Make no mistake that I've become a staunch anti-Marcos critic. It's really that hard to write something about the Marcoses without drawing flak, especially with Bobong Marcos supposedly winning the race against outgoing Vice President Leni Loud Robredo. I decided to watch The Kingmaker which featured some facts about the Marcoses. However, the presence of the late Noynoy Aquino, Etta Rosales, Leni Loud, and Andres Bautista is making me think, "Is this a reliable anti-Marcos narrative or is this just a Liberal Party propaganda to get them back into power after it died before Noynoy did?" It was written and directed by Lauren Greenfield. This has me wondering is she just another American pretending to be an "expert of the world" or is she, like Stephen Sackur, dug up into the research?
Do the Pinklawans want to make themselves look like the "paragon of virtue"? Right now, I feel Maria Ressa's credibility sank when she got the Nobel Peace Prize because the prize itself is losing prestige. BBC correspondent (and griller) Stephen Sackur already gave her the Sackur Punch Award some time ago during that hilariously informative interview. The way Sackur grilled Ressa was all too funny and factual at the same time. Sackur had mercilessly grilled Antonio Trillanes IV and Maria Lourdes Sereno. Ressa was just as unprepared when she appeared on BBC HARDtalk. Let's face it Ressa is still FREE AS A BIRD and was able to travel without arrest as of recent. Yet, it seems Ressa is either paranoid or a liar with good acting skills.
Take note that this article isn't meant to shoot down or defend the Marcoses. I still believe there's much to answer for. However, I think that the Marcos Narrative is often mired with fake news as well in the form of one-sided narratives. I think the whole The Kingmaker may nothing be more than agenda - to tell the truth with a different purpose. I'm not saying that The Kingmaker document is entirely wrong. However, with Rosales or Bautista, I'm already thinking that this is a great amount of truth mired with propaganda instead. Right now, I'm going to take the opportunity to shoot down some fake news that I keep hearing and want to refute with some facts.
The fake news that the Marcos Years were a real parliamentary is still an ongoing fake news
It gets irritating every time when you talk about the parliamentary - they keep raising the Marcoses. Again, I'm not dismissing Raissa Robles' TRUTH about the Marcoses or the book The Conjugal Dictatorship. Though, the whole idea that the Marcos Years was under a parliamentary form of government is fake news!
One of the greatest proofs that it wasn't a real parliament was none other than one of their heroes - Ninoy who lambasted the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. in that rather entertaining and informative speech in Boston:
Dear friends, last January 17, Mr. Marcos told the world martial law was lifted in the Philippines. It is very good news. I mean if you’re all reading the headlines, you would say this is the greatest thing that happened after 8 years, martial law is lifted. Freedom should be returned by now, and the Filipino people should be out in the street like V – J Day, like V – E Day. They should be dancing in the street; they’d be shouting “Hallelujah!” And the bells should be ringing the Te Deum. But the announcement of Mr. Marcos was met with stony silence. Why? Because it was only a cruel deception. Because three days before martial law was lifted allegedly in the Philippines, Mr. Marcos signed into a law Presidential Decree No. 1737. I did not know about this law until Senator Tañada came to me in Boston, and gave me this law. And when I saw the number, I was stunned and I had cold chills in my back. It was Presidential Decree No. 1737, and this is exactly the address of my office at Harvard, 1737 Cambridge Street. Ako po’y ninerbyos. Hayop kako, sa dami ng numerong kumbinasyon, ito pa ang tinamaan ng sweepstakes. Hindi ko man nalaman kung sinadya ito sa Maynila ngunit ito po’y hindi nagpatulog sa akin ng isang linggo sapagkat this presidential decree says, An Act Providing For The Preservation Of Public Order And The Protection Of Individual Rights And Liberties During Periods Of Emergency And Exercise Of Extraordinary Executive Powers, signed by Marcos a few days by martial law. Now let me read to you section 2, and I hope Danny Lamilla hears this very well. Section 2 says and I quote, “Whenever in the judgment of the President/Prime Minister,” ‘yan po ay si Marcos ‘yan, President at Prime Minister, “there exist a grave emergency or a threat or imminence thereof, he,” Mr. Marcos, “may issue such orders as he may deem necessary to meet the emergency including but not limited to preventive detention.” Ano pong ibig sabihin nitong preventive detention? The meaning of preventive detention is Mr. Marcos thinks that next month, you will commit a crime, he can now order you arrested so you will not be able to commit your crime. Anong klaseng batas iyan? Iniisip mo pa lang eh nabilanggo ka na eh. Aba’y hayop kako itong batas na ito. Eh kung totoo ito, eh lahat ng lalaking diborsyado na nag-iisip pa lang magliligaw, patay na sa asawa. Imagine my friends, in the mind of Mr. Marcos. He suspects next week you may commit a crime, the police can arrest you in the Philippines today. Let me proceed, if in the mind of Mr. Marcos, you pose a great threat to national security, he may restrain or restrict movement and other activities persons or entities with a view to preventing them from acting in a manner prejudicial to the national interest or security or maintenance of public order. He may direct the closure of any publication or other media of mass communication he may believe to be subversive, banning or regulating the holding of entertainment or exhibitions detrimental to the national interest, control admission to educational institutions whose operations are found prejudicial to the national security. If there are many students who want to demonstrate, and that in his mind, is prejudicial to national security, he may close the school or prevent those students from enrolling in those schools. And my friends, any violation of this law entails an imprisonment for not less than thirty days and not exceeding one year. So we have Mr. Marcos lifting martial law on one hand, and putting another law on the other, which is even worse that the former martial law.
