 |
| Required Reading PH Facebook Page |
One article I wrote was about boomers who are resistant to change. I do understand that there's a valid concern about charter change because of what Marcos Sr. did in 1973. The late Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. aka Ninoy gave his speech in Boston. I wonder if they bothered to listen to his speech on Boston. Aquino Jr. had highlighted several points as to why the Marcos Administration was no real parliament. I couldn't help but laugh at what he said. I wonder if this was ever considered by Required Reading PH if ever:
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. (Translation: The one who opens the door, the one who receives the credentials). 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 (puppy) 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. And so he announced, “I will take anybody, including Aquino.” And so, I was not inclined to oblige him, but then he added, “Pero,” sabi niya, ‘”hindi pwede si Aquino, underage.” And so naturally I went to the book, I said how come I was underage? I thought I was already 48, because the rule before, to become President of the Philippines in 1935, all you had to do is to be 40 years old. And so I looked at the book, tama nga naman si Marcos, they’ve increased the age to fifty. Kapos na naman ako ng dalawa. Of course, Mr. Marcos said, “Pero kung talagang gusto ni Aquino (But if Aquino really wants); if he really wants to come home and to fight me, I will oblige him. I will also have the constitution amended for him.” So I told Mr. Marcos and his people, “Forget me, Mr. President. I am through with your politics. Hindi na po ako kako sasama sa inyong kalokohan. (I'm not involved in your foolishness). Nagtayo kayo ng isang lapian, ang pangalan KBL, Kilusan ng Bagong Lipunan, mali po kako ‘yan, Kilusan ng mga Bingi at Loko-loko. (I decided to create my organization with the name KBL. Movement of the New Nation. Wrong. It means Movement of the deaf and the crazy). Hindi na ako kako sasama diyan. (I'm not joining it). Ako’y tapos na, I told them. I am through with politics, I said. I would just want to live in peace now. But I wrote Mr. Marcos and I told him, “While it’s true Mr. Marcos,” I said, “that after my 8 years in prison I have lost appetite for office, I am no longer seeking the presidency of this land, I’m not seeking any office in this country, but believe me,” I said, “When I tell you, that while I have vowed never to enter the political arena again, I shall dedicate the last drop of my blood to the restoration of freedom and the dismantlement of your martial law.”
Aquino Jr. already gave proof. The very idea of a constitutional amendment that was like 80 Days Around the World is laughable. It went to British then to French type. Aquino Jr.'s speech in Los Angeles really revealed a lot of details. Aquino Jr. was a legislator who did a lot of research. The very words of Aquino Jr. can be backed up by several studies. Yet, how can boomers who admire Aquino Jr. not see that the man they admire pointed out every reason why that regime was no real parliament? The proof is in the pudding. The devil is in the details.
That's why I previously wrote an article answering whether or not the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines is a legitimate parliamentary. The boomers will insist that it was a parliamentary government because there was a prime minister named Cesar Virata. I agree that Virata was given the title of prime minister. However, the way the late Lee Kuan Yew described him as a non-starter, no political leader, was definitely a hint that he was just an executive assistant. South Korea and Taiwan have parliaments but they are still presidential in practice. Even Marcos Sr. admitted out loud that his parliamentary system was no parliamentary system:
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.
So really, why are some boomers still insisting that the Marcos Sr. Years were well, a parliament?
This reminds me of the shocker I heard concerning two major crime stories. One is the Vizconde Massacre followed by the Chiong Sisters' case. I was really startled to hear that Hubert Jeffry P. Webb was innocent all along. The second revelation that startled me was that Juan Francisco G. Larrañaga aka Paco (along with seven others) weren't the real people we were looking for. I wrote a lengthy review of Give Up Tomorrow, especially with how my comfort zone was threatened. I was surprised to hear from a friend that he was actually with Paco in Quezon City on the night of the crime. Cebu City's Vice Mayor, Raymond Alvin Garcia, also testified with negatives and photographs, along with many others, that Paco wasn't the man they were looking for. Yet, some people stuck through the narrative that Hubert and Paco were the guilty ones even after evidence was presented.
I could present all the evidence that Marcos Sr. never had a real parliament, to begin with. One of them I talked to on Facebook was a political scientist. The other was well, I believe he was just an agogo dancer somewhere. I think both men are already grandfathers. Instead, I get some arguments like, "Don't be stupid!", "Animal!", "You're crazy!", "Get your injection now!" These are arguments very typical to try and win an argument without thinking. I ask for their empirical evidence--they reply with insults instead. How unscholarly can they get? For the political scientist, is that how he was taught in school to think? The others may even be a lawyer so how low can one get? I'm no lawyer or political scientist. However, I can do some research here and there, buy some books, and I could start refuting the claim of the Marcos "parliament".
I think it's a real threat to their comfort zone. I guess the knowledge they're used to is, "A parliamentary system will never work because we tried it before." I think the real problem is that being told it wasn't a real parliament takes a lot of effort to unlearn it. There are so many facts and figures that it'll require additional learning. Maybe, such people were so used to believing that we learned everything in school and that life has nothing else to offer. Guess what? I may be an MBA graduate now but I have to learn from Warren Edward Buffett. The big reason is that I never learned Buffett's investing strategy in school! That's why I became a fool with an MBA because I felt school taught me everything. No, life is never that! You don't learn everything in school. What's the use, if ever, if these boomers graduated with honors such as valedictorian or summa cum laude if they never want to accept new information?
I think most of the Facebook pages that are so openly anti-reform are ran also by stereotypical boomers. They just want their comfort zone to remain. Please, why are they defending the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines as "flawless". Historically, a new constitution was needed to replace the defective 1973 Constitution of the Philippines. Even the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines sets Article XVII which says the following:
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
As for the Kakampinks, I wonder if they're aware that other Kakampinks (those who supported the candidacy of Atty. Maria Leonor Gerona-Robredo) are for reform. Representative Stella Quimbo and economist Andrew James Masigan are blatantly Kakampinks. Yet, there are now Kakampinks who are vocally saying, "We need reform!" The late Charles Edward P. Celdran may have been anti-Duterte. However, Celdran was blatantly also for constitutional reform. Mrs. Robredo is even open to amending the Constitution. Hopefully, more Liberal Party of the Philippines members will see why we need to have a parliamentary. Under a real parliamentary, the Liberal Party of the Philippines could've still had a voice as the Opposition. Mrs. Robredo herself would be able to question the policies of Prime Minister Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. If Marcos Jr. should prove himself unfit--he can be voted out by a motion of no confidence.
Sadly, some of them are still stuck on the status quo. I believe some have even fought with their fellow Kakampinks who are for reform. Again, there's always the law of nature that will eventually take care of itself. I believe that any low population growth right now is because of a previous boom during the boomer years. I believe that maybe, more people will have more children after the older generations start to pass away due to old age. Boomers resistant to learning new stuff may find themselves becoming irrelevant. If they still believe in this so-called Marcos parliamentary then they care more about facts than feelings. Facts never respect personal ill feelings just because it's not convenient to their ego. Either they accept it or they don't accept the facts.