and other structures that for them are Marcos credentials

and testaments to the nation’s progress at the time: the

specialty hospitals, road networks and bridges, the LRT,
and the buildings that comprise the CCP complex, to name

ISSUE 22 : JULY-DECEMBER 2016 Christian several.

Tablazon
There are no other monuments for the disappeared save for
“The [g]host is a ghost, no fiction”
one at the Baclaran Church, and there are not even markers
—Donald Davie, “The Comforter”
for the graves of those whose bodies have never been
found. But while the grand buildings such as the CCP, cited
“They went into my closets looking for skeletons, but thank
as monuments to the greatness of the Marcoses and their
God, all they found were shoes, beautiful shoes”, Imelda
reign, continue to obfuscate the victims and the crimes the
Marcos was quoted as saying what was supposedly a comic
Marcoses have committed, one can resist the labor of
remark at the opening of the Marikina Shoe Museum in
effacement by rereading these structures from the ‘glorious
2001.1 The irony is hard to miss, and even more blatant is
past’ as constituted instead of traces of the catastrophic
the unwitting and chilling allusion to the enforced
event that is the Martial Law. Both Ferdinand and Imelda
disappearances throughout the martial-law years, the
Marcos felt the need to fabricate the “country’s ‘deep
obliterated, now traceless bodies.
structures’” that would” endure the passage of time”, on the

In one recent interview, Senator Marcos asked, hinting at top of “roads and bridges, buildings and houses” that “are

the alleged golden era of infrastructure that his father’s mere ‘surface’ structures”.4 Ferdinand Marcos has

loyalists claim to be unprecedented in the history of our acknowledged that “no Taj Mahal, no Angkor Wat, no

country: “[W]ill I say sorry for the thousands and thousands Great Wall stands with us to remind the colonial intruder of

of kilometers [of roads] that were built? [….] What [am I] his insolence in affecting to ‘civilize us’ in exchange for

to say sorry about?”2 In the rampant insistence of Marcos exploitation”.5 Conversely, the same structures that the

supporters that one of the darkest periods in our history has conjugal dictatorship erected in the absence of glorious pre-

in fact been the country’s golden age, and in such denial of colonial monuments should stand with us now to remind us

the crimes and atrocities perpetrated by the Marcos regime, of the exploitation and damage wrought upon the country in

the disappeared are doubly erased. the name of the “New Society”.

“There was no martial law memorial to remind the people As the realization of “the First Lady’s vision”6 and

of the atrocities of martial law,” Dr. Prospero E. de Vera III “[g]randiose dream”7 and her first major building project,

lamented. “What the people see now are the gains of the CCP is probably foremost in the Marcos couple’s

martial law like infrastructure projects, roads, and bridges exercise of state power, the illusion of modernity, and

built during martial law years”.3 The state-sponsored oppression through official architecture and art. Drawing

infrastructure that then functioned, in part, to euphemize from the logic of padugo, a local ritual that necessitates the

and anesthetize the fascist rule of the Marcoses, now sacrifice of animal blood to ensure the strong foundation

facilitate in the production of oblivion, as supporters and safe completion of buildings and bridges, and

vehemently and repeatedly enumerate the names of edifices exploiting what is perhaps a semantic slippage of the

