a functioning electoral system rather than systemic exclusion.[12] Voter engagement was robust, with millions casting ballots in congressional and local contests alongside the presidential vote, indicating no widespread disenfranchisement and affirming the capacity of formal channels to resolve power transitions peacefully.[13] In parallel, the 1970 Constitutional Convention represented a structured reform mechanism to address constitutional shortcomings. Endorsed by Marcos in 1967 and authorized by Congress, the convention's delegate elections occurred on November 10, 1970, selecting 320 representatives from diverse provinces to deliberate updates to the 1935 charter.[14] Key debates focused on modernizing executive authority, including potential adjustments to term limits and shifts toward more flexible economic clauses, while preserving core democratic principles like popular sovereignty and bill of rights protections.[15] This process, convening formally in 1971, underscored institutional continuity by prioritizing consensus-driven change over abrupt overhauls. The Liberal Party, as the longstanding counterweight to the Nacionalistas, facilitated opposition within this framework through congressional oversight and repeated electoral bids, such as Osmeña's 1969 challenge following the party's prior hold on the presidency under Diosdado Macapagal (1961–1965).[16] By advocating policy alternatives via legislative bills and campaigns, it exemplified how entrenched parties absorbed and moderated dissent, distinguishing routine political rivalry from disruptive protests that skirted electoral norms.[17] This party-system dynamic reinforced pre-unrest stability, with the convention offering a complementary outlet for systemic tweaks absent radical restructuring demands.

Rise of Opposition Factions: Moderates and Radicals

The opposition factions emerging in the lead-up to the First Quarter Storm divided along reformist and revolutionary lines, with moderates pursuing incremental legal changes through established institutions and radicals advancing toward armed insurrection. Moderate groups, such as the National Union of Students of the Philippines (NUSP), emphasized petitions against oligarchic dominance and demands for Marcos to adhere to constitutional term limits, organizing protests with minimal resort to violence and focusing on electoral and constitutional reforms via the ongoing Constitutional Convention.[3][18] These efforts aligned with broader coalitions including politicians, religious organizations, and libertarians seeking to pressure the administration within democratic frameworks rather than dismantle it.[18] Radical factions, conversely, were dominated by Kabataang Makabayan (KM), a youth organization founded in 1964 that served as a recruitment and mobilization arm for the national democratic movement, prioritizing Maoist-inspired protracted people's war over reformist concessions.[19][20] KM's activities were inextricably linked to the reestablishment of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) by Jose Maria Sison on December 26, 1968, which adopted a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line aimed at overthrowing the semicolonial and semifeudal order through rural-based insurgency, as outlined in Sison's writings and the CPP's founding documents.[21][22] This ideological framework positioned radicals against not only Marcos but imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucrat capitalism, framing protests as precursors to revolutionary violence.[23] KM asserted dominance in opposition dynamics by out-organizing moderates in street mobilizations, drawing thousands of students into disciplined formations through ideological education sessions and anti-imperialist rhetoric that escalated demands beyond electoral tweaks to national liberation.[19][24] Recruitment tactics emphasized transforming student grievances into class consciousness, with KM chapters at universities like the University of the Philippines serving as hubs for vetting and indoctrinating activists, many of whom later integrated into the New People's Army (NPA), the CPP's armed wing formed on March 29, 1969.[22][23] Empirical indicators of this orchestration include KM's control over protest logistics and messaging, which overshadowed NUSP-led initiatives and channeled unrest toward confrontational tactics, as evidenced by their vanguard role in early 1970 demonstrations against U.S. influence and domestic elites.[3][20] While some funding for KM activities derived from elite opposition figures like Eugenio Lopez to amplify anti-Marcos pressure, the group's strategic autonomy stemmed from CPP directives rather than moderate alliances, underscoring a deliberate divergence from reformist paths.[25]