This, therefore summarizes me to our point, ano baga ang ating away? What is the cause for all of this struggle? There is, so simply. I believe that no man, how brilliant this man, can dictate the welfare or the direction of 48 million Filipinos. What happened to us? I think we should review what happened to us. In 1972, Mr. Marcos declared martial law. Why did he declare martial law? If you read his announcement, he said there was anarchy in the street, there was a left and right rebellion, there was this and there was that, but there is only one reason which he never said. He wanted to prolong his stay in Malacañang sapagkat napakasarap. You very well know that we have a law in the Philippines that says, no president may stay in the presidency for more than eight consecutive years. That is a law. That is a law even ahead of the United States law. No president may stay for more than eight years. In 1972, Mr. Marcos was already seven years in office, he had one year to go. He was toying with the idea of fielding Imelda, but Imelda showed poor in the polls. So what did Mr. Marcos do? Change the constitution, sabi niya. So he called a constitutional convention in 1970. We were a few, a handful in the Senate who denounced this, and I told the Senate, “We should not allow an open constitutional convention because it’s very dangerous. Even America hasn’t called a constitutional convention since 1776. They have amended their constitution piecemeal, but they never opened it. But we lost, and a constitutional convention was called. People were elected, and very quietly Mr. Marcos started maneuvering to change our form of government from an American-type presidential system to a British-type parliamentary so that, he can be elected as a deputy from Ilocos, become prime minister, and then stay on forever. That was the plan. However on January 2, 1972, most of you are already here in America, some of you maybe were too young to remember, but on January 1972, almost nine years ago today, an old man, a retired ambassador from Leyte, his name is Eduardo Quintero, who is now in San Francisco, stood up on the floor of the constitutional convention and shocked the entire Filipino people with the expose that Malacañang has been giving envelopes to the members of the constitutional convention, buying their votes so that they will vote for a parliamentary form of government to allow Mr. Marcos to extend his term beyond eight years. The nation was shocked. Immediately, the NBI swooped down into the house of Quintero and then they open up an aparador, walang susi, and they said 500 thousand pesos in cash were found in the aparador of Quintero. The implication was, the opposition gave him 500 thousand to make his expose. But if there were 500 thousand, bakit walang susi iyon? Hindi naman singkwenta pesos lang iyon. To cut a long story short, a delegate from Cebu, his name is Napoleon Rama, stood up on the convention floor and said, huwag na tayo magtalo, let us not discuss who received or who did not receive, I am now filing a resolution that will provide, if we approve this constitutional convention, this constitutional amendment, this new constitution, no incumbent president or his spouse may seek office. Out sa kulambo si Mr. Marcos. Eh sa takot ng mga delegado, because they will be accused if they voted no that they received the envelope, everybody voted yes. Nalagot si Mr. Marcos. This Rama resolution was overwhelmingly passed. Mr. Marcos and Imelda Marcos are out of the running. So what will Mr. Marcos do? Hindi na pwede sa 1935 constitution, hindi na pupwede dito sa bagong constitution. The only reason left or the only excuse and the only option left for Mr. Marcos is to declare martial law. And so what happened? The students demonstrated in the streets. Sabi ng agent ni Marcos, “sige pa, sige pa, dagdagan pa niyo.” More demonstrations came, sige pa. Finally, bombings started in Manila, and did you know my friends, the Manila police captured one of the bombers, and one of these bombers in Manila was identified as a sergeant of the firearms and explosives section of the Philippine Constabulary. The following day, this man was snatched from the Manila police and we never heard from him again. And then, on September 23, midnight, Mr. Marcos went on television and said, “I, Ferdinand Marcos, acting as commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, by virtue of the provision of the constitution which states, in case of invasion, insurrection, rebellion, or imminent danger thereof, I may declare martial law or suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Therefore, I now declare martial law, and shall administer this country alone.” On that day, democracy died. And so Mr. Marcos arrested together with us in the Senate, most of the leaders