1
collective imaginary in the urban legend that the San
Juanico bridge, at the First Lady’s behest, had been
sustained by the blood of street children (whose bodies
were either mixed with cement or thrown in the river
below, depending on which version), and of course, its
perverse real-life counterpart, the Manila Film Center
tragedy, where over a hundred workers were killed in the
collapse resulting from the construction’s frenzied pace to
meet the First Lady’s deadline, and where bodies are said to
have also been buried under the cement, we turn to what
Imelda Marcos has claimed to be “our Parthenon built in a
time of hardship”,8 “the sanctuary of the Filipino soul and a
monument to the Filipino spirit”,9 and the testament to her
slogan “Truth, Beauty, Goodness”10—the CCP. “[T]his gift
to the Filipino people”,11 whose construction Imelda
Marcos justified as “for the development of the Filipino
soul”12 since “the spirit cannot be starved while we minister
to the body”,13 and whose inception is hence “above
legalities and beyond economic constraints”,14 would turn
out to have been founded on the lives of the victims of the
couple’s brutal regime, subsisting in part on the massive
theft of public funds, widespread poverty, the famine in
Negros and Muslim Mindanao, the estimated 3,257 who
were killed and the 40,000 tortured,15 among other
tragedies. Fortified by blood “to stand through time as a
living tribute to a First Lady’s indomitable spirit”,16 the
CCP as an edifice threatens to subsume and overwrite the
bodies of these individuals in its “majestic
architecture”.17 In the task of rearticulating these structures
of “oppressive architecture”18 as buildings tainted with
blood, the padugo ritual can act as a potent and subversive
analytic in reading the implications of power and desire in
the many aspects of collaboration in the arts and culture
during the traumatic period of the Marcos dictatorship, with
the CCP at its center as a site of haunting, i.e., an
overdetermined and remanent space cast as an archive of
spectral traces.
The inauguration of the Center in 1969 promised “a new
dawn in Philippine cultural history”19 that would “[usher]
an unprecedented flowering of the arts”,20 with the “First
Lady of the Land”21 as “its Principal Patroness”22 —“a new
era”23 that would also mark the threshold of massive
plunder and abuse by the Marcoses. Even at present, the
halls of the Center remain venue to the indices of fervent
delusion, the baroquely decadent extravagance that has
characterized Imelda as an adjective, and the beginning of a
series of unsustainable debting sprees that would swamp
generations of Filipinos until 2025. The preserved and
sustained physical constitution of the CCP—Locsin’s
architecture, for one, or the “three magnificent chandeliers”
made of brass, over 20 thousand capiz shells, and Viennese
crystal prisms that “secure an aura of elegance”24 and
“[cost] a total of approximately $10,000”25 (restored this
year with an approved budget of 1.7 million pesos),26 or the
photographs of the Marcoses during their glory days that
still hung in the building—lays out and underlines even
more the continuum between CCP’s inception and the
present. To this day, the details of “the Center’s dazzling
interiors” that “lend easily to exclamations of awe and
marvel”27 lavishly described in the Center’s initial press
releases and public-relations materials remain intact,
conjuring the unsettling here and now of Martial Law and
the same Center that has persisted through the fascist years
from the time it was inaugurated: the octagonal pool that
“serenely mirrors the front of the Cultural Center’s
edifice”;28 the “giant [German-built] fountain of dancing
waters”,29 the “main vault […] plastered with reinforced
Romblon and Italian marble slabs”; “lush carpets”; the
“grand stairway [rising] out of the polished marble floor”,
“[c]offered ceilings covered with an antique gold-foil
paper”; the “four interconnected pavilions and
rooms”;30 Manansala’s “powerful mural [fashioned] out of
bronze”,31 the Main Theater curtain designed after H.R.
Ocampo’s painting “Genesis”, the Kyoto-woven tapestry in
