THE PRESIDENT MARCOS LEGACY
“The
future is never a dream given to those who as for miracles. It is the final
shape of the efforts of many who believe in themselves, who are not afraid to
blaze new trails, who are not discouraged by the countless steps ahead, and who
have a clear sense of purpose and direction. Today is an affirmation of what
tomorrow shall be.”
– President Ferdinand E. Marcos (1917-1989).
After more than three decades of waiting, after two succeeding presidents prevented it, two more failed to decide on it, and one who shivers at its mention; after two extensions of Supreme Court status quo ante order postponing it, President Ferdinand E. Marcos was finally laid to rest with full military honor, but in a simple and private funeral rites, at the Libingan ng mga Bayani past noon on November 18, 2016. This after the Supreme Court, in a landmark decision voting 9 to 5, dismissed all the petitions challenging the burial and ruled that the former president can be buried in the heroes’ cemetery. It seems, however, the final chapter of the man’s history is not yet finished.
Up to this very day, people are divided on views of Marcos. Many say he is a real hero, a great statesman, and the best president the Philippines ever had. Others say that he was a corrupt dictator who looted the national coffers dry and, upon declaring Martial Law, committed grave human rights abuses.
Now that his son, Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr is running for the highest position in government once held by him, the biography, history and legacy of the older Marcos are again unfolding before the public eyes. Of course, there are always two viewpoints in this matter. Whether it's pro or against, praise or criticism, truth or revisionism, it is a topic that cannot be disregarded. We, the Filipino people, however, have the duty, responsibility, and the right to know the truth, uncorrupted by the bias, elitist media.
THE
ARGUMENTS AT HAND
In Philippine history, no
single person has polarized the socio-political perspective of its people
than the man from Sarrat, Ilocos Norte. From his meteoric rise to political
power to his ouster, to his burial, and even three decades after his
death, the saga about this man remains in the arena of arguments.
Let us sieve through the debates between
the anti-Marcos and the Loyalists. For this article, we will limit the
arguments to three main premises: The state of the Philippine economy during
Marcos’ time, and the presuppositions “Is Marcos a thief?” and “Is Marcos a
human rights abuser?”
Anti-Marcos proponents would argue that
the Philippines was the “sick man of Asia” during the Martial Law era. Looking
back at history and World Bank records, however, says otherwise. The “sick man
of Asia” connotation perhaps better pertained to the Philippines that Marcos
inherited from President Diosdado Macapagal.
Based on World Bank data, the
Philippines’ Annual Gross Domestic Product grew from 5.27 billion dollars in
1964 to 37.14 billion dollars in 1982, and Philippine GDP per capita more than
quadrupled from 175.9 dollars in 1964 to 741.8 dollars in 1982, the second
highest in Philippine history. Though it fell to 568.8 dollars in 1985. This
despite many compounding factors, including extremely high global interest
rates, severe global economic recession, and significant increase in global oil
price, which affected all indebted countries in Latin America, Europe, Asia,
and the Philippines was not exempted. All in all notwithstanding the 1984-1985 recessions,
GDP per capita grew at an annual rate of 5.8 percent. Indeed, according to the
U.S. based Heritage Foundation, the Philippines enjoyed its best economic
development between 1972 and 1979. The economy grew despite two severe global
oil crises in 1973 and 1979. World Bank data also show that Philippine
Agriculture, crops (rice, corn, coconut, sugar), livestock and poultry, and
fisheries grew at an average rate of 6.8, 3.1 and 4.5 percent, respectively
from 1970 to 1980. During the Marcos’ “Green Revolution,” the annual rice
production in the Philippines increased from 3.68 to 7.72 million tons in two
decades and made the Philippines a rice exporter for the first time in the 20th
century. Mathematics do not lie. No other president before or after Marcos was
able to achieve this.
The anti-Marcos accused the former
president of stealing tens of billions of dollar from the government coffers
during his rule. The Loyalists would say that nothing is conclusively proven up
to now regarding that matter. The reality of which no factual or physical
evidence has been presented in any court except for intangible allegations. In
fact, most of the cases filed against the Marcoses both here and abroad were
already dismissed. Marcos himself was quoted as saying: “I have committed many
sins in my life. But stealing money from the government, from the people, is
not one of them.” How do we go about checking this?