in the constitutional convention, all of those opposing him, went to jail with us. And then, when they went to jail with us, all the other members of the convention were herded, and they were given a constitution made by Mr. Marcos, and they were told to sign, and everybody signed, except those in jail with us. And once this new constitution was signed by them, they released the delegates. And then on January 17, 1973, Mr. Marcos went on television and said, “Ladies and gentlemen, my countrymen, there is now a new constitution.” But how can we have a new constitution? There was no plebiscite. You know that the law says, “Before you can have a new constitution, you must present it to the Filipino people, and the Filipino people must in a secret ballot, write yes or no. What happened? Tinawag ni Mr. Marcos ang mga citizen’s assembly. Tinawag niya ang mga barrio councils. And then in the middle of this meeting, tinanong “Kayo ba’y gutom na? Yes. Taas ang kamay. Taas” Lahat ng tumaas, approved ang konstitusyon. My friends, this is not fiction, because in the now-famous Javellana case, Javellana v. Executive Secretary, a gentleman by the name of Mr. Javellana, went to the Supreme Court and questioned the illegality of this constitution. And what did the Supreme Court say? Out of 10 justices, 6 out of 10 said this constitution was not validly ratified. According to the 1935 constitution and according even to the new constitution, it was not validly ratified. But then, the Supreme Court added, but there is nothing to stop it. So, we had a constitution.
And so my friends, we started with an American-type constitution, we move to a British-type constitution. We had a parliamentary form of government without a parliament. Until 1978, we did not have a parliament. And yet, we were supposed to be a parliamentary from of government. And Mr. Marcos said, “I declared martial law to save democracy.” But by saving democracy, he killed it.
And so my friends, it was not until 1978 that the Batasan was convened. Now, what do we hear? Mr. Marcos once again, is up again to his new tricks. He said, “I lifted martial law but I think we should now elect a president by direct vote.” But there is not such thing. Under the new constitution now, the president is purely ceremonial. Tagabukas lang ng pinto, tagatanggap lamang ng credential ng ambassador. Purely ceremonial elected by parliament, he is not elected by the people. The power of the government under a parliamentary system lies within the Prime Minister. And the Prime Minister must be elected by parliament, and this prime minister may be removed from office, if there is a vote of no confidence. That is the British type. So what did Mr. Marcos do in 1976? He amended the constitution and said, “I, Ferdinand Marcos, as Prime Minister/President, may dissolve parliament, but parliament cannot dissolve me.” And then he said, “Parliament may legislate, but if I think they’re not doing their job, I will also legislate.” So now we have two parliaments, Mr. Marcos and parliament. And it’s costing us 300 million to have that tuta parliament, what’s the use? If Mr. Marcos is doing all the legislation, why keep these 200 guys? So what do they do? They change the name of the street of Divisoria. They change the name of a school. But when it comes to public decrees, like Public Order Code 1737, only Mr. Marcos signs it. And so we have a situation, where we have a man who can dissolve parliament, but parliament cannot dissolve him. And under the Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 constitution, Mr. Marcos is a president-for-life. And now, all of a sudden, two weeks ago, sabi niya, “I have lifted martial law but I now want to go to the Filipino people, and I want their mandate of 8 years. I will defend martial law. Anybody who oppose it can oppose me. I want to go to the people and get their mandate.” But how can you get the mandate? There’s no such thing in the constitution. Sagot ni Marcos, “Let us amend it.” So now, we are going to amend again the constitution. And so we ask Mr. Marcos, but what form of government will we have? “Ahh,” sabi niya, “I want a president with powers.” What happened to the parliamentary British? Forget it. Let us now go to France. Let us have a French model. And so my friends, it is like the odyssey of Jules Verne “80 Days Around the World”. We started with America. We went to England. Now we are going to France. Under the new proposal of Mr. Marcos, we will now have a president and a prime minister. But the prime minister will be appointed by the president. And this president now will be all powerful. It will not be the American type; it will be the French type. And I suppose two years from now, when he gets tired of that, he will go to the Russian type, whatever that is.