the Little Theater based on a painting by Chabet, and the
2
Gift Shop,32 which still displays pictures and biographies of
the former First Lady.
Apart from its physical features, the Center has also
retained its logo from Marcos’ time—emblematic, of
course, of the institutional and bureaucratic trappings,
however little, that must have persisted as well, along
perhaps with the dregs of the former First Lady’s vision.
The acronym KKK, ironically styled after the Katipunan
flag, expropriates an originally Platonic dictum to celebrate
and enforce the opiating and anaesthetizing potential of the
arts during the couple’s despotic reign. The logo’s maxim
had conveniently abstracted and eluded the material
conditions under the New Society, privileging instead the
supposedly “transcendent”33 and divine34 facets of human
life. This same logo is worn by the students of the
Philippine High School for the Arts, an offshoot institution
of its mothership CCP. The school’s profile on the PHSA’s
official website traces its beginnings to “the young former
President Ferdinand E. Marcos, [who] yearned for a people
born to greatness and envisioned a society worthy of the
heritage of the Filipino people” and still cites the National
Arts Center’s formal dedication “to the pursuit of the Good,
the True, and the Beautiful”.35 In the conference room
hangs a group photo of the school personnel with Imelda
Marcos in the middle of the front row, taken during her
visit at the school several years ago.
The problematic Filipinist discourse characteristic of
Imelda Marcos’ program and its basic objective of
“Filipinization”36 that coaxed “Filipino artists to articulate
their decidedly Filipino identity”37 and “uphold what is
truly Filipino”38 still largely informs the PHSA’s arts
curriculum. One of the Center’s publications during Martial
Law stated that “new works are commissioned yearly to
encourage [artists] to experiment on native themes as basis
for larger works of Philippine identity”.39 Incidentally,
Gerry Leonardo’s Mebuyan-inspired giant Christmas tree at
the CCP will be launched in November this year.
The aforementioned continuum culminates in “Seven Arts,
One Imelda” a “lavish tribute”40 for the Center’s founding
chair Imelda Marcos and her “life-long patronage of the
seven arts”, staged by the CCP in celebration of the 40th
anniversary of the Center in 2009, on the 92nd birth
anniversary of Ferdinand Marcos.41 “Staged at a cost of less
than one million pesos because the artists performed for
free”, the “Imelda extravaganza”42 was spearheaded by
acclaimed concert pianist, then CCP Artistic Director, and
now CCP President, Raul Sunico, who he himself was one
of the First lady’s beneficiaries during the Marcos years.
This “‘strictly by-invitation-only’” gala event “featured
nine of the country’s most talented musicians, all of whom
received assistance from Imelda”,43 and “[extolled] the
seven arts through signature pieces created during the
period of Imelda’s patronage”.44
In 2011, Mideo Cruz’s Poleteismo at the CCP was reported
to have been “shut down […] at the urging of former
Philippine First Lady-turned congresswoman Imelda
Marcos”.45 Imelda Marcos said during the height of the
controversy that “she immediately called Sunico and asked
him to take down the exhibit and also spoke with other
board members on the phone to ask them to close the
exhibit”46 after the Catholic Bishops Conference of the
Philippines “had reportedly sought her intervention in the
matter”.47
I was born shortly before Martial Law ended and I do not
have my own memories of the period. I can only vaguely
remember a televised image I saw as a child of the dying
former dictator in his exile in Hawaii. My parents grew up
in Coron, Palawan, and Martial Law as relayed to us
children were limited to stories about that time of curfews,
rice sold with corn grit, and the ghost stubs the farmers in
Coron and the rest of the country had accumulated for their
3
supposed, respective claims to the coco levy fund. To quote
Bing del Rosario, my parents were ordinary Filipinos
whose everyday lives and inhabited spaces the “atrocities
