In a fiery exchange that has reignited debates over political symbolism in the Philippines, the August Twenty-One Movement (Atom) has sharply criticized Senator Alan Peter Cayetano for invoking the iconic “Laban” sign—a gesture forever tied to the late Senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr.’s defiance against the Marcos dictatorship. Atom, a group formed to commemorate Ninoy Aquino’s assassination on August 21, 1983, called Cayetano “Lapastangan” (disrespectful) for comparing his Senate struggles to Aquino’s fight for democracy.
The controversy began when Cayetano, during a recent Senate session, raised his hand in the “L” sign—the same gesture Ninoy Aquino famously flashed before his return to the Philippines in 1983, knowing it could cost him his life. Cayetano’s move was meant to symbolize his own political battles, but Atom saw it as a gross trivialization of a sacred symbol of resistance.
“The delusions of Senator Alan Peter Cayetano know no bounds, as he compared their so-called ‘struggle’ in the Senate to that of the fight of Senator Ninoy Aquino against the Marcos Sr. dictatorship,” Atom said in a statement posted on its Facebook page. The group emphasized that the “Laban” sign is not a generic gesture for any political fight but a specific emblem of the anti-authoritarian movement that toppled a dictatorship.
This incident comes amid a broader political climate where historical symbols are increasingly being co-opted by various factions. For many Filipinos, especially those who lived through Martial Law, the “Laban” sign is deeply personal. It represents the courage of ordinary citizens who risked everything for freedom. Atom’s rebuke highlights a growing sensitivity around the use of such symbols, particularly by politicians who may not have been directly part of that struggle.
Senator Cayetano, a seasoned politician and former running mate of President Rodrigo Duterte in 2016, has often positioned himself as a champion of the people. However, his invocation of Ninoy Aquino’s legacy has drawn criticism from those who argue that his political actions do not align with the anti-dictatorship stance that the “Laban” sign represents. Atom’s statement underscores a sentiment that Cayetano’s comparison is not only historically inaccurate but also disrespectful to the memory of those who fought and died for democracy.
The reaction from the public has been mixed. Supporters of Cayetano argue that he has every right to use the symbol as a call to action, while detractors side with Atom, insisting that the gesture should remain exclusive to the anti-Marcos movement. Social media has been ablaze with debates, with many users sharing historical photos of Ninoy Aquino making the “L” sign, contrasting them with Cayetano’s recent gesture.
This is not the first time a politician has been called out for appropriating historical symbols. In recent years, various figures have been criticized for using the Philippine flag, the Katipunan, or other nationalist icons for personal or partisan gain. The controversy surrounding Cayetano serves as a reminder that symbols carry weight and that their misuse can provoke strong reactions.
BalitaBNB Editorial Analysis
This incident reflects a deeper struggle over historical memory in the Philippines. As the nation continues to grapple with its authoritarian past, symbols like the “Laban” sign become battlegrounds for competing narratives. Cayetano’s attempt to link his Senate work to Ninoy Aquino’s sacrifice risks diluting the unique horror of Martial Law and the extraordinary courage required to oppose it. Atom’s response is not just about defending a gesture; it’s about preserving the integrity of a historical moment that should not be reduced to a political prop. Moving forward, politicians must tread carefully when invoking the past, lest they be seen as exploiting history for present gain.
According to reports sourced from BalitaBNB Staff.