Outbreak and Chronology of Demonstrations

January 26: Protest During the State of the Nation Address

On January 26, 1970, approximately 40,000 protesters, primarily students from organizations including the National Union of Students of the Philippines (NUSP), Kabataang Makabayan (KM), Samahang Demokratiko ng Kabataan (SDK), and Malayang Pagkakaisa ng Kabataang Pilipino (MPKP), along with some labor union leaders, assembled outside Congress in Manila to coincide with President Ferdinand Marcos' fifth State of the Nation Address (SONA).[1] The demonstrators marched to the legislative building, chanting slogans like "Rebolusyon! Rebolusyon!" ("Revolution! Revolution!"), "Makibaka! Huwag matakot!" ("Struggle! Don't be afraid!"), and "Build Parliament in the Streets!", while voicing demands against perceived fascism, economic sabotage, and for land reform.[1] Symbolic props included a cardboard coffin representing the "death of democracy" and a stuffed crocodile or alligator symbolizing corrupt officials, which protesters hurled toward Marcos' entourage as his motorcade approached.[1][26] Police erected barriers around the Congress area, deploying about 7,000 security personnel to contain the crowd.[1] Initial confrontations arose when officers threw back the symbolic coffin, prompting protesters to hurl rocks, soft-drink bottles, and burning placard handles at police lines and vehicles, including those of senators.[1][26] In response, police charged the demonstrators with rattan sticks, fired warning shots into the air, and conducted indiscriminate beatings of protesters, reporters, and bystanders, leading to cycles of dispersal, regrouping, and renewed clashes that lasted until around 8:00 PM.[1] Inside Congress, Marcos delivered his SONA, emphasizing economic progress such as a 6.5% gross national product (GNP) growth rate in 1969—exceeding targets by 9.4%—a 6.4% rise in total exports despite declines in copra, and infrastructure developments including 8,560 kilometers of roads and over 57,100 new schoolrooms.[27] He also noted employment gains, with an average of 647,000 new jobs created annually since 1965, 220% more than prior years.[27] These points on export expansion and domestic market development went unheeded by the protesters outside, whose actions signaled a departure from prior patterns of petition-based dialogue toward direct physical standoffs with authorities.[27][1] The skirmishes resulted in approximately 300 youth injuries, 72 law enforcement personnel hurt, and 19 arrests, with detainees later released without bail; damaged vehicles and property marked the scene, setting a precedent for intensified tactics in ensuing rallies.[1][26]

January 30: Confrontation at Mendiola Street

On January 30, 1970, Kabataang Makabayan (KM), a nationalist student organization with ties to radical leftist groups, led a march of several thousand protesters from the Legislative Building toward Malacañang Palace via Mendiola Street, demanding a "People's Constitution" to combat imperialism, feudalism, and capitalism, alongside calls to bar President Ferdinand Marcos from seeking re-election.[28] The demonstration, building on the January 26 protest, featured chants denouncing Marcos as fascist and emphasizing anti-imperialist themes, though broader agrarian reform grievances were voiced by some peasant contingents integrated into the KM-led action.[28] Violence initiated when protesters commandeered a fire truck and rammed it into the palace gates at Gate Four around 6:00 PM, followed by explosions, stone-throwing, slingshots, and the deployment of molotov cocktails and pillbox bombs against barricades erected by security forces.[28] [29] Retreating to Mendiola Bridge, radicals among the crowd constructed additional barricades and sustained the assault with improvised incendiaries and rocks for hours, evidencing premeditated escalation tactics by vanguard elements seeking to provoke a state overreaction, as later acknowledged by military admissions of infiltrators but primarily driven by KM's organized militancy.[28] [30] Police and military responded with water cannons, tear gas, batons, and selective rifle fire to disperse the crowd and reclaim the bridge, culminating in a prolonged clash lasting into the early morning of January 31.[28] The confrontation resulted in four protester deaths—all from gunshot wounds, aged 16 to 21—and 107 injuries, including 74 from bullets and one amputation, with no confirmed security fatalities reported, indicating restraint in lethal force amid mutual aggression rather than unprovoked massacre.[28] [31] Approximately 300 were arrested and detained at Camp Crame.[31] Initial media reports inflated death tolls to 5-6, fostering "massacre" narratives that portrayed the event as one-sided state brutality, despite eyewitness accounts and injury patterns documenting protester-initiated attacks and reciprocal violence, a framing amplified by opposition-aligned outlets amid prevailing left-leaning biases in contemporary Philippine journalism.[28] [32] Forensic evidence from autopsies confirmed shootings occurred during active combat, underscoring the tactical provocation by radicals over passive victimhood claims.[28]