only tangentially touched”. Having grown up in the
province and being a young and impressionable student at
the time, I was predictably overcome with fascination the
first time I set foot at the Center. Back then the edifice and
its interiors seemed so innocent, so removed from the brutal
context of a fascist regime.
My position now as someone working in the field of the
humanities and as a teacher, where during a teaching stint
at the PHSA, I encountered some student artists who have
not even heard of the word desaparecido, or who, without
batting an eye, would say yes to working for the Marcoses,
has compelled me to look further into the implications and
vicissitudes of the Cultural Center, which turns fifty a few
years from now. I recently learned that my great-
grandfather Enrique Gimeno Piedad’s 1930s version of the
komedya Prinsipe Baldovino that he had staged over the
years on the different islands of Calamianes during fiestas
was adapted by Rolando Tinio (regular theater director for
the CCP during Mrs. Marcos’ time) into a spectacular and
contemporized costume drama in 1971 to inaugurate the
CCP Little Theater, barely a year after Piedad’s death. The
discovery of my family’s oblique connection to the former
First Lady’s Cultural Center during its early years has led
me to problematize notions of ‘innocence’ and inquire
about the varied nuances and degrees of complicity and its
subsequent paradoxes, between agent and State towards the
realization of work, in the context of artistic and cultural
production during the Marcos regime.
Distinguished artists who have been key figures in realizing
“The First Lady’s Dream”: National Artist for Music
Lucrecia Lucrecia R. Kasilag (CCP President for a decade,
from 1976 until Marcos’ overthrow), painters Roberto
Chabet and Ray Albano, poet Alejandrino G. Hufana, and
National Artist architect Leandro V. Locsin. Those who
were ‘simply’ commissioned, such as writers Adrian
Cristobal, Ileana Maramag, National Artist Virgilio
Almario, and Carmen Guerrero Nakpil; composers National
Artist Felipe Padilla de Leon, Lucio San Pedro, Levi
Celerio, and George Canseco; the couturiers behind the
Steel Butterfly, National Artist Ramon Valera, Pitoy
Moreno, Auggie Cordero, Joe Salazar, and Inno Sotto; and
painters Malang and Serafin Serna. The signees of the
Coalition of Writers and Artists for Freedom and
Democracy, who include Teo T. Antonio, Ruth Elynia
Mabanglo, Lamberto Antonio, S. V. Epistola, Manuel
Baldemor, at Mike Bigornia.48 The consistent beneficiaries
of Mrs. Marcos patronage: among others, National Artist
for Visual Arts Arturo Luz and National Artist for
Literature Rolando Tinio, whose “Teatro Pilipino was a
resident company of the CCP in Imelda’s time, and Tinio
himself enjoyed a close relationship with the former First
Lady”49 Recipients of the former First Lady’s assistance
who were practically children at the time and who, to this
day, have kept more or less positive relations with the
Marcoses, most notable of which were pianists Cecile
Licad, Raul Sunico, Rowena Arrieta, and Jaime Bolipata;
violinists Julian Quirit and Joseph Esmilla; cellist Ramon
Bolipata; flutist Antonio Maigue; and singer Lea Salonga.
The National Artists appointed by Ferdinand Marcos. All
other artists who, in one way or another, have been
instrumental to the Marcos propaganda machine. How does
one measure the extent of complicity and to what degree
can the artist be held accountable? If the halls of the Center
had been tainted with blood, who among these favored
artists then have blood on their hands, so to speak,
especially since their counterparts on the other side of the
field who had chosen to speak against, resist, or fight, were
silenced, tortured, or destroyed?
How does one appraise Carmen Guerrero Nakpil who
claims to have collaborated with the Marcoses for survival,
4
and who, “despite her closeness to the Marcoses, […] was
one of the very few that never made money”? Nakpil
recounts that she worked for the Marcoses “in exchange for
the freedom of her daughter” and son-in-law, who were
“then allied with the Left.”50 She was on the arrest list