Again let’s do the Math, or the logical
estimates, at least. How much money is there really in the Philippine coffers
during the Marcos administration? If we include the local and foreign funds,
donations and debts, how much money was there available for Marcos? Now, let’s
go to government expenditures, how much money do you think his government spent
with all the infrastructures built during his time? Five of the eight major
dams and 17 hydroelectric and geothermal power plants still fully functional
today were constructed during the Marcos era.
In 1983, the Philippines became the
second largest producer of geothermal power in the world with the commissioning
of the Tongonan 1 and Palinpinon 1 plants. It is also worth mentioning that
because of the focus of the Marcos government on renewable energy sources, the
country’s dependency on hydrocarbon fuel was at its lowest from the late 1970s
to the early 1980s.
Aside from this, more than 90 percent of
the bridges, more than 70 percent of the roads and highways, over 40 percent of
the state colleges and universities still existing today throughout the country
were built by the Marcos government. Not to mention the Light Railway Transit
(LRT) system, sea and air ports, irrigation and flood control projects, water
supply and drainage facilities, the Kidney, Heart, and Lung Centers, thousands
of public markets, hospital and health facilities, arts and cultural buildings,
etc. Marcos also spearheaded the development of 11 heavy industrialization
projects including steel, petrochemical, cement, pulp and paper mill, and
copper smelter.
Historians will one day ask: What would
the Philippine Archipelago be without the Pan-Philippine Highway? What would
Luzon be without the Candaba Viaduct, the North Luzon Expressway and the South
Luzon Expressway? What would Visayas be without the San Juanico Bridge? What
would Mindanao be without the Atugan Bridge?
During President Noynoy Aquino’s time, the
entire archipelago suffered from drought and water shortage in an El Niño occurrence.
The supply of water for irrigation in Bulacan and Rizal were cut-off just to
maintain a reduced supply of drinking water for Metro Manila. Imagine if Angat,
Ipo and La Mesa dams were not constructed during Marcos time. We would be
exporting water from China, perhaps. On the other extreme, imagine if Magat and
Pantabangan dams were not constructed. Northeastern and Central Luzon would
turn into giant lakes during typhoon seasons. Imagine if the flood control
system of Metro Manila was not rehabilitated during Marcos time. The
inundation, destruction and damage after Typhoon Ondoy and the 2010 habagat onslaught would be more than
tenfold. By the way, the Marcos government master plan of the flood control
system for Metro Manila and surrounding suburbs was scrapped and construction
discontinued during President Cory Aquino’s regime, simply because “it was a
Marcos project.” No alternative plan was ever set in place. The same fate
happened with the mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, which could have
prevented the energy crisis of the 1990s and succeeding energy crisis that
followed.
The 1986 revolt that ousted Marcos
happened in the Ortigas intersection along the Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA).
But did you know that EDSA (known as Highway 54 and Avenida 19 de Junio during
President Manuel Roxas’ time), the 23-kilometer long highway we know today, was
paved, lengthened, modernized and concretized by the Marcos government?
How much do you think all the aforementioned
projects cost? Add the social services, the salaries of government workforce
(civilian, police and military), and the miscellaneous expenses of the national
government. I wonder, was there anything left to steal? The bigger wonder is
the possibility that Marcos didn’t steal a centavo but, on the contrary, forked
out billions to finance and complete his administration’s massive
infrastructure projects. The biggest wonder is where did he get the money?
Economist-journalist and long-time
critic of Marcos, Hilarion “Larry” Henares, once made a ponderful comment about
the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses. That even if you summed-up all
the money in the Philippine treasury from Aguinaldo to Marcos, there is no such
amount. So, again, where did Marcos get the money? Interestingly, even the late
former Senator Jovito Salonga, in his many years of endeavoring to solve this
mystery, came up short.
Enrique Zobel, founder of Makati
Business Club and former chairman and president of Ayala Corporation, may have
an answer. In his sworn statement before he died, he estimated Marcos’ wealth
to be around 100 billion dollars, and said his riches were not ill-gotten but
came from the gold bullions obtained from part of the Yamashita’s treasure.