February Rallies: Plaza Miranda and People's Congresses

On February 12, 1970, the Movement for a Democratic Philippines (MDP) organized a major rally at Plaza Miranda in Manila, drawing an estimated 10,000 to 50,000 participants, primarily students from groups like Kabataang Makabayan (KM) and Samahang Demokratiko ng Kabataan (SDK).[3][25] This event, framed by radicals as the first "People's Congress," featured speeches denouncing imperialism, feudalism, and fascism, with KM leader Nonie Villanueva delivering a profanity-laden address criticizing the Marcos administration and U.S. influence.[25] Attendance swelled to around 50,000, reflecting KM and SDK's growing dominance as moderate student organizations like the National Union of Students of the Philippines (NUSP) receded from leadership roles.[25] These "People's Congresses" represented radical attempts to stage alternative assemblies mimicking revolutionary soviets, inspired by Maoist tactics of mass mobilization and protracted struggle, rather than substantive deliberative bodies.[25] Organizers under Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) influence promoted a national democratic revolution framework, distributing Mao Zedong's writings and rejecting Soviet "social-imperialism" in favor of encircling cities from rural bases.[25] By mid-February, moderate participation had declined, with radicals using the congresses for ideological indoctrination and displays of power, including chants aligning with CPP slogans like "Makibaka! Huwag matakot!" (Dare to struggle! Do not fear!).[3][25] On February 18, approximately 20,000 protesters convened for the second People's Congress at Plaza Miranda before marching to the U.S. Embassy, where they decried "neocolonialism" through rock-throwing, pillbox explosives, and setting fire to the lobby.[3][25] Police contained the crowd, preventing a full breach, amid chants and effigy burnings symbolizing opposition to U.S. support for Marcos.[3] A similar protest on February 26 followed a denied permit for Plaza Miranda; militants reassembled at Sunken Garden, marched again toward the embassy, and faced dispersal by MetroCom forces.[3][25] Arrests during these events uncovered smuggled weapons, including in a February 27 raid on the Philippine College of Commerce, where 39 MDP affiliates were detained and arms were confiscated, highlighting preparations for escalated confrontation beyond peaceful assembly.[25] Police tactics focused on containment and rapid response, averting larger breaches while exposing the radicals' intent to provoke disorder under the guise of congresses.[25]