”[y]ears after martial law was declared” but “Nakpil got it
from the former first lady that […] the latter vouched for
her and her name was removed from the list.”51
Furthermore, what do we make of former PHSA scholar
and renowned visual artist Leeroy New, who was
commissioned by Governor Imee R. Marcos in 2012 and
2014 to build giant “avant-garde installations” that now
comprise the “Art Installation Park”52 on the Paoay sand
dunes, facilitating the creation of Marcos-sponsored
spectacles for the people during the governor’s province-
wide La Virgen Milagrosa Festival? Where do we draw the
line between Marcos and LGU sponsorship? How does one
set about the artist’s complicity in the context of public
commission work—in this case, a project of the Ilocos
Norte provincial government that was supposedly for the
people—in contrast to private commissions? Bringing art to
the community and utilizing local materials and labor,
Governor Marcos, according to New, claimed that “this
project was for regional development.”53
At the groundbreaking ceremonies in 1973 for the now
close-to-stagnant and seemingly phantom satellite of the
CCP, the National Arts Center, a 13.5-hectare “art-oriented
Shangrila” on Mt. Makiling, the First Lady’s message
delusively cited its realization as an “[embarking] upon the
end of alienation between the artist and his society”.54 In
another occasion, however, Mrs. Marcos iterated that
“culture and the arts are hardly political”.55 With her motto
“Katotohanan, Kagandahan, Kabutihan”, she perversely
sought a corrupted sense of apotheosis and the sublime that
limited the arts to “enjoyment”, “appreciation”,
“pleasure”,56 and, at best, to “the things of the heart and the
longings of the spirit”57 that were anomalously removed
from social realities. The same principles resonate in the
people who have worked for or benefited from the
Marcoses during and after Martial Law, underlining further
the traces of the period that persist in the present order.
Then CCP President Jaime Zobel de Ayala defended “[the
CCP’s] commitment […] to art and art alone. It shall not be
subservient to any ideological belief.” He insisted that the
artist’s “creation is not a product of the dictate of his creed
or political affiliation or ideological belief. Art’s only
commitment is to truth and beauty.”58 Similarly, Purita
Kalaw Ledesma has intoned that “[a]rtists should be united
in a common endeavor which is the expression of
beauty.”59
In his defense of the stand taken by the Coalition of Writers
and Artists for Freedom and Democracy in 1986, Virgilio
Alamario asked, “Ano ngayon ang masama kung ang isang
makata ay pumanig kay Marcos[…]?”60 Perhaps failing to
grasp the relationship between an artist’s integrity and its
praxis, he finds no contradiction in serving Marcos and
aspiring to pursue and develop nationalist concerns in
literature. “Dahil ba sa naging tauhan ako ni Marcos ay
wala na akong karapatang magpanukala ng landasing
nasyunalista para sa panitikan? [….] Parang hindi kayo
nagkakamali. Hindi kayo marunong tumawa.”61
In view of criticisms regarding Leandro V. Locsin’s hand
in the propaganda and myth-making “by way of state-
sponsored edifices”, Andy Locsin confidently shared that
his father had been “[p]ossessed of the knowledge that he
undertook [Marcos’] commissions fully in good faith and
mindful of the integrity of his delivery as a professional”.62
Ryan Cayabyab, who himself was a product of Marcos-
founded Metropop,63 has acknowledged that “Martial law
was a time of fear and division” and that some “who went
underground died and those who survived now narrate tales
5
of torture.”64 At the time of “Seven Arts, One Imelda”,
however, Cayabyab served as a musical director and the
composer to the tribute’s main theme. Suggestively
nostalgic for the years that well coincide with the height of
Mrs. Marcos’ patronage of the arts under the dictatorship,
the song aims to “capture the spirit of an age and the
distinct sensibility of a woman who has shaped so much of
our culture” and cites Imelda Marcos as “our muse” whose
“dreams led us” to “Tragic, tender / Vision, splendor[,] /