Marcelino Tagle, former director of Caritas Manila and 1967 Ten Outstanding
Young Man awardee, corroborated Zobel’s statements. In Sterling Seagrave’s book
Gold Warriors: America’s Secret Recovery
of Yamashita’s Gold, this claim is again elaborated. Though the book was
full of conspiracy theories, half-truths, speculations and impossibilities,
certain intriguing incidents and events were described vividly within its
pages. Moreover, a Rizalista, Tatlong
Persona chronicle revealed that the source of Marcos’ wealth was from gold
hoards taken at several Yamashita treasure sites, at Fort Santiago (Manila), in
Norzagaray (Bulacan), in Teresa (Rizal), in Isabela (where the deepest section
of the Magat Dam now lies), to name a few. Furthermore, the “Yamashita’s
Treasure” was a combination of gold hoards from Asia and that of the Hitler
gold hoards taken from Africa and Europe smuggled to Bandung, Indonesia,
estimated to be around 1.3 trillion dollars as of the middle of 1980s.”
Supposed to be there were nine major “golden buddha” sites and 172 minor sites
were the Japanese buried the amassed treasures. Aside from these, “four ships
full of gold were sank in Philippine waters after the U.S. dropped the atomic
bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” Whatever the truth behind the Yamashita’s treasures
is another story in itself.
To the third premise, the allegation of
human rights abuses, Marcos defenders would argue that he was not directly
involved. Most of the cases happened during the time when he was already
perceived to be at ill-health. He was not the one signing the arrest warrants
nor ordering the alleged torture, abduction or killing, and he was not at his
full faculty during the time. According to Amnesty International, most of the
human rights abuses emanated from the Philippine Constabulary controlled by
then General Fidel V. Ramos, who later staged a coup against Marcos. With
favors and influences coming from the Democrats bloc in the United States, he
was installed as president of the Philippines after Cory Aquino.
The alleged human rights victims were
said to number more than 120,000. That many? One might want to check the list.
Were they all happened during Marcos’ time? And again, did he really order the
arrest and torture, or was it Ramos and the Constabulary, a tactical maneuver
offered by the C.I.A. to create chaos and add dissent by the people against
Marcos’ government? I’m very sure the list will shrink considerably upon close
scrutiny.
Every administration has a share of its
gruesome acts of human rights abuses. Has everyone forgotten the 1987 Mendiola
Massacre? How come no one, no command responsibility prosecution was made
accountable for this grave killing of peasants?
As we remember Marcos’ undoing, we
should also recall his one last act of statesmanship. At the height of the EDSA
Revolt, General Fabian Ver was coaxing President Marcos to launch an all-out
offensive against Ramos and Enrile, but he refused because many civilians will
be caught in the crossfire. That part was seen on television, but not once was
it replayed. Had Marcos agreed to Ver’s plan, the scenario would be like the
Tiananmen Square carnage in China. Thousands would have perished. Colonel Irwin
Ver, then head of Presidential Security Command (PSC), in an interview
recalling his last days at Malacañang, remembered Marcos ordering him for
“strategic withdrawal to Ilocos.” When he apprised the president that they
still have the capability to defend the palace for a long time, the latter
responded: “I don’t want us to be shooting at our own people. We must resolve
this peacefully.” In the young Ver’s own account: “Here’s my president who many
thought was a monster, his back forced against the wall, and though armed with
tremendous firepower at his disposal, would not fight his way out, but clear in
his mind that he would rather avoid it. At the point when the only option left
was to defend the seat of presidency, he chose to leave. He would not fire back
at those who were ready to shoot him down. At that moment, I felt deep in my
heart that I have served the right commander-in-chief.” Marcos’ last act of
ceding power rather than see the shedding of a Filipino’s blood is a noble legacy
in itself.
Incidentally, some miswritten books and
Internet blogs should be corrected: Marcos didn’t flee to Hawaii. He wanted to
go to Paoay, Ilocos Norte, but he was “kidnapped” to Andersen Air Force Base in
Guam, before being taken to Hawaii, on the adamant insistence of Cory Aquino to
U.S. Ambassador Stephen Bosworth that Marcos should be exiled outside of the
Philippines immediately. There are documents, tapes and records to this effect.
THE
UNWRITTEN MARCOS
Most Filipinos would know that Ferdinand
Edralin Marcos as the tenth president of the Philippines who ruled for 20 or so
years. Political information buff would know that he was once a Liberal Party
member and the aide of former president Manuel A. Roxas; that he and Benigno
“Ninoy” Aquino were best of friends then; that he became the Philippines’
youngest Senate President in 1963; that he joined the Nationalista Party and
became its presidential nominee in 1965 after then incumbent president Diosdado
Macapagal reneged an agreement that Marcos would be the next LP standard
bearer; that he won the 1965 presidential election against Macapagal by a
record landslide victory; and that he founded the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL)
in 1977. Trivia enthusiasts, on the other hand, would know that his favorite
numbers are 7 and 11; that he garnered 98.8 percent in the 1939 Bar
Examination, the highest score ever recorded; and he was the Philippine Free Press “Man of the Year”
in 1965.
