Skip to main content

The 1986 Snap Elections Would Also Disprove the Myth of the "Marcos Parliament"



Anti-charter change proponents love to use Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. among their reasons, to defend their stand. The argument is that "charter change must be evil" because Marcos used it--a fallacy of Guilt by Association. Please, even Atty. Maria Leonor Gerona-Robredo's supporter Andrew James Masigan supports charter change! Now, we must look at Marcos and remember another significant event. It's the 1986 snap elections and why it's also proof that we never had a parliamentary form of government.

February 7, 1986, was when Marcos declared snap elections. Two years before the snap election, Marcos even declared that the Philippines was never a parliamentary government under him:
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.

True, there was a prime minister named Cesar Virata. However, the words of the late Lee Kuan Yew already said in his book From Third World to First the following on Virata:

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. 

Marcos nominated Virata as a possible president. Virata's job as prime minister wasn't the same as the prime minister of a parliamentary system. More on Marcos' declaration also had this paper for Virata:

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.

In the parliamentary system, the president is purely ceremonial. As Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" Aquino Jr. said in his speech in Los Angeles, the president is just there to open the door. The way Ninoy detailed things before his death, already proved that there was no parliamentary system (read here). Marcos had already made Virata as nothing more than a personal adviser. LKY's words calling Virata as a non-starter, a first-class administrator but no leader, is based on experience. Some say parliamentary works in Malaysia and Singapore, because of much lesser corruption and the supposed absence of stupid voters. However, we need to realize for the nth time, the Constitution is the operating system of the country. The Constitution restrains the behavior of politicians, which in turn, will also restrain the behavior of the citizens!

If the Philippines was truly under a parliamentary system, why in the world is Virata even considered a candidate for president? Even more, Marcos had a running mate with Arturo Tolentino. Maria Corazon "Cory" S. Cojuangco-Aquino ran with Salvador "Doy" Laurel Jr. as her vice president. Doesn't this look like a presidential election? Marcos already admitted it. Ninoy already admitted it. Doy even mentioned the lack of legitimacy with Marcos' reign. There were no meaningful elections since Marcos declared martial law in 1972! There was really no parliamentary system. Otherwise, Marcos could've been ousted when he was supposedly prime minister and president. There's no such arrangement in any legitimate parliamentary system! 

True, there was a parliament. Just because there was a parliament and a prime minister, doesn't mean that it was a parliamentary form of government. Taiwan is a presidential form of government with a parliament. True, Marcos and Tolentino were declared "winners" (but documentation of cheating was really there). However, what kind of "opposition" was there in parliament anyway? Parliamentary elections vote by parties--not by candidates!

By virtue of Resolution No. 38, signed on February 15, 1986, Ferdinand Marcos and Arturo Tolentino were proclaimed by the Batasang Pambansa as winners of the snap elections. This announcement was met with public outrage. Fifty opposition members of parliament walked out in protest. The next day, Corazon Aquino and Salvador Laurel held a “Tagumpay ng Bayan” (People’s Victory) rally at the Quirino Grandstand in Luneta Park, Manila. Aquino called for a civil disobedience campaign through strikes and the boycott of companies owned by Marcos cronies. Among these were the major newspaper companies, San Miguel Corporation, and several banks, including the Philippine National Bank. In less than a week, a total of Php1.78 billion had been withdrawn from crony banks. People all around the country had heeded Aquino’s call.

Sadly, some people still try to insist on the same myth. They have a cognitive dissonance with the matter. Are they too lazy to do research in the information age? Come on, one can also buy research papers online. Some people are still stuck in the comfort zone of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. Never mind that  the very words of Cory even said these:

You must define and protect our individual freedoms and rights; you must decide how our different institutions of state will relate to each other. Do not be distracted by political debates and matters of policy that do not belong within your constitution-making exercise. You are here appointed, by the people’s wish, to write a constitution; you are not here as elected politicians.

Bear in mind that you shall be pondering, debating and writing a constitution not only for our contemporaries with their present concerns, but also for succeeding generations of Filipinos whose first concerns we cannot presume to know beforehand. Future Filipinos must always be free to decide how to address these concerns as they arise. Even the wisest cures for present maladies should not be imposed on succeeding generations that will have their own unique problems and priorities.

True and long-lived constitutions, a wise justice has told me, should be broad enough to be able to meet every exigency we cannot foretell and specific enough to stoutly protect the essentials of a true democracy; in short, open-ended documents that will always be relevant. Remember that constitutional changes are not safe or easy to come by. Our first attempt at constitutional revision was followed by a dictatorship. And this, our second endeavor, was preceded by a revolution.

Future Filipinos and their legislatures and Supreme Courts can best assess and address the challenges they will meet if they enjoy the widest latitude of thought and action. In writing a constitution have the fullest confidence that the wisdom of our race is exhausted in us. Our race has grown in wisdom over time. I believe it will continue to do so.