[a]ll because [she] dreamed we could”.65
Also along these lines, prima ballerina Lisa Macuja
Elizalde, wife and daughter-in-law to Marcos cronies Fred
J. Elizalde and PANAMIN Head and plunderer Manuel
Elizalde, respectively, and one of the artists who also
performed for free at the CCP’s gala tribute to Imelda
Marcos, staged her comeback this year with Rebel,66 in
time for the 30th anniversary of the EDSA Revolution. In
this full-length ballet that recounted the tyranny of the
Marcoses and “[celebrated] the spirit of People Power”,
Macuja Elizalde played the role of Inang Bayan.67
“Let art and politics be separate,” Sunico announced in his
welcome remarks at “Seven Arts, One Imelda”.68 To
criticisms heaped at the same event, the CCP board of
trustees remarked, “we have always been committed to the
propagation of the Filipino arts and culture and to keeping
politics at bay as fiercely as we can”.69
Lea Salonga, when asked about her stand on the Marcoses,
waxed nostalgia over the time presentations were held at
the Palace, when “every presentation showed how beautiful
our fashions were, and how talented our artists were”, and
when “Bayanhihan danced our folk dances, Pitoy Moreno
showed his wares, and [she] sang.”70 She also insisted that
“[t]o be fair, to sing at the palace is always an honor,
regardless of who’s sitting.”71
Accused to have benefited from the Coco Levy Fund Scam,
artist and cultural worker Clara Lobregat Balaguer, progeny
to Maria Clara Lobregat who was directly involved in the
scandal, snapped at her critics on Facebook that she is not
legally implicated, that her grandmother was long dead, and
that her family’s actions and political views have nothing to
do with her.
What do we make of virtuosity, especially since a number
of these artists, and especially given our trying context as a
‘developing nation’, owe the apex of their careers to the
slew of commission work or a “patronage of some kind”?
What do we now make of these statements if, and since, art
can never be sheer form and mastery of craft, and politics
can never be possibly “kept at bay”, the artist’s person
cannot be divorced from its art, form cannot be wrestled
away from ideology, artistic practice from moral integrity,
and ethics and aesthetics should remain inextricable from
each other? And lastly, where does one fit Gawad
Manlilikha ng Bayan awardee Magdalena Gamayo in all
this, and how does her example further complicate the said
issues pertaining to collaboration? In anticipation of the late
dictator’s imminent burial, 93-year old Gamayo, together
with other inabel weavers in Pinili, Ilocos Norte, has
lovingly and painstakingly “prepared with pride a special
death shroud” for Ferdinand Marcos as her utmost gift and
pabaon,72and what appears to be the culmination of her
lifework.
That we can speak in these dark times means that we have
been spared, we remain unscathed and intact, that our
capacity to be lucid and articulate entails a privileged
position marked by our distance from the trauma, and that
the least we can do is overcome ignorance and respond. In
the absence of monuments and testaments to the atrocities
in the wake of the Marcos rule and the persistence of the
same crimes to this day, it is our task as writers, artists,
cultural workers, and educators to propose and negotiate
6
critical and ethical means of reading and writing the past,
generate memorials and elegies that facilitate in historical
inquiry and upkeep of social justice, and engage in
technologies for conjuring and reinscribing what have been
effaced or written out to accord the disappeared their
rightful place in history.
1. “Homage to Imelda’s shoes”, BBC News, Feb. 16, 2001,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1173911.stm.
2. Maila Ager, “Bongbong ‘apologizes’ to victims of
Marcos regime”, Inquirer.net, Aug. 26, 2015,
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/716351/bongbong-apologizes-
to-victims-of-marcos-regime.
3. Perseus Echeminada, “‘Martial law abuses not affecting
Bongbong’s bid’”, Philippine Star, Mar. 28, 2016,
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/03/28/1566921/ma