Did you also know that from 1972 to
1986, the Marcos Administration codified laws through 2,036 Presidential
Decrees, an average of around 145 per year during the 14-year period? To put
this into context, only 11, 12, and 14 laws were passed by the Aquino
administration in 2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively. Almost all of the laws
passed during the term of Marcos remain relevant, still in force today, and are
embedded in the country’s legal system.
Without going into lengthy arguments
about his military medals, as there are those who claimed they were fake, two
American presidents confirmed the awarding of those medals.
On August 8, 1985, President Marcos
received a Soviet Medal of Valor “in recognition of his deeds and heroism
against the forces of fascism and militarism” during World War II. And this is
on record.
There are, however, many things yet
probably unwritten about Marcos. Do you know for instance that his favorite
color is white and red? White because, according to him, “is the essence of
purity of mind, heart and spirit,” and red “represents courage and
revolutionary thought.” Now you know why Marcos Loyalists wear red t-shirts.
Now let’s go on to heavier matters.
Activists, radical, reactionary or otherwise, have been calling Marcos tuta ng Kano (American puppet), even
until now. Let’s cite some instances which may prove this wrong. On his first
term as president, Marcos received a note from visiting U.S. president Lyndon
B. Johnson asking him to announce publicly that he should send Filipino
combatants to Vietnam. Marcos folded the note, put it in a matchbox and throw
it in the waste can. In his speech, he vehemently refused: “As long as I am
president, I will not send armed combatants to Vietnam.” He sent an engineering
battalion and a medical mission instead. President Johnson got mad and was
quoted as saying “who does this McCoy think he is?” The western press picked-up
on the slang “McCoy.” When Tagalized out came Marcos’ street sobriquet, Makoy.
Another casing point is the declaration
of Martial Law, the act of which became sort of a phobia among its victims and
his political nemeses and, up to now, is being used as a national stigma. We
will not talk about the reasons for declaring Martial Law (as there are a lot
of Internet sites where you can google them), but the act itself. Immediately
after it was declared on September 1972, U.S. president Richard M. Nixon called
on Marcos telling him to abort and that the U.S. government will not support
this action. Marcos defied “Uncle Sam,” the first and perhaps the only
Philippine leader, until President Rodrigo Duterte, to do so. Since then, his
friendship with Nixon soured.
Martial Law, with all the ill-effects
glued to it, was also instrumental in pushing for the much-needed economic and
social reforms in the country. It stopped the lethargic bureaucracy of the
Philippine Congress. “The powerful opponents of reforms were silenced and the
organized opposition was also quilted. In the past, it took enormous wrangling
and preliminary stage-managing of political forces before a piece of economic
reform legislation could even pass through Congress. Now it was possible to
have the needed changes undertaken through presidential decree.” This was aptly
pointed out by University of the Philippines economics professor and former
NEDA Director-General Dr. Gerardo Sicat.
President Duterte is being recently
lambasted by rightist and oligarchic elements for having an independent foreign
policy. That is, a foreign policy not solely, mendicantly, dependent on the
U.S. He is, however, not the first president to do so. In 1975, then First Lady
Imelda Marcos went to Cuba. She learned from Fidel Castro that “after 30 years,
any lease agreement between sovereign nations concerning land occupancy becomes
permanent, and may only be abrogated by mutual consent.” This was based on
Cuba’s experience regarding the Guantanamo Naval Base. That is how the base
inside Cuba became US property. Since sovereignty was absolute within the
premises of the said base, and the lease agreement cannot be unilaterally
terminated. Upon knowing this, she immediately told President Marcos knowing
fully its parallel consequence on Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Base.
The US military bases in the Philippines
were established through the Parity Agreement in 1947, which also started the
so-called “mendicant foreign policy.” Interesting to note that it was President
Roxas who initiated this policy. Claro M. Recto and Jose P. Laurel opposed it.
President Roxas even made a public speech of loyalty (according to Recto, more
like subserviency or sycophancy), “kissing the American anus,” at the Kelly
Theater on April 15, 1948.