March Marches: From Welcome Rotonda to Malacañang Area

The March 3, 1970, People's Anti-Fascist March, organized by the Movement for a Democratic Philippines (MDP) alongside groups such as Kabataang Makabayan (KM), Samahan ng Demokratikong Kabataan (SDK), and Malayang Progresibong Kilusang Pilipino (MPKP), began at Welcome Rotonda on the Quezon City-Manila border and proceeded through Manila to Plaza Lawton.[33][34] Approximately 20,000 participants joined, coinciding with a partial jeepney drivers' strike protesting police extortion.[33][35] Marchers attempted to reach the U.S. Embassy but encountered riot police blockades, leading to clashes involving rocks from protesters and truncheons or gunfire from authorities.[34][35] During the dispersal at Plaza Lawton, police beat Lyceum University freshman Enrique Sta. Brigida on the skull, resulting in his death from the injuries.[33][35] Some marchers fled toward Intramuros amid the violence, highlighting tactical disarray as the event devolved into routs without achieving stated anti-fascist objectives.[33] Internal tensions surfaced, with MPKP distributing leaflets accusing KM and SDK of provocateur tactics that escalated confrontations unnecessarily.[33] On March 17, the MDP-led Poor People's March repeated elements of prior actions, converging from multiple Tondo assembly points at Plaza Moriones for a mock "People's Tribunal" indicting President Marcos, followed by a procession to the U.S. Embassy and Mendiola near Malacañang Palace.[33][34] Organizers from KM, SDK, MPKP, and the College Editors Guild of the Philippines claimed participation in the "hundreds of thousands," though independent estimates remain unverified.[33] Participants staged theatrical hangings of Marcos effigies and lit bonfires at Mendiola to deter police advances, avoiding major clashes but underscoring reliance on symbolic gestures amid repeated routes and unaddressed grievances.[34][35] These marches, peaking in claimed scale yet recycling confrontational paths from January and February without securing policy concessions, exposed logistical strains including transport disruptions from the jeepney action and fractures among radical factions, as moderate elements grew wary of escalating violence yielding only casualties like Sta. Brigida's.[33][35] Property damage was limited to effigy burnings, but the pattern of dispersals and internal critiques signaled diminishing cohesion in sustaining momentum.[33]

Government and Pro-Regime Counteractions

Immediate Security Responses to Unrest

The Philippine Constabulary, as the primary national police force responsible for maintaining public order, deployed under established riot control measures during the First Quarter Storm demonstrations, employing non-lethal tactics such as tear gas and rattan truncheons to disperse crowds that had turned violent, including instances of protesters hurling stones and makeshift weapons.[36][37] In the January 30 Mendiola Street confrontation, for example, constabulary units responded to escalating clashes by arresting at least 72 individuals, primarily for acts of assault and disruption rather than peaceful assembly.[30] President Ferdinand Marcos initiated de-escalation efforts by inviting student representatives for dialogue at Malacañang Palace, including meetings with moderate leaders from the National Union of Students of the Philippines (NUSP) such as Edgar Jopson prior to key rallies, where he addressed grievances on education and governance while urging restraint against third-term ambitions.[34][38] These overtures, which nearly led to the cancellation of some planned actions, were rebuffed by radical factions affiliated with groups like Kabataang Makabayan (KM) and Samahang Demokratiko ng Kabataan (SDK), who proceeded with confrontational marches despite commitments to postpone.[25][39] Security operations incorporated intelligence assessments highlighting Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) organizational involvement in protest coordination, prompting coordination with U.S. embassy personnel experienced in counter-subversion strategies to identify infiltration risks without broader military escalation.[40] This reflected Marcos administration priorities on targeted enforcement against subversive elements amid evidence of KM's role as a CPP youth front in mobilizing and radicalizing participants.[41] Such measures adhered to legal frameworks under the Anti-Subversion Act, focusing arrests on documented threats to public safety rather than ideological expression.[32]

Pro-Marcos Mobilizations and Public Support Events

Amid the demonstrations of the First Quarter Storm, supporters of President Ferdinand Marcos, including veterans' groups, organized visits and gatherings to express solidarity with the administration and emphasize commitment to democratic processes. On February 6, 1970, shortly after heightened unrest, a large delegation of veterans called on Marcos at Malacañang Palace, marking one of the first public affirmations of support following the protests' escalation.[32][42] These efforts underscored perceptions that the FQS represented agitation by a radical minority rather than widespread discontent, with Marcos publicly attributing the violence to communist infiltrators seeking to destabilize the government.[43] Rural constituencies and labor sectors, benefiting from Marcos's infrastructure projects such as expanded road networks and irrigation systems initiated in the late 1960s, voiced backing through organized petitions that highlighted tangible economic gains over urban-centric complaints.[44][45] Mainstream media coverage often framed the protests as driven by extremist elements, reinforcing elite endorsements of Marcos's leadership as a bulwark against chaos, though such portrayals drew criticism for downplaying legitimate grievances. These pro-regime activities, including retrospectives tied to national holidays like Independence Day in June 1970, drew substantial participation from loyalist factions, contrasting the scale of opposition actions and affirming adherence to constitutional stability.