rtial-law-abuses-not-affecting-bongbongs-bid.
4. Visitacion R. de la Torre, Cultural Center of the
Philippines: Crystal Years (Manila: Cultural Center of the
Philippines, 1984).
5. Reynaldo C. Ileto, “The ’Unfinished Revolution’ in
Philippine Political Discourse”, Southeast Asian Studies 31,
no. 1 (June 1993), https://kyoto-
seas.org/pdf/31/1/310105.pdf.
6. Ileana Maramag, History of the Cultural Center of the
Philippines (Manila: Cultural Center of the Philippines,
19__).
7. “CCP: dream come true”, Evening Post, Mar. 29, 1975.
8. Imelda Romualdez Marcos, “Sanctuary of the Filipino
Soul” (1969), speech delivered at the formal dedication of
the CCP, in History of the Cultural Center.
9. Cynthia D. Balana and Philip C. Tubeza, “CCP shuts
down controversial exhibit on Imelda Marcos’s
prodding”, Inquirer.net, Aug. 9, 2011,
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/38597/ccp-shuts-down-
controversial-exhibit-on-imelda-marcos%E2%80%99s-
prodding.
10. “Sanctuary of the Filipino Soul”.
11. Crystal Years.
12. History of the Cultural Center.
13. “First Lady, Patroness of the Arts”, Philippine Daily
Express, July 2, 1980.
14. Crystal Years.
15. Niña Calleja, “‘NEVER AGAIN’: Marcos victim
recounts torture”, Inquirer.net, Feb. 25, 2016,
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/768302/never-again.
16. History of the Cultural Center.
17. Crystal Years.
18. Gerard Lico, Edifice Complex: Power, Myth, and
Marcos State Architecture (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila
University Press, 2003).
19. Crystal Years.
20. Exequiel S. Molina, “1081 and the Arts”, Focus
Philippines, Nov. 17, 1973.
7
21. Cultural Center of the Philippines (Manila: Cultural
Center of the Philippines, 1969).
22. Lucresia R. Kasilag, “Message from the President”,
in Cultural Center of the Philippines (Manila: Cultural
Center of the Philippines, 197_).
23. History of the Cultural Center.
24. Crystal Years.
25. “CCP: dream come true”, Evening Post, Mar. 29, 1975.
26. Policarpo P. Canales, Jr., “Rehabilitation of Three (3)
Units Chandeliers at CCP Main Theater Lobby”, Cultural
Center of the Philippines Notice of Bids (Manila, 2016),
http://culturalcenter.gov.ph/notice-of-bids/6556/.
27. Crystal Years.
28. Ibid.
29. Rodrigo L. Villa, Jr., “Cultural Center Unmatched for
Space, Mass”, Manila Chronicle, Sept. 6, 1969.
30. Crystal Years.
31. Cultural Center of the Philippines (Manila: Cultural
Center of the Philippines, 197_).
32. Crystal Years.
33. “First Lady, Patroness of the Arts”, Philippine Daily
Express, July 2, 1980.
34. Imelda Romualdez Marcos, speech delivered at the
inauguration of the NAC, in National Arts Center (Manila:
Cultural Center of the Philippines, 197_).
35. “Profile”, Philippine High School for the Arts,
http://www.phsa.edu.ph/about/profile.html.
36. Sentrong Pangkultural ng Pilipinas (Manila: CCP
Cultural Center of the Philippines).
37. Crystal Years.
38. Sentrong Pangkultural.
39. Cultural Center of the Philippines (Manila: Cultural
Center of the Philippines, 1976).
40. Gibbs Cadiz, “Seven arts, one Imelda, 12 people who
remembered”, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Sept. 13,2009,
http://gibbscadiz.blogspot.com/2009/09/seven-arts-one-
imelda-12-people-who.html.
41. Ibarra C. Mateo, “The Madness of ‘Seven Arts, One
Imelda’”, GMA News Online, Sept. 20, 2009,
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/172729/lifestyle/a
rtandculture/the-madness-of-seven-arts-one-imelda.
42. “Madness of ‘Seven Arts’”.
43. Ibid.
44. “‘Seven Arts, One Imelda’ at CCP”, Philippine Star,
Sept. 7, 2009, http://www.philstar.com:8080/arts-and-
culture/502609/seven-arts-one-imelda-ccp.
45. Julie Zeveloff, “Shoe Queen Imelda Marcos Shuts
Down An Art Show Featuring Jesus Covered In
Dildos”, Business Insider, Aug. 9, 2011,
http://www.businessinsider.com/imelda-marcos-shuts-
mideo-cruz-exhibit-2011-8.
46. “CCP shuts down”.
8
47. Charlson Ong, “Imelda Redux”, News Break Archives, 56. Cultural Center.
Aug. 9, 2011, http://archives.newsbreak-
knowledge.ph/2011/08/09/imelda-redux/. 57. Imelda Romualdez Marcos, “Message” (1969), in ibid.

