Skip to main content

Remembering Ninoy's Words, "We Had a Parliamentary Form of Government WITHOUT a Parliament!"


Some people on Facebook continually spread the lie, "The parliamentary form of government will never work because the Marcos Sr. years were a parliament!" The idea is incredibly stupid when you realize some old information that they probably ignored. It's a shame that some boomers refuse to surf the Internet to find decades-old information that would prove it otherwise. Come on, are they even too lazy to order Third World to First written by the late Lee Kuan Yew and only use it to criticize the Marcoses? 

With the late Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr., I really must highlight that he actually spilled out much truth in this speech done in Los Angeles in 1981:
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.”

The details that Aquino Jr. gave had given details needed as to why the Marcos "parliament" wasn't really a parliament. Yet, you've got some stubborn boomers who still insist that the Marcos years were a real parliament (read here). To outline the details presented by Aquino Jr., here's why we couldn't be a real parliamentary system:

  1. How can the Philippines have a parliamentary government that has no parliament
  2. At one point, Marcos Sr. was both president and prime minister at the same time. That's a far cry from parliamentary countries with presidents, where the president is purely ceremonial? A trip to Singapore today will reveal that Halimah Yacob is pretty much a national symbol of unity. 
  3. How can Marcos Sr. be running a real parliament if he's making it, "I can dissolve parliament but parliament can't dissolve me?" That's really ridiculous because a real parliamentary government can kick out a prime minister through a vote of no confidence. 
  4. Marcos Sr. later made the presidential office "all-powerful" and Cesar Virata was nothing more than a state executive. 
  5. In short, the whole constitutional amendment was pretty much 80 Days Around the World
The way LKY described Virata really hits how the latter was not even a leader to the Filipino people:

As soon as all our aides left, I went straight to the point, that no bank was going to lend him any money. They wanted to know who was going to succeed him if anything were to happen to him; all the bankers could see that he no longer looked healthy. Singapore banks had lent US$8 billion of the US$25 billion owing. The hard fact was they were not likely to get repayment for some 20 years. He countered that it would be only eight years. I said the bankers wanted to see a strong leader in the Philippines who could restore stability, and the Americans hoped the election in May would throw up someone who could be such a leader. I asked whom he would nominate for the election. He said Prime Minister Cesar Virata. I was blunt. Virata was a nonstarter, a first-class administrator but no political leader; further, his most politically astute colleague, defense minister Juan Ponce Enrile, was out of favour. Marcos was silent, then he admitted that succession was the nub of the problem. If he could find a successor, there would be a solution. As I left, he said, “You are a true friend.” I did not understand him. It was a strange meeting.

With medical care, Marcos dragged on. Cesar Virata met me in Singapore in January the following year. He was completely guileless, a political innocent. He said that Mrs. Imelda Marcos was likely to be nominated as the presidential candidate. I asked how that could be when there were other weighty candidates, including Juan Ponce Enrile and Blas Ople, the labor minister. Virata replied it had to do with “flow of money; she would have more money than other candidates to pay for the votes needed for nomination by the party and to win the election. He added that if she were the candidate, the opposition would put up Mrs. Cory Aquino and work up the people’s feelings. He said the economy was going down with no political stability.

Virata was even considered to succeed Marcos Sr. at one point. Yet, LKY saw Virata as someone who was a nonstarter, a first-class administrator but he was no political leader. LKY led the Singapore parliament for a long time and knew what it was to be a prime minister. LKY was a starter, a first-class administrator, and the political leader of Singapore. In short, LKY wasn't impressed with Virata's title as prime minister. Any country can have a prime minister and still be a presidential country.

In this information age, much older information that we may have never found in our history textbooks can be found. Today's news is tomorrow's history. We can get more access to better books through the Internet. I can go to the Internet to look for a good book. I can now order good books from Shopee or Lazada. I can't rely too much on my past civics and culture books. New information is generated daily even from the decades past. It's like how I ended up knowing that both Hubert Webb and Paco Larrañaga were both innocent of the crimes they were falsely accused of. 

It's time to let these old pieces of information fly. The gossip was the Marcos Sr. years were a parliamentary system. The truth is it wasn't even a real parliamentary form of government. 

Popular posts from this blog

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...

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...

Why I Think Banning the Mention of Hitler on Facebook is STUPID

Getty Images It's crazy how reporting a comment with the word "Hitler" can get anyone banned. For example, this is what I found on Quora : They should be allowed. there are quotes of his that are not in praise of hitler but showing how he thought so that people are critical of their current leaders . For example, here’s a quote by him “ How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.” This is a perfect example of why Hitler quotes should be allowed; to show how dictators think and how people should be critical. Yes, he started a giant war and murdered people but censoring what he said will only help the next dictator start more wars and murder more people because people forgot about Hitler . This is why the First Amendment is so important: it’s about communication and freedom so that we all make better decisions in the future. I just told someone that Adolf Hitler seized the means of production and I got a strike. Like what? I wonder what ...

Filipinos Calling Indians as "Bumbay"

The song "Dayang Dayang" was given a parody cover called "Dayang Daya". Oftentimes, the song "Dayang Dayang" is thought to be Indian. Instead, it's arguably said to be from Muslim Mindanao or was brought in either from Malaysia or Indonesia. Historically, some of the settlers in the Philippines were Malaysians and Indonesians. So, it's probably safe to say that most Filipinos of brown skin descent are mixed Malay and Indonesian. I was even reminded how I mistook a Malaysian woman for a Filipino woman. Back on topic, the parody song has an introduction that says, "Kami Bumbay galing sa India..." (We're Bombay coming from India). I even tend to refer to Indians as Bombay--something I ended up tactlessly saying during my first trip to Singapore. Many times, Filipinos tend to use Bumbay not as a racial slur but to simply refer to an Indian. Some Filipino-Indians don't even mind being called Bumbay for a reason. I guess they got accust...

Double Ten Isn't Taiwan's Birthday

It's often a mistake for people to think that Double Ten is Taiwanese independence day. Actually, it was  December 7, 1949 , which was when Taipei became the capital of Taiwan. Instead, the real history of Double Ten can be  From the Taiwanese Community Center , we can read this interesting tidbit about Double Ten and why it still matters for Taiwan: So what is this holiday all about? October 10th is Taiwan National Day, but it is not Taiwan’s birthday.  Instead, it commemorates October 10, 1911, which was the start of an event called the Wuchang Uprising in China. This uprising led to the Xinhai Revolution which brought about the fall of the Qing (Ching) Dynasty, the end of the Chinese dynasties, and the founding of the Republic of China in 1912 .  At this time, Taiwan had been under the rule of the Empire of Japan since 1895, and i t was not until the end of World War Two in 1945 that Japan was forced to relinquish control of the island to the Republic of China . M...