Ideological Drivers and Use of Violence

Communist Influence and Organizational Roles

![Flag of the Communist Party of the Philippines](./assets/Flag_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Philippines_alternativeIIalternative_II The Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) was established on December 26, 1968, by Jose Maria Sison in a clandestine meeting with a small group of comrades, marking a reconstitution along Marxist-Leninist-Maoist lines to pursue armed revolution against perceived semi-colonial and semi-feudal conditions.[46] [21] Sison's seminal work, Philippine Society and Revolution (published in 1970 under the pseudonym Amado Guerrero), analyzed Philippine society as dominated by U.S. imperialism and landlord interests, explicitly advocating protracted people's war as the path to national liberation, with urban unrest serving as preparatory mobilization for rural guerrilla bases.[47] The First Quarter Storm functioned as an early testing ground for these tactics, channeling student discontent into organized confrontation to build revolutionary cadre, preceding the formal launch of the New People's Army (NPA) in March 1969 as the CPP's armed wing.[48] Kabataang Makabayan (KM), founded in November 1964 as the CPP's youth front organization, played a central organizational role in directing the protests, recruiting from university campuses through appeals to anti-imperialist nationalism that obscured underlying Maoist ideology aimed at class struggle and eventual dictatorship of the proletariat.[49] Rather than a spontaneous youth uprising, the demonstrations were strategically orchestrated by CPP-affiliated groups like KM, which provided leadership, slogans, and logistics to escalate tensions and expose state vulnerabilities, countering narratives of organic radicalization among unaligned students.[50] [24] This infiltration targeted institutions such as the University of the Philippines, where KM chapters framed issues like U.S. bases and land reform in terms of foreign domination, rapidly expanding influence among educated youth disillusioned by economic inequities. Post-FQS participation correlated with accelerated CPP recruitment, as the protests' visibility drew ideologically sympathetic students into formal membership; party ranks, numbering around 200 by early 1970, expanded significantly within months, laying groundwork for insurgency growth amid heightened anti-government sentiment.[51] Foreign ideological influences, particularly Maoist doctrines from Beijing emphasizing peasant-based warfare and anti-imperialist propaganda, shaped CPP strategy, while the Vietnam War's example from Hanoi reinforced focus on ejecting U.S. military presence as a prerequisite for revolution, though direct training links remain anecdotal amid the era's covert networks.[52] These elements underscore the CPP's deliberate use of the FQS not merely for protest but as a vanguardist maneuver to consolidate power bases for prolonged armed conflict.

Justifications and Critiques of Protest Tactics

Proponents of the more confrontational tactics employed during the First Quarter Storm, particularly organizations like Kabataang Makabayan (KM), argued that revolutionary violence was essential to dismantle entrenched elite control and imperial influences, rejecting incremental reforms as complicit in perpetuating inequality. KM leaders framed clashes involving stones, bottles, and improvised incendiaries as direct challenges to state power, positioning them as catalysts for mass awakening and systemic overthrow rather than mere street disruptions. This perspective aligned with broader Marxist-Leninist ideology prevalent among radical student groups, which posited that non-violent petitions would be ignored by a corrupt apparatus, necessitating escalation to expose and erode its legitimacy.[41][53] Critics, including moderate opposition figures and contemporary observers, contended that such tactics undermined the protests' objectives by alienating potential allies among the middle class and urban populace, who viewed the property damage—such as vandalism at the U.S. Embassy and school facilities—and chaotic confrontations as excessive rather than justified. Reports highlighted instances of "wanton vandalism" during embassy protests, which prompted official apologies and reinforced perceptions of undisciplined radicalism over principled dissent. Historians note that this escalation polarized public discourse, shifting focus from grievances like tuition hikes and oligarchic dominance to immediate disorder, thereby diluting broader sympathy and enabling regime narratives of anarchy as pretext for intensified policing.[34][54] Causal analysis reveals that the tactics yielded no substantive policy concessions from the Marcos administration, instead heightening divisions that entrenched radical factions while repelling moderates who favored electoral or legal avenues for change. The violence, while energizing committed activists, empirically fostered a cycle of retaliation—evident in subsequent military preparations and public order justifications—rather than coercive leverage for reform, ultimately contributing to the radicalization of segments of the opposition without achieving immediate democratic gains. Academic accounts, often sympathetic to leftist causes, tend to romanticize these actions as precursors to later resistance, yet overlook how they isolated the movement from mainstream support, prolonging confrontation over resolution.[55][24]