A proper analysis of this part of the speech will tell you that it wasn't a real parliament. Just watching the Boston speech of Ninoy made me laugh while learning at the same time. What would be more entertaining is how Ninoy reveals the reveal problems of the Marcos "Parliament" - it was a SHAM. One can look at how a legitimate parliament works today. People back then probably had no idea how a real parliament works so Ninoy did the right thing - EDUCATE THEM about it. Points in the speech in bold really show why it wasn't even a real parliament at all.
- The fact that the whole Batasang Pambansa or National Assembly was in an illegal move. Marcos' use of bribery made the 1973 Constitution ILLEGAL to begin with. Marcos made several SELF-SERVING amendments. I even feel like comparing Marcos to Emperor Palpatine in Star Wars in that regard.
- Marcos' "parliament" was full of inconsistencies such as how can a president be a prime minister? Later on, Cesar Virata was PICKED BY MARCOS HIMSELF. Ninoy pointed out that the prime minister is elected by the Parliament. A real parliament is based on party-based elections to which the majority party PICKS ITS PRIME MININISTER. It's like Uniteam chooses Bobong as prime minister and Liberal Party chooses Leni Loud as its prime minister. Besides, you can't have a parliamentary where the prime minister can dissolve it but can't be dissolved by parliament. Ninoy mentioned the crucial element of a vote of no confidence.
As soon as all our aides left, I went straight to the point, that no bank was going to lend him (Marcos, emphasis mine) any money. They wanted to know who was going to succeed him if anything were to happen to him; all the bankers could see that he no longer looked healthy. Singapore banks had lent US$ 8 billion of the US$ 25 billion owing. The hard fact was that they were not likely to get repayment for some 20 years. He countered it that it would be only eight years. I said the bankers wanted to see a strong leader in the Philippines who could restore stability, and the Americans hoped that the election in May would throw up someone who could be such a leader. I asked whom he would nominate for the election. He said Prime Minister Cesar Virata. I was blunt. Virata was a NON-STARTER, A FIRST CLASS ADMINISTRATOR, BUT NO POLITICAL LEADER, further, his most politically astute colleague, defense minister Juan Enrile, was out of favor. Marcos was silent, when he admitted that succession was the nub of the problem. If he could find such a successor, there would be a solution. As I left, he said, "You are a true friend." I did not understand him. It was a strange meeting.
With medical care, Marcos dragged on. Cesar Virata met me in Singapore in January the following year. He was completely guileless, a political innocent. He said that Mrs. Imelda Marcos was likely to be nominated as the presidential candidate. I asked how that would be when there were other weighty candidates, including Juan Enrile and Blas Ople, the labor minister. Virata replied it had to be with "flow of money"; she would have more money than other candidates to pay for the votes needed for nomination by the party and win the election. He added that if she were the candidate, the opposition would put up Mrs. Cory Aquino and work up the people's feelings. He said that the economy was going down with no political stability.
Virata was described to be a NO POLITICAL LEADER. In short, Lee Kuan Yew himself, being a TRUE PRIME MINISTER, didn't view the Marcos Parliament as a real parliament. Virata was selected by Marcos. The prime minister being picked by the president is NOT a parliament. South Korea has a prime minister but one that's HANDPICKED BY THE PRESIDENT. South Korea is still a presidential system which is why some people still say, "We just need to change our economic laws. No need to go parliamentary." This makes me wonder why in the world is Lee Kuan Yew quoted every now and then against the Marcoses BUT they fail to quote things about Virata? Virata was obviously not a legitimate prime minister nor was the Marcos Years a legitimate parliamentary. Ninoy was right to call it a mockery.
A partial narrative of the Pinklawans and Reds about why the Marcos Years weren't the golden years
I'm not saying that Winnie Collas-Monsod is wrong to say that the Marcos Years weren't the golden years. There are times Winnie is helpful such as in the documentary Give Up Tomorrow in which she provided some badly needed comments about Paco Larranaga's bad situation. However, what I'm afraid of is the one-sided narrative (AGAIN) regarding why the Marcos Years weren't the golden years of the Philippines. I've heard stories of how the Marcos Years were a protectionist regime leading to high rates of inflation. The Marcos cronies were getting rich at the expense of others. I guess it's only normal that Marcos met with Mao Zedong. Though in the 1970s, Mao's health was failing presumably due to his bad habits such as smoking. Later, Deng Xiaoping would take over the spot as China's leader in his old age. Though, I'm afraid that the narratives of Filipino economists may be one-sided when it comes to the dark era of the Philippines called the Marcos Years.