48. Alexander Martin Remollino, “Ang ‘Edukasyong May 58. Ibid.

Diwang Filipino’ ayon kay Virgilio S.

59. Marra P.L. Lanot, “A Center for Whom?”, Manila
Almario”, Tinig.com, May 3, 2009,
Chronicle, Nov. 16, 1969.
http://www.tinig.com/ang-%E2%80%98edukasyong-may-
diwang-filipino%E2%80%99-ayon-kay-virgilio-s-almario/.
60. Abet Umil, “Dalamhati at pagbubunyi”, GMA News
Online, July 15, 2008,
49. “12 people who remembered”.
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/106928/opinion/d

50. Danton Remoto, “Remote Control”, ABS-CBN News, alamhati-at-pagbubunyi.

Oct. 2, 2008, https://news.abs-cbn.com/views-and-

61. Alexander Martin Remollino, “Kahapon at Ngayon”,
analysis/10/02/08/muse-history-danton-remoto.
Essays, emanila.com Literary Section, Oct. 17, 2006,

51. Pablo A. Tariman, “From Francisco Tatad to Carmen http://emanila.com/literary/essays.php?subaction=showfull

Guerrero Nakpil–how I ended up rubbing elbows with &id=1161101506&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2&.

architects and victims of martial law”, Inquirer.net, Sept.

62. Devi de Veyra, “Leandro Locsin’s Brutal
21, 2014, http://lifestyle.inquirer.net/172427/from-
Opera”, Rogue Media Inc., Nov. 16, 2015,
francisco-tatad-to-carmen-guerrero-nakpil-how-i-ended-up-
http://rogue.ph/leandro-locsins-brutal-opera/.
rubbing-elbows-with-architects-and-victims-of-martial-
law/#ixzz4PiifzgeG.
63. Gilda Cordero-Fernando, “The guardians of
splendor”, Inquirer.net, Jan. 13, 2013,
52. Mizpah Grace Castro, “Art installations by int’l artist
http://lifestyle.inquirer.net/85155/the-guardians-of-
Leeroy New to be refurbished for ‘Himala sa Buhangin!’
splendor/.
2016”, Ilocos Norte official website, May 5, 2016,
http://inorte.org/news/art-installations-by-int-l-artist-leeroy-
64. Dolly Anne Carvajal, “Memories of martial
new-to-be-refurbished-for-himala-sa-buhangin-2016.
rule”, Inquirer.net, Sept. 24, 2014,
http://entertainment.inquirer.net/153244/memories-of-
53. Marinel R. Cruz, “‘Promdi’ and proud of it Imee
martial-rule#ixzz4PinqTjAh.
Marcos keeps the flame of the arts in Ilocos Norte alive to
involve the youth”, Inquirer.net, June 19, 2012,
65. “Seven Arts, One Imelda” program brochure, CCP 40th
http://entertainment.inquirer.net/45693/%E2%80%98prom
Anniversary Festival (Manila: Cultural Center of the
di%E2%80%99-and-proud-of-it.
Philippines, 2009).

54. National Arts Center.

66. Lester G. Babiera, “Lisa Macuja calls Ballet Manila’s
‘Rebel’ her ‘comeback’”, Inquirer.net, Feb. 22, 2016,
55. Crystal Years.

9
http://lifestyle.inquirer.net/223079/lisa-macuja-calls-ballet-
manilas-rebel-her-comeback/.

67. “Ballet Manila relives the EDSA spirit in ‘Rebel’ this

weekend at Aliw Theater”, Philippine Star, Feb. 27, 2016,
http://www.philstar.com/modern-
living/2016/02/27/1557049/ballet-manila-relives-edsa-
spirit-rebel-weekend-aliw-theater.

68. “12 people who remembered”.

69. “Madness of ‘Seven Arts’”.

70. Aedrianne Acar, “READ: Lea Salonga’s opinion about

the Marcoses create buzz online”, GMA News Online, May
17, 2016,
http://www.gmanetwork.com/entertainment/gma/articles/20
16-05-17/23075/READ-Lea-Salongas-opinion-about-the-
Marcoses-create-buzz-online.

71. Lea Salonga, Twitter post, May 16, 2016,

https://twitter.com/msleasalonga/status/7318869251040911
36.

72. Freddie G. Lazaro, “Inabel weavers prepare special

death shroud for FM”, Manila Bulletin, Aug. 17, 2016,
http://mb.com.ph/?p=467942.

10