Decline, Investigations, and Short-Term Aftermath

Factors Leading to Dissipation After March

The adoption of increasingly radical tactics by groups like Kabataang Makabayan (KM) and Samahang Demokratiko ng Kabataan (SDK), including attempts to storm government buildings during the March 3 and March 17 marches, alienated moderate allies such as the Malayang Pagkakaisa ng Kabataang Pilipino (MPKP), which issued leaflets denouncing KM and SDK as "provocateurs" and "anarchists."[33] This ideological rift fragmented the protest coalition, reducing coordinated mass actions as moderates like the National Union of Students of the Philippines (NUSP) distanced themselves from the violence-oriented approach.[33] Participation dwindled sharply after March 17, with rally attendance dropping from approximately 20,000 at the March 3 People's Anti-Fascist March to just 5,000 by the April 5 rally at Plaza Miranda, reflecting exhaustion and logistical strains.[33] The academic calendar played a key role, as the university semester concluded around April 11 with graduation rites, dispersing students to provincial homes or summer employment and curtailing urban mobilization.[33] Logistical challenges, including repeated police dispersals with tear gas, further eroded momentum without generating sustained outrage.[33] The Marcos administration's restraint in avoiding mass arrests or lethal force—opting instead for targeted dispersals—undermined narratives of state martyrdom that had fueled earlier turnout, depriving radicals of propaganda victories.[33] This measured response, combined with a political reconciliation between Marcos and Vice President Fernando Lopez, signaled de-escalation and contributed to the protests' rapid fade by mid-April.[33] In response, KM leaders pivoted to underground organizing and rural armed struggle, as articulated in their April 5 call to action, marking a tactical retreat from open urban confrontations and the effective end of the First Quarter Storm as a mass movement.[33]

Official Inquiries and Victim Compensation

The Philippine Senate established a Special Committee to probe the violent demonstrations of January 1970, convening hearings that included testimony from witnesses, police officers, and participants, as well as reviews of photographs and television footage.[56][57] On March 12, 1970, the committee reported finding no firearms among protesters, attributing the unrest primarily to improvised weapons such as crudely made sticks and pillboxes, which contributed to clashes with security forces.[57] These findings countered protester claims of unarmed peaceful assembly, highlighting tactical preparations that escalated confrontations, while affirming the absence of systematic police overreach beyond dispersal measures.[57] In acknowledgment of verified casualties, the government provided targeted remedies without conceding broader culpability. Six deaths were officially confirmed from the January 30 Battle of Mendiola—Felicisimo Roldan, Ricardo Alcantara, Fernando Catabay, Bernardo Tausa, Jesus Mejia, and Leopoldo Inelda—all attributed to gunshot wounds sustained during the melee.[57] President Ferdinand Marcos signed Republic Act 6399 on September 30, 1971, allocating P90,000 directly to the heirs of these victims and creating a P500,000 contingency fund for compensating deaths and injuries arising from future demonstrations.[57] By the end of the Marcos era, approximately P318,000 had been disbursed from this fund to affected families, focusing aid on documented cases amid inflated estimates of casualties that reached into the hundreds from activist accounts.[57] This approach prioritized empirical verification over unproven narratives, reinforcing institutional mechanisms for redress while discouraging extralegal tactics that had provoked the unrest.[57]

