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

BRUTAL Truth: Stop HOPING for Another "PNoy-Like President" Because the Parliamentary System will Produce MUCH BETTER Leaders

Let me get this straight, I'm not here to totally dismiss the good that the late Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" C. Aquino III did. I'll try to be least biased  when I'm writing this to "give a shock" to those who tend to treat his term as a "magical time". However, I'm going to have to warn people about the problem of looking for "another Messiah leader". Yesterday was the would've been 66th birthday of Noynoy if he were alive. One can talk good about Noynoy's legacy. However, we need to realize that relying on Noynoy's term is a violation of the Mahathir Mohamad principle of "Never stop learning."  We need to think that there's only one Noynoy and when he died, he died . TV-5 reveals that Rep. Edgar Erice, a long-time friend of the late leader, also said the following: Caloocan City 2nd District Rep. Edgar Erice made the remark in a social media post marking Aquino’s 66th birth anniversary.  In the post, he co...
Read more

Better Think Twice Before Defunding the Police

There are stupid people on Facebook who always say, "Defund the police!" Think about defunding the police? Well, this video from San Francisco shows just how "wonderful" society can get when you defund the police. The call to defund the police has been called because of abusive cops . I'm not going to deny that there are abusive cops. However, the profession of a policeman as well as the government having the function of police is another. Are we going to abolish the government entirely because of some corrupt politicians?  We need to get the facts straight about what happens when the police is defunded . Those who are calling to abolish the police have no idea what they're getting themselves into. Yet, we've got fools such as the gossiping Facebook page, the Philippine Anti-Fascist League (which I heard is spearheaded by a bitter youth and some rebellious youths) even made this very stupid diagram... The police are needed to protect all the cups. Don...
Read more

Taiwan Aboriginal Culture Park Indigenous Bamboo Dance

This is another bamboo dance done by what I believe are Atayal dancers. The dance steps are very similar to what one might find in Nueva Ecija or any indigenous region of the Philippines. What makes it more appealing to me is the absence of Taiwanese Mandarin in the lyrics. Instead, it's lyrics that would sound like the chanting of Filipino indigenous dancers. There are similar yet different movements between Taiwanese aborigines and Filipino aborigines. The Malaysians and Indonesians have settled in several places. The dance movements between Taiwanese aborigines and Filipino aborigines are too similar to be ignored. Even the indigenous language might be very similar. 
Read more

Justice for Kingston Ralph Ko Cheng

Would you still want to hate to follow rules? Well, it's time to think about the tragic loss of Kingston Ralph Ko Cheng , who lost his life because someone in the road didn't want to follow simple guidelines. It was two days ago when, suddenly, Kington's life was taken away from him. It was difficult for me to process what happened. I would like to share my thoughts of this reckless incident of what happens when laws are ignored. Either you become the victim (for not following rules) or you end up someone who follows rules (like what happened to Kingston). Here's something I found on Facebook : The Price of Paper Laws   Kingston Ralph Ko Cheng was 23. A Monash university graduate, a talented musician, and a café owner, he moved back to Cebu to build a life. That life ended on a pedestrian crossing near his home.   A speeding Toyota Innova hit him with such force it threw his body into a utility pole. The driver, 21-year-old Sean Andrew Pajarillo, had already hit a parke...
Read more

The 1986 Snap Elections Would Also Disprove the Myth of the "Marcos Parliament"

Anti-charter change proponents love to use Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. among their reasons, to defend their stand. The argument is that "charter change must be evil" because Marcos used it--a fallacy of Guilt by Association . Please, even Atty. Maria Leonor Gerona-Robredo's supporter  Andrew James Masigan  supports charter change! Now, we must look at Marcos and remember another significant event. It's the 1986 snap elections and why it's also proof that we never had a parliamentary form of government. February 7, 1986, was when Marcos declared snap elections. Two years before the snap election, Marcos even declared that the Philippines was never a parliamentary government under him : 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 Ph...
Read more