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, "Parliamentary 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. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Wrong Assumption: Those Who Wish to Reform the 1987 Constitution are Automatically Marcos Loyalists and Diehard Duterte Supporters

Orion Perez Dumdum, founder of the CoRRECT Movement was featured in the INQUIRER.net page. It's no surprise that there would be detractors every now and then. Some people still believe that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is "inviolate". If that were so then why does Article XVII exist that the constitution is open for amendments ? It's no surprise that some idiot alleged that Orion is actually a Marcos supporter. The arguments by the anti-reforms are basically Nom Sequitur and Ad Hominem . The use of personal attacks and illogical conclusions are common argument flaws. In fact, one just needs to understand the poor Filipino logic . I remember all the stupidity going on. It's funny such people accuse me of Ad Hominems while doing Ad Hominems themselves! What I'd like to focus on is the Nom Sequitur. Its definition is: 1 : an inference (see inference sense 1) that does not follow from the premises (see premise entry 1 sense 1) specifically : a fallacy

Is the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, the Only Constitution That Institutionalizes, "Public Office is a Public Trust"?

  It's time to revisit one of the favorite people for people against constitutional amendments or reforms, namely Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. (read here ). Yes, the same guy who was also related by marriage to Mrs. Thelma Jimenea-Chiong. Davide's school of thought is in the "uniqueness" of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines as if it's the "best constitution in the world". Davide would mention that the 1987 Constitution is the only one he knows would be the best. A shame really that Davide himself, like Kishore Mahbubani, was once a United Nations representative, and he's saying such stuff.  Article XI of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines writes this in Section 1: Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. Okay, I get it. However

Hilario Davide Jr.'s Still Quoted by Anti-Constitutional Reform Fools on Social Media

  People can falsely accuse me of colonial mentality because I've been quoting Kishore Mahbuban over Hilario G. Davide. I'm really sorry to say but I'm seeing various Facebook posts like La Verite (and the Pinocchio really fits it ), the Rule of Law Sentinel, Silent No More PH, and many more anti-reform Facebook pages (and very ironic too) quote Davide Jr. a lot. It's straightforward to say that Davide Jr. has been the favorite source of such people. An old man with a toga (who blocked me) also often quoted Davide Jr. Also, Davide Jr. turned 88 years old last December 20. I wish I had written this earlier but sometimes it's better late than never. In my case, it's better never late.  Davide Jr. also mentioned that the 1987 Constitution is "the best in the world". It's easy to spew out words but can he defend his claims? One of his old statements went like this: It’s not change of structures, [whether] it would be federalism or parliamentary. It is

Are People Who Say Systems Don't Matter Be Willing to Prove Their Claims for a Million Pesos?

People often argue that it's not the system but the people who run it. Some people have their examples like the late former Philippine president Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" C. Aquino III and former Philippine vice president Atty. Maria Leonor "Leni" S. Gerona-Robredo. They would say that both Noynoy and Leni are "prime examples" why charter change isn't needed, just a change of people in power. Some people even say that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is "inviolate". If that's so then what happened to Article XVII that makes it open to amendments? Why wasn't that even used? That means even making a new constitution isn't illegal per se--unless one did what Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. did during the martial law era! However, if we understand simple psychological science, we need to look at basic psychology. Please, I don't need a doctorate in certain degrees, in the Greenbelt Universities, to understand that there are mist

The Happy Aborigines Taiwanese Song

  While looking for an Aborigine song that gave me an earworm--I found this interesting aboriginal song. By looking at this video, I suspect that this song is actually a love song between a man and a woman,. It does sound very Ifugao-like as well. 

"Give Up Tomorrow" Deleted Scene: The Safehouse Where the Crime Supposedly Took Place

Give Up Tomorrow has been an interesting documentary. Why I was fascinated by it because of how it shook my mind. It turned out that it was a trial by publicity . It was also at that time when The Calvento Files aired a dramatization of Davidson Rusia's testimony. As Cebu City Vice Mayor Raymond Alvin Garcia said, it was a very unpopular move. People already thought Juan Francisco G. Larrañaga aka Paco (and the seven others) were guilty. People thought Davidson's story was worth believing. Some deleted scenes never made it into the final cut  This deleted scene talks about the owner of the place where the crime allegedly happened. David Gurkan now recalls his experience. According to Davidson, this was the story as recorded by the Supreme Court of the Philippines:  From the evidence of the prosecution, there is no doubt that all the appellants conspired in the commission of the crimes charged. Their concerted actions point to their joint purpose and community of intent. Well se

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

The Chiong Sisters Case Muddled by the Philippines' RAMBUNCTIOUS PRESS?

Here's a clip of the late Carlos P. Celdran and Teddy Boy Locsin Jr. from Michael Collins' YouTube channel. Until now, I still wonder if the director of that awful film Animal (2004) namely Federico "Toto" Natividad Jr. was also there during the Cinemalaya premiere. The film Animal (2004) was once entitled Butakal: Sugapa sa Laman in 1999, meaning Male Pig: Drunkard in Body . This clip talks about just how the whole media frenzy caused a double miscarriage of justice.   Celdran, a known reformist and vocal anti-Duterte critic, voiced out the unethical making of a Maalaala Mo Kaya episode. Did I miss something back in the 1990s? All I remember was broadcasting an episode in The Calvento Files.  Until now, the ABS-CBN YouTube channel hasn't uploaded it. How both Marty Syjuco and Collins got some clips of the film isn't specifically said. I believe Marty and Michael went to the late Tony Calvento, asked for his permission, and were given permission. I believe tha

The Late Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino Should've Remained a National Symbol of Unity Even After EDSA 1986

Well, it's time for another today in history  entry, right? I was trying to set up a WordPress site (which might be experimental at best, for now) and it's in. WordPress is that hard to use for someone like me. Back on topic, I was tagged to a post on Facebook on ABS-CBN News Facebook page. It's no surprise that I read people's comments can be very stupid . Some keep talking like, "The 1987 Constitution is the best in the world." or "Change the people. Not the constitution." Please, if that were true why was it that the defective 1973 pseudo-parliamentary government of the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. (and I wrote a rebuttal why it isn't ) had to be replaced with another constitution . Sadly, the 1987 Constitution was written almost in such a hurry which created a lot of mistakes.  The events of EDSA reveal this detail about the late Maria Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino. It was that Mrs. Aquino was hiding in a convent in Cebu at that time . In short, M

Very Easy to Say, "I'm Sure!' and Be Wrong, Am I Right?

  I guess that foolish old man did the right thing to block me on social media. The old man remained incorrigible while having his toga display, apparently getting a doctorate.  An earlier post I wrote was about the misuse and abuse of CTTO . I even wonder who in the world is Merkado CTTO? It's very easy to use CTTO to look smart. However, real studies need more than CTTO but several sources. It should be several valid sources and not just sources you agree with. I was laughing at this old man in a toga (who has thankfully blocked me after I tried to refute his errors as a  nobody ) who tends to use CTTO. I think he was also fond of saying, "I'm sure!" and then it ends up with several stupid claims. Such people would be in what might be best called the MARITES Pyramid of Learning (read here ). These people's best sources can be summarized as "Trust me bro" or "Just trust me". In the case of the meme I made, the peak of the pyramid is, "Jus