I'm afraid Pinklawan "fact-checkers" are wrong in saying that the Cory Constitution didn't protect the oligarchs. In fact, it still does when it limited ownership to certain industries to just up to 40%. It protects the oligarchs against competition because who in the right mind would rent a space if they can only have 40% ownership in that branch? That kind of arrangement has limited investors, therefore, protecting the oligarchs from any competition in some way. Again, this isn't to shoot down Pinklawan fact-checkers for anything right they said about Marcos. This is rather to try and call their attention to why they're wrong about that. I still think their narrative is rather one-sided. I'm not saying that anything they said truly about the Marcoses is false because they said it. What I'm going against is if they fail to mention something I feel needs to be mentioned. Again, I'm not a fact-checker so I could be wrong in some areas too.
There's still the failure to truly mention ECONOMIC PROTECTIONISM. It's very easy to say investors wouldn't invest because the Marcos Sr. was corrupt. However, the bigger picture is that it's more than just that Marcos Sr. made laws that restricted competition and protected his fellow oligarchs. Even worse, Marcos seized control of the businesses when he felt like it. TV stations he didn't like were shut down and not just ABiaS-CBN. It's far different from ABiaS-CBN losing its franchise but still OPERATIVE. If ABiaS-CBN were truly shut down then why can I still see shows by ABiaS-CBN on its Youtube channel or on Netflix such as 2 Good to Be True which I think got high ratings from troll farms? I can still view television, there's no military surrounding like during the Marcos Years and the like. I could still exercise my freedom of speech. Not even critics like Agot Isidro, Frank Baraan IV, Jover Laurio, Gerry Cacanindin, Cythia Patay, Leah Navarro, Yoly Villanueva-Ong, Ressa, etc. are BEHIND BARS FOR A LONG TIME. Ressa got arrested but was ABLE TO POST BAIL. I'm amazed at why the Nobel Foundation still gave her the prize anyway even if she was ABLE TO POST BAIL and neither did the outgoing President Rodrigo R. Duterte stop her. Rappler is still operative. Sackur even mentioned that the Rappler website is still online during the BBC HARDtalk interview. For one, Liela Dilemma's arrest might have a bigger reason. I still agree with The Manila Times editor Rigoberto Tiglao that Dilemma's not so innocent either in regards to the Bilibid Hilton incident.
It's not enough to mention the truths about sudden arrests, political prisoners, illegal detention, tortures, and the Marcos Wealth. It's just like it's NEVER ENOUGH to cite Lee Kuan Yew's statement about the Marcoses while ignoring the rest of his book. Besides, I'm still amazed that Lee Hsien Loong congratulated Bobong and gave condolences to Noynoy's family. The Pinklawans should still mention the economic restrictions or protectionism during the Marcos Years. That's why I say that it's stupid to hate the Marcos Years but still love economic protectionism. It's pretty much the Communist insurgents during Marcos Sr.'s time. The CPP-NPA and its legal fronts still demand protectionism making them no different than Marcos Sr. in that regard. Organizations like Lazy Filipino Students, Bayad Muna, Kayabangan Partylist, Failippine Anti-Foreign Investment League, Anak ng Bayad, Gagabriela, Migraine International, Birdbrain Foundation, etc. really hate Marcos S.r but hate free trade. A lack of free trade and rampant economic protectionism contributed to the Marcos Sr. Yeras as the worst years of the Philippines.
A bit of a challenge if ever more fake news spreads about the Marcos Regime
I wouldn't be surprised if some idiots would finally say, "Marcos Years were not the golden years because of the parliamentary system and foreign investment." Well, I think a HUGE CHALLENGE is that they should prove their claims. It reminded me of how an idiotic working student I quarreled said that Singapore got rich because of the Marcos Wealth. However, that can be easily disproven that Marcos Sr. tried to get a loan from Lee Kuan Yew but was denied. Lee Kuan Yew knew the character of that guy. Lee Kuan Yew knew he WOULDN'T see that money back.
The big challenge is that they can't get their sources from their own fellow allies or people who think like them. The organizations that have been giving Dilemma and Ressa their awards can't be their sources. The networks like Rappler or pages like Birdbrain Foundation can't be used. They must use sources also outside of their circle to defend that the Marcos Years were not only a parliamentary government but also were foreign investment friendly, Then again, I guess they'll just continue to call names like GAGO, BOBO, TANGA, MORON, etc. because they've lost the argument if they can't find the sources to defend their outrageous claims.
Comments
Post a Comment