Let's Celebrate Ninoy Aquino Day by Telling People that the Marcos Years Were NEVER Under a Parliamentary Form of Government
Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr. can be a divisive figure. Was he a hero or not a hero? People say that Ninoy just "talked and talked". However, as a constitutional reformist, my stance doesn't rise and sink with groups like the CoRRECT Movement, Robin Padilla, etc. Instead, my stance is now based on factual observation. I agree with CoRRECT or Robin where they are right, while criticizing them where they are wrong. Right now, I want to say that Ninoy did his research, unlike most people who idolize him then conclude, "The parliamentary form of government doesn't fit the Philippines; look at the Marcos Years!"
We need to take the speech into context because context is king. I remember laughing while getting enlightened at Ninoy's speech. The big issue was that people should've taken the context of this "parliamentary system" without realizing what Ninoy really said. In fact, these words from the speech rang true and provided the crucial detail showing that the Batasang Pambansa couldn't even qualify as a parliamentary form of government. In fact, these words made me laugh hard at the same time, made me realize that Marcos' "parliamentary government" was a sham:
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.
These words really summarize why Marcos' parliamentary form of government was at best, a sham. I bought a copy of From Third World to First around early 2022 and read it. Instead of just focusing on what the late Lee Kuan Yew said about Marcos' corruption, I also used this phrase where LKY's statements backed up Ninoy's own words:
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's position as prime minister was merely that of a presidential adviser. LKY wasn't impressed since Virata was actually a nonstarter, an administrator, but no political leader. Trying to use Virata as proof that the Marcos Years were "parliamentary" is wrong, because Marcos still called all the shots. LKY noted that Ninoy had been shot, while also providing me with what may be backup evidence that Marcos may not have had a hand in Ninoy's assassination.
As I thought of Ninoy's speech and listened to it, it was practically a gotcha moment for those who still believe that Marcos established a parliamentary form of government. In truth, it wasn't. Ninoy may have died but he actually exposed it long before. In this digital age, any truth found in the past should never remain in the analog era. The truth that the Philippines was never under a parliamentary system is among them!
Right now, I don't care even if more than 50% of Filipinos still believe that lie. Ninoy didn't care either if 50% still wanted to be under Marcos. Instead, I felt that Ninoy chose to die for a minority he knew were willing to fight for the truth. If there's even 10% or even just 1% of the Filipino population willing to fight for a better Philippines, the Filipino is worth dying for.
“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.”
— Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr., “A Pact with the Devil is No Pact at All”
