It's something that I read crybaby comments online where people are saying, "Making EDSA a special working day is making us forget the glory of EDSA." Please, let me remind people that even 10 years later, neither the late Lee Kuan Yew's birthday nor his death anniversary has become a national holiday in Singapore! Singapore simply honored LKY's birthday by working on that day. I was laughing at the toxic Facebook page called We Are Millennials. What truly made me think that these people are stuck in nostalgia is that EDSA 1986 would never have been possible if the Filipinos were stuck in nostalgia.
I remember talks about how the first Marcos administration was built on these two pillars. The first pillar was information control. The other pillar was toxic positivity. I remember back in 1995 when the social studies teacher talked about how he thought that Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. was a "good president" due to the long holidays. However, the holidays were just a distraction. There was also the Miss Universe pageant of 1975, the Thrilla in Manila in 1975, and the Manila International Film Festival in 1982. We were thinking about how easy it was to think that "peace and order" was so good during the Marcos Years.
In fact, there are many times I ask myself if the Filipino is still worth dying for. Did the late Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr. actually die a useless death? Ninoy then said this:
4. “I have asked myself many times: Is the Filipino worth suffering, or even dying, for? Is he not a coward who would readily yield to any colonizer, be he foreign or homegrown? Is a Filipino more comfortable under an authoritarian leader because he does not want to be burdened with the freedom of choice? Is he unprepared, or worse, ill-suited for presidential or parliamentary democracy? I have carefully weighed the virtues and the faults of the Filipino and I have come to the conclusion that he is worth dying for because he is the nation’s greatest untapped resource.”
- Ninoy’s interview with Asia Society on August 4, 1980 in New York City. He was talking about love of country to the point that he would be willing to sacrifice himself.
Ninoy wasn't living in nostalgia. He saw the problem, but he also saw a future. The Filipino was often caught in nostalgia. I even remember my late paternal grandmother (who was born in 1917, so her knowledge of world economics is hampered by her era), who was upset that former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo didn't make the prices of gasoline cheaper. However, it was all at a cost that could've turned the Philippines into a country like Venezuela. Here's an interesting excerpt from the Supreme Court E-Library about Marcos and price subsidy:
to recommend to the President the setting of price ceilings on key and essential commodities, particularly those purchased by low-income groups, after verifying through technical studies and/or hearings that the prices of these items have risen to an unreasonable degree;
It's easy to say, "Wow, life was better because gasoline was cheaper." But the effect of it was just like being under the influence of drugs. I heard how it feels good to be on drugs, until the effect wears off. It's back to reality. In fact, the Philippine economy was sinking not just because of plunder. It was also because of a debt-driven economy. As I was reading From Third World to First, LKY even gave details that there were truly chilling indeed with Marcos' protectionist-driven economy on page 301 with these details:
- Marcos Sr.'s administration already owed PHP 25 billion and couldn't pay the interest due. LKY even said, "We will never see the money back."
- Singapore banks had lent USD 8 billion out of the USD 25 billion.
The lesson yesterday, 40 years later
Torch passes, rise as true patriots. Young people and children, kayo naman, don’t chase viral posts like dumb goats. Think critically, question, discern, kill lies before sharing, form consciences by truth, not algorithms, as our church teaches. Evaluate leaders by defense of life, justice and integrity, not fleeting trends. Young people and children, be the light that pierces fake news darkness.
It's because I'm still unable to get over Soc Villegas' pastoral letter in 2015, with this note:
While amendments having to do with the form of government are matters that we, your bishops, leave to politicians and to their discernment, proposed amendments in respect to economic provisions bear directly on issues of social justice. The social encyclicals of the Church bear witness to the fact that the Church has always considered social justice an area of her competence and solicitude.
It has been advanced as a reason for the call to amend the provisions of the Constitution that the restrictive provisions limiting foreign participation in the Philippine economy have in fact been prejudicial to economic growth. Foreign investment and the infusion of foreign capital into the country have been held at bay by what some characterize as the unduly stringent provisions of the Constitution.
We will not forget of course, that the framers of the 1987 Constitution — and even the members of the Constitutional Convention that drafted the 1973 Constitution — had one purpose in enshrining those restrictions, a purpose fully in accord with the precepts of social justice: preserving the wealth and resources of the country for our countrymen.
Rightly, we have always steered away from the prospect of foreigners enriching themselves by the country’s resources and our labor force, transferring their earnings overseas, and leaving us none the better because of their presence and their exploitation of our resources, both natural and human! This should remain a paramount principle.
Now, however, we are told that limiting foreign control of some corporations, such as banks, media, advertisement, including the operation of public utilities and the exploration, development and utilization of natural resources has been counterproductive. It is claimed that we have so many resources that remain untapped — beneficial to none — because local capital is just woefully insufficient for capital-intensive ventures.
Before we rush into amending the Constitution, we, your bishops, urge all responsible to conduct serious studies in economics, sociology, the law and in related disciplines including the Catholic social teachings, that should provide us with clear answers to the following questions:
- What do we, as a nation, stand to gain from relaxing the provisions now deemed restrictive?
- How are we assured that the resources of the country, both natural and human, benefit Filipino nationals principally?
- What are the human, social and environmental costs of lifting present limits to foreign participation in Philippine economic and business affairs?
I'm not dismissing Soc Villegas' arguments entirely. There's always the concern of exploitation. However, it seems that Soc Villegas might be confusing profits with revenues when he said, "transferring their earnings overseas and leaving us none the better...". In fact, we need to consider the fact that the OFW phenomenon was caused by economic protectionism. The problem is that EDSA may have overthrown a dictatorial regime by peaceful means. It inspired the Berlin Wall (success), and it inspired the people in China to fight for democracy, which failed as it was during the Tiananmen Square Massacre. We can always give credit to EDSA for being an inspiration for the world. But io get stuck in EDSA is to disappoint the lesson, "EDSA wasn't built on nostalgia. It was about going forward."
Why haven't we truly harvested the gains after EDSA 1986? It's not because EDSA happened. It's because we chose to remain nostalgic about it. We can get the Marcos wealth today, and the Philippines will still suffer from debt, corruption, and a lack of jobs. The real problem was systemic. The 1973 Constitution had to be dismantled. In fact, these words by Maria Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino even point that we can't be stuck in nostalgia forever, either:
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.