Long-Term Ramifications

Escalation Toward Martial Law

Following the First Quarter Storm of early 1970, urban unrest transitioned into heightened insurgent activity, with the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) leveraging the protests to expand its influence and recruit participants into its armed wing, the New People's Army (NPA). Many FQS activists, radicalized by the demonstrations led by CPP-aligned groups like Kabataang Makabayan, subsequently joined rural guerrilla units, contributing to a spike in NPA attacks on government targets and infrastructure.[50][24] This escalation included bombings in urban areas, such as the August 1971 Plaza Miranda incident targeting an opposition rally, which Marcos attributed to communist elements amid rising threats of anarchy.[58] In his State of the Nation Addresses from 1971 to 1972, President Ferdinand Marcos repeatedly invoked the violence of the FQS as symptomatic of a broader breakdown in law and order, arguing that unchecked leftist agitation had eroded public safety and necessitated decisive action.[59] Official data reflected this deterioration, with the national crime rate climbing to 201.23 incidents per 100,000 population by 1972, marking a 12.15% increase over the 1970-1971 average, underscoring the shift from sporadic protests to systemic instability.[60] Marcos framed these developments as evidence of communist-orchestrated subversion, drawing on the FQS's role in mobilizing youth toward revolutionary violence. Prior to the FQS, the Philippines maintained relative sociopolitical stability with limited insurgent presence, as the CPP and NPA operated on a small scale following their 1968 and 1969 formations, respectively.[61] The post-FQS surge in rural ambushes and urban disruptions—fueled by veteran protesters' integration into NPA ranks—contrasted sharply with this earlier calm, providing empirical grounds for Marcos's assertion of an existential threat from anarchy.[50] This causal chain of escalating unrest directly informed the September 21, 1972, martial law proclamation, positioned as a necessary bulwark against imminent collapse rather than mere political expediency.[62]

Contributions to Insurgency and Political Radicalization

The First Quarter Storm significantly bolstered recruitment for the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wing, the New People's Army (NPA), by channeling student activism into revolutionary channels. Following the protests, the CPP effectively hijacked nascent youth movements, drawing many participants into its ranks and accelerating the insurgency's expansion from a nascent force in 1969 to approximately 350 armed regulars by 1971.[50][63] This surge sustained the CPP-NPA's protracted war, which by the late 1980s had swelled NPA strength to over 20,000 fighters, entrenching rural guerrilla operations and urban subversion that diverted resources from national development.[63] The radicalization spurred by the FQS transformed moderate protesters into committed insurgents or exiles, yet the movement failed to dislodge the Marcos regime through armed struggle alone, requiring external pressures such as economic downturns in the 1980s for its eventual unraveling via the 1986 EDSA Revolution. While FQS participants fueled long-term activism, including abroad, the insurgency's persistence prioritized violent overthrow over electoral or reformist paths, prolonging instability without achieving Maoist statehood. The CPP's organizational gains post-FQS, including cadre formation from protest veterans, contributed to a conflict that has claimed over 43,000 lives since 1969, with peak violence in the 1970s and 1980s underscoring the human cost of sustained radicalism.[64] Empirical assessment reveals the FQS as a net detriment to Philippine stability, fostering division and insurgency that overshadowed potential democratic evolution amid Marcos-era advancements. Prior to the 1980s debt crisis, the economy registered average annual GDP growth of around 6.4% in the 1970s, supported by infrastructure and export-oriented policies, contrasting with the insurgency's drag on cohesion. Literacy rates also improved during this period, rising from roughly 84% in 1970 to over 90% by the early 1980s, reflecting investments in education that radical actions undermined by alienating moderates and justifying authoritarian countermeasures.[65] Ultimately, the FQS entrenched ideological polarization, prioritizing revolutionary fantasies over pragmatic governance that yielded measurable socioeconomic gains before exogenous shocks precipitated regime change.

References

User Avatar
No comments yet.