Yours is indeed no easy task. On the other hand, depending on the result, yours will be no small glory. Our people have suffered much.  

Remember Marcos was elected as a president with powers. In a parliamentary system, there are presidential elections (for the head of state, if the country has no monarchy, like Singapore) and parliamentary elections. Was there even a single parliamentary election during Marcos' reign? There was none. Instead, Marcos was ousted as a president with powers. In short, the snap elections also disprove the myth of a "Marcos parliament".

Popular posts from this blog

BRUTAL Truth: Stop HOPING for Another "PNoy-Like President" Because the Parliamentary System will Produce MUCH BETTER Leaders

Let me get this straight, I'm not here to totally dismiss the good that the late Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" C. Aquino III did. I'll try to be least biased  when I'm writing this to "give a shock" to those who tend to treat his term as a "magical time". However, I'm going to have to warn people about the problem of looking for "another Messiah leader". Yesterday was the would've been 66th birthday of Noynoy if he were alive. One can talk good about Noynoy's legacy. However, we need to realize that relying on Noynoy's term is a violation of the Mahathir Mohamad principle of "Never stop learning."  We need to think that there's only one Noynoy and when he died, he died . TV-5 reveals that Rep. Edgar Erice, a long-time friend of the late leader, also said the following: Caloocan City 2nd District Rep. Edgar Erice made the remark in a social media post marking Aquino’s 66th birth anniversary.  In the post, he co...

Justice for Kingston Ralph Ko Cheng

Would you still want to hate to follow rules? Well, it's time to think about the tragic loss of Kingston Ralph Ko Cheng , who lost his life because someone in the road didn't want to follow simple guidelines. It was two days ago when, suddenly, Kington's life was taken away from him. It was difficult for me to process what happened. I would like to share my thoughts of this reckless incident of what happens when laws are ignored. Either you become the victim (for not following rules) or you end up someone who follows rules (like what happened to Kingston). Here's something I found on Facebook : The Price of Paper Laws   Kingston Ralph Ko Cheng was 23. A Monash university graduate, a talented musician, and a cafĂ© owner, he moved back to Cebu to build a life. That life ended on a pedestrian crossing near his home.   A speeding Toyota Innova hit him with such force it threw his body into a utility pole. The driver, 21-year-old Sean Andrew Pajarillo, had already hit a parke...

The Three Drug Mules Executed in China Last March 30, 2011

Al Jazeera Today is March 30, 2026. It has been 15 years since the execution of the three drug mules. Their names are Sally Ordinario-Villanueva, Ramon Credo (who was cremated in China shortly after his execution), and Elizabeth Batain (whose face was never revealed, perhaps due to the loved ones requesting more privacy). Contrary to what one might think, the three drug mules weren't a trio. Instead, they were three separate cases that just happened to be scheduled to die on the same day.  They weren't a trio. They had a temporary reprieve when  former vice president Jejomar Binay tried to save them . Villanueva, together with Ramon Credo and Elizabeth Batain, was scheduled to be executed last month but got a reprieve after Vice President Jejomar Binay traveled to China and personally appealed to Chinese authorities. BBC   News even gave such a short news report, that I felt compelled to copy/paste the whole time as a reference here: Philippine Vice-President Jejomar Bin...

Better Think Twice Before Defunding the Police

There are stupid people on Facebook who always say, "Defund the police!" Think about defunding the police? Well, this video from San Francisco shows just how "wonderful" society can get when you defund the police. The call to defund the police has been called because of abusive cops . I'm not going to deny that there are abusive cops. However, the profession of a policeman as well as the government having the function of police is another. Are we going to abolish the government entirely because of some corrupt politicians?  We need to get the facts straight about what happens when the police is defunded . Those who are calling to abolish the police have no idea what they're getting themselves into. Yet, we've got fools such as the gossiping Facebook page, the Philippine Anti-Fascist League (which I heard is spearheaded by a bitter youth and some rebellious youths) even made this very stupid diagram... The police are needed to protect all the cups. Don...

A BORING Rainy Evening Made Me Watch "Jacqueline Comes Home"

I remember reading a lot and I mean a lot of bad reviews on Jacqueline Comes Home . After many years of deciding not to watch it, I decided to watch it out of sheer boredom . I watched Give Up Tomorrow (read my review here ) before this lackluster film,   and even read the Supreme Court of the Philippines decision. For people who are curious about this incorrigible law student I ran into a few years ago--I'm not going to name her out loud. I wouldn't be surprised if this law student (I believe she's a lawyer now and I'll refer to her only as Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni (who also got married and I'll call her husband Atty. Imbento Ug Istorya meaning To Invent Stories), to avoid direct confrontation since I feel she's not worth arguing with) would use the film Jacqueline Comes Home as "proof" of the "infallibility" of the Supreme Court decision, even when Given Up Tomorrow presented a lot of proof that something was horribly wrong with the Philippine ju...