After the abolition of the 1935
Constitution, and the ratification of the 1973 constitution, subsequent
amendments and provisions thereafter was made and the military bases became
renegotiable every five years. This made it possible for the Philippine Senate
under Jovito Salonga to vote for the removal of the bases in 1991. President
Cory Aquino was for the status quo.
In reality, it is Marcos that we should thank, for the removal of the US
military bases. Senator Salonga, for his part, paid a dear price for disobeying
President Aquino. He was voted out as Senate President and his financial backer
in the business community withdrew their support for his presidential bid.
Aside from this, current brood of
students of activism should also know that it was during the Martial Law era
that Claro M. Recto’s dream of cutting the chain of “mendicant foreign policy”
became a reality. On April 1972, President Marcos initiated the establishment
of diplomatic relations with socialist countries of Asia and Europe, which led
to progressive trade relations and cultural exchange programs. This in turn
marked the end of the Philippines’ period of mendicant policy in foreign
affairs and the beginning of a new era of self-reliance. Recalling history,
Marcos went to China in June 1975, where Chairman Mao Zedong shook his hand and
told him “You must lead the Third World.” The following year, he visited Moscow
and established diplomatic ties with Russia.
We owe it all to Recto’s dream and
Marcos’ act of defiance against the US. Perhaps, the foremost reason, more than
the alleged charges of abuses he committed, why he was stabbed in the back by
“Uncle Sam” and ousted from office.
MARCOS,
THE REVOLUTIONARY
Can Marcos be considered a
revolutionary? Before many activists’ eyebrows start flying, let’s profile the
man through his writings and principles. In his book The Democratic Revolution in the Philippines (1979), he wrote: “The
Democratic Revolution is a rededication to the historical aspirations of the
Filipino people, but it makes demands not only on the political authority
itself but on the very foundation of that authority: the people,” and “The
fundamental reason for building a new society involves the outstanding fact of
our age: the rebellion of the poor. This is a rebellion over which the might of
government can have no avail, for the poor are, in many ways, the people for
which government exist.” It gets more intense in the succeeding book, An Ideology for Filipinos (1980): “What
this (democratic) revolution requires is a political leadership that finds
reason to institute radical reforms and, more important, has the courage to act
on behalf of the people, and thus against the (oppressing) oligarchy, including
its power brokers in the ranks of the intellectual elite.” He summed it up with
his rallying cry: “Of what good is democracy if it is not for the poor?!”
Among the poorest poor and the most
exploited in the Philippines are the peasant farmers. Land reform was the
priority program of the Marcos presidency. But the fact is that before Martial
Law was declared, the Philippine Congress was occupied mostly by landlords,
oligarchs owning huge landed estates, and feudal vassals, and any and all
attempts to pursue a genuine land reform program will not even reach first
reading. Marcos had enough of this: “Our people have known enough of exploitation.
It is time that our people shared equitably in the fruits of their labor and
their land.”
On September 26, 1972, just five days
after declaring Martial Law, Marcos decreed the entire country a land-reform
area. A month later, he enacted the “Tenant Emancipation Decree.” It was put on
paper with his own handwriting: “Decreeing the emancipation of tenant farmers
from the bondage of the soil, transferring to them the ownership of the land
they till, and providing the instruments and mechanism thereafter....” Marcos
wrote it with his own hand because he felt it was both the pioneering and
milestone program of his “New Society,” and to show his sincerity. For he knew
then: “If land reform fails, then the entire program of the New Society fail.”
In the field of environmental concern,
no other president made such radical and drastic move of abolishing the
Philippines’ log exports. Upon seeing the studies made regarding Philippine
forest, that the rate of falling trees was nearly a hectare per minute, Marcos
issued a series of conservation decrees. In 1973, he directed the phasing-out
of log exports and set January 1976 as the deadline for a complete stop. Under
Martial Law, the once powerful logging concessions in the country could only
whimper. Tree farming, on the other hand, was added as a “pioneer industry” in
the investment incentive list of the Board of Investment. Marcos also enjoined
the C.A.T. and R.O.T.C. cadets to participate in tree planting throughout the
country. More than 10 million trees were planted and, by the early 1980s, areas
near watershed were already reforested. Sadly, however, after Marcos was
removed from power, the logging concessions returned and the reforested areas
were logged over bald.
