Skip to main content

Today in Philippine History: Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr.'s OWN WORDS Showed the Philippines WASN'T a Real Parliamentary

I remembered writing some time ago about why the Marcos Sr. Regime couldn't be a parliamentary government. Yet, there are some people (and I assume many of these are boomers who were in their 20s during the martial law era, so they're old men by now like a certain irrelevant dancer) that the Marcos Sr. Years were a parliamentary system. It would be interesting to raise up again the very speech of the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. himself. January 17, 1984, was what some call the fake uplifting of martial law. It was also on that day Marcos Sr. himself revealed why the Marcos Sr. Years was still presidential even with his parliament taken from The Official Gazette: 

The adoption of certain aspects of a parliamentary system in the amended Constitution does not alter its essentially presidential character. Article VII on the Presidency starts with this provision: ‘the President shall be the Head of State and Chief Executive of the Republic of the Philippines.’ Its last section is an even more emphatic affirmation that it is a presidential system that obtains in our government. Thus: all powers vested in the President who, by virtue of his election by the entire electorate, has an indisputable claim to speak for the country as a whole. Moreover, it is he who is explicitly granted the greater power of control of such ministries. He continues to be the executive, the amplitude and scope of the functions entrusted to him in the formulation of policy and its execution leading to the apt observation by LASI that there is not one aspect of which that does not affect the lives of all.

This really proved what the late Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. aka Ninoy Aquino said was true. In 1981, while in exile, Aquino Jr. himself made a speech in Los Angeles. I couldn't help but laugh at the facts Aquino Jr. blurted out. It was absolutely right to compare the whole motion to Jules Vernes' 80 Days Around the World. We went from one type of government to another. Aquino Jr.'s own words should ring true, "We had a parliamentary without a parliament." How can that be a parliamentary government if there is no parliament? The very words of Marcos Sr. proved what Aquino Jr. said way back in 1981 to be real--the Philippines wasn't a parliament.

So, I'd like to ask why do some people still insist that the parliamentary system will never work because it was "tried" during the Marcos Sr. years? The way Aquino Jr. described it couldn't be how a real parliamentary even works. Any observation of a real parliament vs. the Marcos "parliament" would see the differences:

  1. A real parliamentary makes the Head of State or president as a purely ceremonial figure. In Singapore, President Halimah Yacob herself is a ceremonial figure and the people's representative. 
  2. Another stark contrast is how we had a prime minister. It's crazy how Marcos Sr. was both president and prime minister then he picks the prime minister while he remains all-powerful. Meanwhile, Singapore never had a president who isn't purely ceremonial. Cesar Virata (who's now in his 90s) was never a prime minister in the profession but merely an assistant to Marcos Sr. Later, Virata was considered to become the next president. 
  3. The very idea that the prime minister can dissolve the parliament but the parliament can't dissolve him is stupid. A real parliamentary system would have the parliament with the power to dissolve any incompetent prime minister. As Aquino Jr. said, removal by a vote of no confidence. 
  4. Also, Aquino Jr. practically led the opposition during the Marcos Sr. Years. Why wasn't there any weekly debate between Marcos Sr. (or Virata) with Aquino Jr. himself? A real parliament would demand a debate between both sides.
Marcos Sr. was a president with powers. Every president in Singapore has been, a national symbol of unity. Still, I'm amazed at the "empirical evidence" presented goes like, "Well, if you don't believe me that Marcos Years was parliamentary, there was the prime minister and his name is Cesar Virata." I could go ahead and point out the specifics and they say, "Modified". I say, "The word modified there should tell you it wasn't a real parliament but a bastardized one." Some presidential countries have parliaments like Taiwan and South Korea. Yet, both countries aren't parliamentary as the president still has the powers in contrast to presidents in a real parliamentary system. 

What was Virata's role? Here's how the Official Gazette would describe the role of the prime minister of the Marcos regime:
The Prime Minister may advise the President in writing to dissolve the Batasang Pambansa whenever the need arises for a popular vote of confidence on fundamental issues, but on a matter involving his own personal integrity. Whereupon, the President may dissolve the Batasang Pambansa not earlier than seven nor later than fourteen days from his receipt of the advice, and call for an election on a date set by him which shall not be earlier than forty-five nor later than sixty days from the date of such dissolution.
This reminds me of what Aquino Jr. pointed out in his famous speech that Marcos Sr. may dissolve the parliament (the National Assembly) but the National Assembly may not dissolve him. How can it be a real parliamentary system when there is no parliament? How can it be a real parliamentary system when Marcos Sr. became both president and prime minister. Later, Marcos Sr. still called the shots and Virata himself was rightfully called by the late Lee Kuan Yew as a non-starter in his book From Third World to First. Virata was definitely not a prime minister under a parliamentary system. Some presidential systems do have a prime minister. Having a prime minister doesn't make a government parliamentary. Singapore as a president and a prime minister but it's a parliamentary government. 

I guess it's a threat to their comfort zone. Even worse, some of these boomers start to spew out insults. However, if the person starts to spew out insults in an argument, it's a loss of credibility. Maybe, it's time to learn to laugh instead of getting mad at such people. It's because if they lost credibility, they probably know deep within that their comfort zone is hurt by facts. This is a cognitive dissonance. Even their own evidence is moot because they refuse to understand it. Even Marcos Sr.'s own words defeat the idea that the Marcos Sr. regime was a parliamentary form of government. 

Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

Recalling Amos Yee's Anti-LKY Rants As He Gets His UNSURPRISING Worst of the Worst Status in American Soil

PHOTO: US DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY   Who can remember Amos Yee, that brat who badmouthed the late Lee Kuan Yew? It's been 10 years and several months since LKY died on March 23, 2015. According to The Straits Times article written by Chinese Singaporean writer Daniel Lai, it should be interesting to note that he's the only Singaporean among the arrested. This is what Lai wrote about Amos, which should be  disturbing at several levels. The webpage states that Yee was convicted of enticement of a minor for indecent purposes, sexual exploitation of a minor via photograph and sexual exploitation of a minor via telecommunications . It added that he was arrested in Chicago, Illinois. The 27-year-old child sex offender is in the custody of ICE after he was released on parole on Nov 20. He is last known to have been detained at the Dodge Detention Facility in Wisconsin, a four-hour drive from Illinois, where he was serving a six-year jail term for child pornography and sexual ...
Read more

What? The Aquinos Aren't Part of a Political Dynasty?!

  I was looking at the Mahal Ko Ang Pilipinas  (I Love the Philippines)  Facebook page, which made me laugh. This is what they wrote on their post saying that the Aquino Family isn't a political dynasty: THE AQUINO FAMILY IS NOT A POLITICAL DYNASTY 🇵🇭🎗 Pro-Duterte blogger Tio Moreno says that Bam Aquino is part of a political dynasty because the Aquino family is a political dynasty. But to me, this is not true. Why is it not true that the Aquino family is a political dynasty? 🤔 1. When Ninoy Aquino entered politics, none of his children joined him in his endeavors, and even his wife Cory did not join him in politics. 2. When Ninoy was assassinated in 1983, none of his children succeeded him in politics, not even his wife. But when the opposition and his supporters were looking to be the opposition's candidate for the presidency in the snap election called by Ferdie Marcos for 1986, his housewife Cory Cojuangco-Aquino was approached, encouraged or convinced by people t...
Read more

Shifting to the Parliamentary System is Better than Banning Political Dynasties

Some Filipinos who are totally against charter change (or constitutional reform) always use political dynasties as an excuse. It's not enough that some of them should keep saying that economic charter change will mean "selling the Philippines to foreigners". Please, if they realize it, developed countries allow 100% FDI ownership--allowing foreigners to own 100% of their business . Back on the topic, I would like to discuss political dynasties and why they're not necessarily bad . Some people keep talking about the anti-political dynasty law--that is one per family. It might be because they still think the first Marcos Administration was a parliamentary system. Please, evidence has been gathered that it was never a parliamentary system, to begin with (read here )!  It's easy to talk about political dynasties. Some people were citing President Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos Jr. as a member of a political dynasty. Some people also cite the Dutertes. I even...
Read more

"Animal" (2004): A Controversial Satire Against the Chiong Sister Case Inconsistencies [Warning: Read at Your Own Discretion]

After many years of self-studying the Chiong Sisters Case , I have written several entries on the matter. In fact, I created what I call an "almost-ever-updating" review on Give Up Tomorrow , which was a documentary that challenged my views. I was hesitant to write this review, as it involves another sensitive issue. Some time later, I wrote an entry discussing another aspect of the Chiong Case, specifically  the issue of the late Federico "Toto" Natividad Jr. himself . I always thought it was an unethical issue. However, I was able to watch the film on YouTube (via a poor quality upload), and it doesn't seem that anyone from Natividad's estate is interested in fighting for the film's right to be distributed , not especially that Case Unclosed already came out in 2008, now available on GMA-7's official YouTube channel . Kara David did a meticulously good job featuring the Chiong mother, the Uy mother , and even another member of the " Run for Pa...
Read more

The Happy Aborigines Taiwanese Song

  While looking for an Aborigine song that gave me an earworm--I found this interesting aboriginal song. By looking at this video, I suspect that this song is actually a love song between a man and a woman,. It does sound very Ifugao-like as well. 
Read more