Skip to main content

[OPINION] Why Do Some Filipino Boomers Insist that the Marcos Years Were Under a "Parliamentary System"

 

This is a screenshot I got on Facebook. The Tweet is courtesy of Raissa Espinosa-Robles, who I hear is a marites or a gossiper. I'm not denying that there are some truths in what she said. It's true that the Marcos Years have their well-documented human rights abuses. However, Mrs. Robles still continues to insist in the myth of a parliamentary system under Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr.'s regime. It's not just Mrs. Robles but also some Filipino boomers who keep saying, "Are you crazy? We had a parliamentary system under Marcos." 

I could show them some evidence like Marcos' severe lack of legitimacy to disprove the parliamentary systme. I even wrote about the snap elections because Marcos was a president with powers (read here). Under a parliamentary system, the president is purely ceremonial. The president is just a door opener and credentials receiver! Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. and Salvador "Doy" Laurel both challenged the legitimacy of Marcos' regime. Marcos was never formally installed as president or prime minister. Cesar Virata was nothing more than an executive assistant. That's why I challenge them to go ahead and tell that to parliamentary countries, that the Philippines truly had a parliamentary system during the Marcos Years!

There's always such a thing as being stuck in a comfort zone 

Come on, Mrs. Robles unfortunately shot her own foot when she said the following:

On the part of Marcos, his 1973 Constitution provided for a Vice-President but this post was only made available during the snap election in 1986. Marcos was allergic to vice-presidents, having quarreled with his vice-president, Fernando Lopez, whom he accused of plotting against him. Sounds familiar?

The 1986 Edsa People Power put an end to Marcos’ semi-presidential-parliamentary set-up and restored the presidential form of government with all its checks and balances.

Duterte has made no bones about his deep dislike for checks and balances. In August last year, Duterte threatened to declare Martial Law if Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno stopped his war on drugs. In the same month, Duterte also threatened to shut down Congress if it bungled his plan to change the Constitution and set up a parliamentary-federal system.

The fruit of the 1986 Edsa people Power is the 1986 Constitution.

Robles already mentioned it was semi-presidential. It was still a presidential system nonetheless. Just because there was a prime minister, doesn't mean that there was a parliamentary form of government (read here). Robles already had the details that it was still a presidential government. The prime minister's role in Marcos' government wasn't the same as Lee Kuan Yew. It's a shame how Filipinos quote LKY on the Marcoses but not follow his sound advice for the rest. 

A good example of a comfort zone is the Chiong Sisters Case. The narrative heard back in 1997-1999 wasn't even complete! I watched this episode of Case Unclosed on YouTube (above). I was shocked when somebody told me that Francisco Juan "Paco" G. Larrañaga was innocent of the crime. Paco still had the right to defend himself. Sadly, Paco wasn't given the right to testify. Josman Aznar whose offenses weren't that huge, is still in jail over a crime he never committed. Some people still believe in the "testimony" of Davidson V. Rusia (read here) instead of the evidence that proved Paco's innocence. Just because someone is a bad boy and a possible suitor of the victim (which Paco denied courting Marijoy). They ignored the overwhelming evidence that Paco couldn't do the crime. They were too used to Davidson's daily "testimony", which had several inconsistencies.

The same went for Hubert Jeffry P. Webb's wrongful conviction, during the Vizconde Massacre Trial. Some people still believe Hubert was guilty, probably due to whatever wrongs he did in the past. Some people still believe in The Tolentino Blunder. Atty. Amelita G. Tolentino refused the DNA test--something that could've helped solve the case. If the DNA sample was tested, it could've pointed ot a different suspect. However, some people still wholeheartedly chose to believe in Jessica Alfaro's lies (read here).

Given the two crimes I mentioned (both in the 1990s), some people are still stuck with whatever narrative they get. Remembering my Civics and Culture up to Philippine History subject (Grade 1-First Year High School) in the 1990s, things are rushed. We're often told about how Marcos used charter change to become a dictator. After that, charter change is viewed as "evil" because of Marcos. However, that's a guilt-by-association fallacy. Charter change isn't necessarily evil. Not even Maria Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino intended that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, be the "forever constitution" of the Philippines!

Some people refuse to get out of their comfort zone of knowledge. It may be because they're stroking their ego. After all, they have a high grade on that exam. They may have gotten high scores reporting about the Vizconde Massacre Case or the Chiong Sisters Case. They may have perfectly enumerated the suspects. They may still be clinging on to that high grade in the exam. The same may go if they cling to their high grade in the quiz about the Martial Law years. I'm not saying that the books are completely wrong. The books aren't completely right either! That's why there's always room for correction and updates! Any good teacher continues to learn. A bad teacher stops learning and seeks to stick to the status quo.

An article from Linkedin points out to this critical truth:

There are several reasons why some baby boomers may resist learning or changing:

  • Cognitive rigidity: As people age, their cognitive abilities may decline, making it more difficult for them to learn new information or adapt to change.
  • Fear of the unknown: Baby boomers may feel uncomfortable with new technologies or social norms that challenge their worldview and way of life.
  • Resistance to criticism: Baby boomers may feel that they have already achieved a certain level of success and do not want to be criticized or challenged by others.
  • Cultural and social influences: Baby boomers may have been raised in a culture that values conformity and stability, which can make it difficult for them to embrace new ideas or behaviors.