Marcos initiated the development of the
“Filipino Ideology.” This he did with the help of former activists and rebels,
Nilo Tayag, Horacio Morales, Dominador Arellano, to name a few. Tayag was the
co-founder of the Kabataang Makabayan (KM), the forefront of youth and student
activism during the first to the fourth quarter storms, and the idea and
founding of the Kabataang Barangay (KB) undoubtedly sprouted from this concept.
Instead of protesting on the streets against policies of government, why not be
part of improving such policies; be part of building a “New Society.” Many
other ideas deemed revolutionary like the movement for livelihood and
development, Kilusang Kabuhayan at Kaunlaran (KKK), the pro-consumer market,
Kadiwa, the Green Revolution, the Masagana 99, the Sariling Sikap, etc., were
instituted by Marcos upon the advice of these former activists and rebels.
Marcos was a man bound by a visionary
objective: “Our revolution’s mandate, indeed, is to render to our people the
justice and the good life that are their birthright. Translating this broad
mandate into principles and specific policies is the great mission of our
time.”
LET
HISTORY JUDGE THE MAN
Many of those who favored President
Marcos’ burial in the Libingan ng mga Bayani are old people, senior citizens,
mostly from the lower middle class to the indigent sectors of society, while
those loudly shouting against it are in their teens or early twenties,
students, millennials who were not yet born during the Marcos era. The old
folks knew the truth, saw what really happened, and able to compare the then,
what followed, and the now. While the younger generations, in their earnest to
be part of activism, possibly read or heard only one side of the issue and
failed to realize the truth. The Filipino masses, the watching public, are
callously tired of the arguments. The elderly among them also witnessed the 20
years of Marcos and the 30-plus years of afterwards. The same “one claw, one
peck” existence remained in their midst. And worst, the already rich became
richer, and the already poor became poorer still.
Activism, revolutionary movement, can
only prosper if the alternative it presents can truly warrant a better outcome.
The premise for every argument, on the other hand, needs to be circumspect with
full knowledge of importance and priority. An activist cannot just shout an
accusation or put a blame, or burn an effigy; he must be able to know the truth
first hand, not from “second thoughts,” not from hearsays, not from mere
interpretations, heck not even from popular Internet blogs and posts. For if an
activist relies on such invocative sources, he or she will lose in the course
of arguments. A genuine student of activism seeks every possible truth,
diligent in the accumulation of first hand information, and open-minded to the
discovered reality, even if it’s against what he or she purports to believe.
In President Marcos’ case, one might
ask, why did former activists and rebels joined his New Society movement? Do
not just say they were coerced or bribed. Profile them and, if possible, ask
them personally. With regards to what Marcos did or did not do, research first,
do some leg works, compile facts, and lay the Math. Again, I reiterate what engineers
always say, “Mathematics does not lie.” Use it to prove or disprove your
arguments. Every human being’s mind contains logic and common sense, but seldom
is it used.
For the activists of yesteryears, the
so-called final Quarter Storm has dissipated; let the wounds be healed by
history. There are more important matters to attend to, or have you forgotten
your revolutionary perspective? For the activists of today, allow another
Marcos quote to give you a springboard: “The future is never a dream given to
those who ask for miracles. It is the final shape of the efforts of many who
believe in themselves, who are not afraid to blaze new trails, who are not
discouraged by the countless steps ahead, and who have a clear sense of purpose
and direction. Today is an affirmation of what tomorrow shall be.”
In the last lines of Marcos’ A Prayer for the Nation, one reads:
“Teach those who lead to act with firmness but with humility, with humility but
with wisdom, with wisdom but with justice, and with justice but with
compassion; and teach those who follow, the true duties of being men and being
members of a community of men. Cleanse us of our anger, our bitterness, and our
recrimination of the past; spare us the doubts and anxieties of the present;
and purify us for our sacrifice so that we may raise a people who will be their
own strength today, and their own warranty against the future.”
Reading between these lines, did Marcos
write them for himself or for a future leader of the Philippines? Did he get a
glimpse of the (his) future?
In his diary he wrote “I often wonder
what I will be remembered in history for. Scholar? Military hero? Builder? The
new constitution? Reorganization of government? Builder of roads, schools? The
Green Revolution? Uniter of variant and antagonistic elements of our people? He
brought light to a dark country? Strong rallying point, or a weak tyrant?” An
author of an obscure book called these words “delusions,” which perhaps only a
heartless, mindless person would say. