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. 

Popular posts from this blog

Was Cesar Virata's Position as "Prime Minister" the Best Proof That a Parliamentary System Won't Work in the Philippines?

-
Image
Kahimyang Project It's often said by some of the now-old folks that the Philippines was once under a parliamentary system. I had some insults from a close-minded political scientist, some former dancer of an OFW, and others whenever I said, "We must shift to the parliamentary system!" They would say, "Look stupid! We already had a parliamentary system back in the Marcos Years!" I ask for the proof and they keep using Cesar Virata. By using insults, they start to make me doubt their credibility. It's because insults and other forms of Ad Hominem attacks are often the favorite tools of sore losers .  I would like to give this an example. One of their best sources is Cesar Virata. At first, it sounds like, "Okay, we had a parliamentary system." However, we must take note that not every country that has a prime minister, is under a parliamentary system. Some of them are still presidential in nature with parliamentary features . I wonder if Mrs. Raissa
Read more

Shifting to the Parliamentary System is Better than Banning Political Dynasties

-
Image
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

REAL TALK: The Liberal Party of the Philippines Can ONLY Become The Genuine Opposition Under A Genuine Parliamentary Constitution

-
Image
PhilStar It's difficult to talk with people who are still comfortable with what they already know, right? However, the term Dilawan need not be drowned in negativity, but it can be drowned in negativity if the brand gets marred in a popularity-based political system. The Philippines currently uses the presidential system. If we were in a parliamentary system right now--chances are Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos Jr. wouldn't be prime minister due to the difficulty involved as explained in  " How to Become Singapore's Prime Minister, Explained in 7 Steps ". That means all candidates would need to do the following: Study and specialize Wait for the call Tea sessions and panels Take a test Perform well as an MP Win the trust of your peers Prepare for office The Dilawans can call themselves the genuine opposition, march in their proud yellow t-shirts, and more. However, under a presidential system, there's no real opposition, and the platform of any party
Read more

Rare Interview Footage of Ninoy Aquino and Doy Laurel in Japan, Reveal Marcos Years Were NEVER a Legitimate Parliamentary System

-
Image
People who are afraid of shifting to a parliamentary system tend to use the Marcos Years as proof. Fearmongers on Facebook are still up to their old tricks, using the Marcos Years to say, "No to cha-cha!" Never mind that a new constitution had to be written after 1986. If anything, Article XVII was inserted in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines because it was never meant to be set in stone. Also, the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines was illegal .  Here's a video of the late Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr. and the late Salvador "Doy" Laurel. The words of Laurel here show the problem of Marcos' "parliament". Marcos' "parliament" lacked legitimacy . Where was the sporting chance of the Opposition? If it was a real parliamentary system, Ninoy would've been leading the Opposition in weekly debates against the Marcos-led government. That is if the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. was the prime minister. If Cesar Vir
Read more

Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir Mohamad: Just a Matter of Strong Leadership Without a Good System?

-
Image
Jakarta Globe It's very easy to talk about how we need character change only, not a charter change. I say that having a charter change (better termed constitutional reform ) will lead to character change. The old saying of some boomers goes, "It's common sense that nothing is wrong with the system, just the people running the system." However, when I ask something like, "If that's so then why do other nations have better leaders? What about Mahathir Mohamad and Lee Kuan Yew?" Their answer is, "Well, that's proof that the system isn't defective, it's just the leader." This can also come from people who believe what Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. said that there's nothing wrong with the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, that it's the "best in the world". The arguments are clearly illogical at best . Some say that the parliamentary system worked in Malaysia and Singapore because those heading it aren't corrupt. T
Read more

The Vizconde Massacre and Trial by "Trust Me Bro"?

-
Image
As Christmas approaches, another case worth revisiting for history vs. gossip is the Vizconde Massacre. I watched Crime Investigation Asia uploaded on YouTube. I wrote about the documentary Give Up Tomorrow -- a documentary that explores the irregularities while pursuing justice for the late Chiong sisters, Jacqueline Jimenea Chiong and Marijoy Jimenea Chiong. I feel compelled to write about the Vizconde Massacre. For more than 10 years, I used to believe that Hubert Jeffry Pagaspas Webb, son of Freddie Webb, was guilty. It turns out that according to Crime Investigation Asia --it was really a trial by gossip . In my case, I want to call it a trial of Trust Me Bro.  I still read comments about how footage of Hubert in the States could've been "easily tampered". Yet, those who comment haven't presented the evidence. I guess if I asked for their evidence, they'll just say, "Trust me bro!" Granted, photo editing was still in its infancy back then so how cou
Read more

Was the Late John Regala Interviewed by the Directors of "Give Up Tomorrow"?

-
Image
The passing away of John Regala hit today. I remembered a film called Animal (2004) in  which the original title was originally Butakal meaning male pig. Regala starred as Jaco Lozano--an obvious caricature of Juan Francisco Gonzales Larrañaga aka Paco. Strangely enough, neither the Larrañagas nor the Osmeñas were heard to have ever filed a case against the late director Toto Natividad. Instead, it was the Chiong family that filed a lawsuit against Natividad. I did write about  whether or not Natividad himself was interviewed by the directors of Give Up Tomorrow . As mentioned, there was over 400 hours worth of footage and over 100 interviews done . Both Marty Syjuco and Michael Collins may have interviewed not only Natividad, the late Tony Calvento but also Regala himself since he played the film's main antagonist . In 2018, we had an incident when Niño Muhlach apologized to Paco for the portrayal in The Calvento Files . Apparently, Niño himself wasn't interviewed but was prob
Read more

Trust Me Bro: The 1987 Constitution is the Best in the World!

-
I may be no lawyer or constitutionalist but it's time to use common sense . I'm afraid common sense is hardly taught or even encouraged in schools. Right now, I want to do this provocative entry to ask, "Fact or gossip: Is the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines the best in the world?" Yes, you read that right. Hilario G. Davide Jr. said that last 2018 and I'm still laughing at it. I've decided to write this common-sense post to actually contest the idea that, "The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is the best in the world."  I'm laughing at some things Davide Jr. had said such as, "It' is the only institution in the world where the public office is a public trust." However, this man is terribly wrong because, around the world, we see the doctrine where public office is a public trust. Thomas Jefferson also said that public office is public trust -- way before Davide Jr. was born into the world! I really laughed at their claim o
Read more

Ifugao OFWs in Taiwan and Discovering More About One's Common Austronesian Roots

-
Image
I was doing some research on Taiwan finding out that the natives are indeed Austronesians . It seems that Indonesians and Malaysians may have also settled in Taiwan aside from the Philippines. A look at Mt. Alishan and Banaue Rice Terraces have a similarity. Taiwan has its famous tea terraces. Banaue has its famous rice terraces. Both are cultural heritages that must be preserved! I soon found an article which Ifugao OFWs in Taiwan. Not surprisingly, these Ifugao OFWs can point out several things that are pretty similar. An article called " A Gotad Picnic With Ifugaos Living in Taiwan " would tell of Armand Camhol, an Ifugao OFW, who met with other Ifugaos in Taiwan. Gotad is a thanksgiving festival for the Ifugaos. The News Lens International Edition What was noted by Armand at the end of the article is: The people of Ifugao value hospitality, and as a symbol of friendship, they shared their holiday with their invited guests, who, in return, sang, joined the dances, and made
Read more

Can Anti-Reformists Prove to the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy That the Marcos Regime was a Real Parliamentary?

-
Image
The previous comparison of the CoRRECT Movement was between the late businessman John Gokongwei Jr. and Hilario Davide Jr., a public policy expert. The comparison is pretty much apples and oranges which is why Kishore Mahbubani, founder and former dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) would make more sense. It's not enough to say something. If the source is just merely Merkado CTTO (read here ) then I have every right to doubt it. I tried asking for empirical evidence  they have that the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines was a parliamentary government. The only evidence they have was that there was a prime minister and his name was Cesar Virata. However, further details reveal that Virata was a non-starter and a no leader. From Third World to First , Virata was even considered a candidate to replace the late Ferdinand E. Marcos, a president with powers . A challenge that I want to pose to people who still insist that the Marcos Years were indeed under a parli
Read more