Some people may think that just because they graduated cum laude from 19-forgotten that they know everything. That's why there are some cum laudes who never did anything significant with their lives. I blame the reasons above more than I blame their being cum laude. Some cum laudes are still doing well even after school. However, some cum laudes fail when they refuse to adapt to change, fear the unknown for the sake of it, become resistant to criticism (believing their successes made them invincible), and influences can cause that behavior.

It's also the reason why some businesses fail. Take Nokia for example. They used to be leading brands. That's why it can become useless to tell children, "When your father was your age, he was already this and that." What year was that? It's 19-forgotten? It's 20-forgotten? Schooling was easier during their time compared to today. They may have succeeded with their Flintstones technology (an exaggeration) but can they still do it now. 

In insisting on the comfort zone, the Philippines continues to decline in failure. Staying with the Marcos parliamentary system narrative is just one of them. How can people who claim to fight against fake news, spread that fake news? If they're serious about fact-checking, why not fact-check the Marcos Years all over again to check if it was a real parliamentary system? 

Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

Rare Interview Footage of Ninoy Aquino and Doy Laurel in Japan, Reveal Marcos Years Were NEVER a Legitimate Parliamentary System

People who are afraid of shifting to a parliamentary system tend to use the Marcos Years as proof. Fearmongers on Facebook are still up to their old tricks, using the Marcos Years to say, "No to cha-cha!" Never mind that a new constitution had to be written after 1986. If anything, Article XVII was inserted in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines because it was never meant to be set in stone. Also, the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines was illegal .  Here's a video of the late Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr. and the late Salvador "Doy" Laurel. The words of Laurel here show the problem of Marcos' "parliament". Marcos' "parliament" lacked legitimacy . Where was the sporting chance of the Opposition? If it was a real parliamentary system, Ninoy would've been leading the Opposition in weekly debates against the Marcos-led government. That is if the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. was the prime minister. If Cesar Vir...
Read more

A Parliamentary Philippines with Mandatory Weekly Questioning Will Be Better Than Its Mandatory Yearly Presidential SONAs

Rappler I must admit that ignorance of the difference between the parliamentary system vs. the presidential system is there. Some people still insist on the myth that the first Marcos Administration headed by President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr.'s late father, Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr., was really a parliamentary system. In reality. the Marcos "parliamentary" years during the Martial Law era, were still presidential (read why  here ). A simple research would show that Cesar Virata was called by the late Lee Kuan Yew, as a non-starter and no leader. LKY would know how a real parliamentary system works. Sure, it's one thing that those who consider themselves Dilawan, voice their criticisms. However, the big problem of the Dilawans is their focus on political idolatry rather than solutions. I can talk with the Dilawans all they want that we do need to shift to the parliamentary system and some of them still cry foul, say that it'll be a repetition of the first Marcos Admi...
Read more

The Foolishness of Complaining About Stupid Voters and Stupid Candidates, While Insisting the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is "So Perfect"

I was looking into the Facebook page of Butthurt Philippines . Honestly, it's easy to complain but what's the use of complaining if you reject the solutions? The art produced by its administrator shows some problems. However, if the administrator here believes that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is "perfect as it is" (and he seems to be throwing a "saving face" by saying it was just sarcasm, and I failed to detect it) then it's really something. It's one thing to keep complaining. Complaining can be good. However, what's the use of complaining if you reject the solutions. Even worse, complaining about the quality of candidates for the upcoming 2025 midterm elections , while still saying, "It's not the system it's the people!" Please, that kind of thinking has been refuted even by basic psychology and political science! It's really good to point out the three problems. Distractions? Check. Keeping people hopeless? ...
Read more

Don't Expect a Mahathir-Type Leader, Under the 1987 Constitution!

ABS CBN News Happy 100th birthday, Mahathir Mohamad! It's something that not so many people live up to 100, or more. The late Fidel V. Ramos passed away on July 31, 2022, at the age of 94. Ramos's advanced age may be the reason why the Omicron variant (which isn't supposedly fatal) ended his life. I'm posting this image of Ramos and Mahathir for one reason--Ramos wanted charter change back in the 1990s. However, plenty of anti-charter change commercials came in, the late Raul Roco said we only need a change in people, and we have Hilario G. Davide Jr. (who's in his late 80s but still active), and the idea that having a president who will rule for more than six years, is supposedly scary. Please, have they even thought that the late Pol Pot ruled Cambodia for just four years, but carried millions of deaths , that would make the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr.'s 20-year reign  look tame (read here )? I've read posts on Facebook saying the Philippines just needs l...
Read more

Why I Believe So Many Filipinos (Especially Boomers) Misunderstand (and Blindly Oppose) Charter Change

Okay, I'm no political analyst or historian. That doesn't mean I should just shut up and not share my opinion. I felt like I needed to publish this piece. This is where I want to examine another issue. I've noticed some people on Facebook are sharing the quotes of Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. Some would try to do Ad Hominem attacks on me because I'm no constitutionalist (which I admit that I'm not). Just because I'm not a constitutionalist, doesn't mean, that I can't quote from the experts . Do I really need a degree in law at one of those prestigious universities in the Philippines? Sadly, some people are supposedly smarter than me but are the ones spreading nonsense.  Understanding charter change We need to see the definition first to understand why so many Filipinos, especially boomers , are so against it. The Philippine Star   gives this definition of charter change: Charter change, simply, is the process of introducing amendments or revisions to the ...
Read more