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

Why Jose Rizal Made Simoun's Terrorist Plot Fail in "El Filibusterismo"

As it's Buwan ng Wika or Buwan ng Kasaysayan, I'm tempted to dig into some of my high school Filipino lessons. Right now, I have no idea where my former Filipino teachers are teaching. I recall being told that, since I'm a good writer, I should focus on peaceful resolutions rather than following the path of hatred and violence. I watched the Jose Rizal film back when I was in college. I was asked a provocative question: why Rizal never made Simoun (who was actually Crisostomo Ibarra from Noli Me Tangere ) succeed in the violent revolution.  Casa Grande Vintage Filipino Cinema Facebook Page I noticed some people tell me El Filibusterismo was a boring book. However, I felt that something was wrong with the Philippines, and I felt that peaceful means weren't going anywhere. Where was my talent in writing heading? I was already more than desperate to move away from the Philippines. That's why I wanted to take Information Technology, even if I sucked at mathematics. It w...
Read more

The Song "Ako'y Isang Pinoy" Really Reeks of Historical Ignorance

It's Buwan ng Wika or Month of the Language. One of the songs that's often sung in the Buwan ng Wika program is "Ako'y Isang Pinoy" or "I'm Filipino" in English. I remembered this song was sung in the Filipino language class. I did hate the Filipino language, especially as an ethnic Chinese growing up in the Philippines. Examining the lyrics The lyrics go like this with English translation: I am a Filipino Ako'y isang pinoy In heart and soul Sa puso't diwa Filipino born Pinoy na isinilang In our country Sa ating bansa I am not good at foreign languages Ako'y hindi sanay sa wikang mga banyaga I am a Filipino who has my own language Ako'y pinoy na mayroong sariling wika Gat Jose Rizal then spoke Si Gat Jose Rizal nooy nagwika He preached in our country Sya ay nagpangaral sa ating bansa It is said to not love one's own language Ang 'di raw magmahal sa sariling wika The smell is more than stinky fish Ay higit pa ang amoy sa mabaho...
Read more

The Curious Case of Dayang Dayang, Not Dayang Daya

I remembered the song "Dayang Dayang" which had a parody cover called "Dayang Daya". Some people wondered if it was from India. Some say it was a Muslim song which makes more sense. It's because the beats almost sound like one from Filipino Muslim dances. Granted, a lot of Filipinos descended from either Malaysian or Indonesian settlers then it would make sense if Dayang Dayang is danced to the Pakiring. The song I just share comes from an Indonesian singer who probably popularized the song.  Many words from the Filipino language match up with Malaysian language or Indonesian language. The Filipino word for help (tulong) is tolong in Indonesian and Malaysian. The Malaysian (or Indonesian) term Dayang is said to mean a noble lady. It would make sense of the song "Dayang Dayang" would've come from Indonesia, Malaysia, or from Mindanao in the Philippines.  This was the most common version heard. I think the video maker wrongly attributed it to Bollywo...
Read more

30 Years of Flor Contemplacion Crybabies Spreading Fake News

Liza Maza Facebook Page It's 30 years since Flor Contemplacion was executed in Singapore. My memories was how some people felt hatred for Singapore, how we were told that "Filipinos are always oppressed." in both values education and civics classes, and how Flor should be regarded as a heroine. The Buwan Ng Wika program came and Flor's execution was also highlighted in the song "Kuko Ng Agila" (Claws of the Eagle). Flor was always romanticized as innocent, a martyr, and even some decent Filipinos bought it once. However, I soon accepted Flor's execution to be what it is-- Singaporean justice .  Some people are still continuing to commemorate Flor--as if she was some kind of Catholic saint or martyr. I could remember rallies year after year, commemorating Flor's "martyrdom". What was also ironic was, at that time, the Vizconde Massacre (read here ) happened and the wrong people were arrested. The public demanded the blood of Hubert Jeffry P....
Read more

Mahatma Gandhi's Use of Tax Evasion, as a Form of Protest?

The 40th anniversary of the 1986 EDSA Revolution came last month. Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr. said these words: "According to Gandhi, the willing sacrifice of the innocent is the most powerful answer to insolent tyranny that has yet been conceived by God and man." Basically, EDSA 1986 can't claim to be all too unique. Ninoy had made Gandhi an inspiration. The dictatorship of the First Marcos Administration may be over . However, the Philippines is still stuck in another dictatorship called the dictatorship of the Filipino First Policy . It does sound stupid, but even without Marcos or foreign colonization (please stop mistaking foreign investment with foreign invasion ), there's still some oppression to fight. You can think about decades of overly high taxes and restrictions on foreign investments.  Now, we need to look at the historical context in which Gandhi's "tax evasion" occurred. According to a Jagran Josh   article written by ...
Read more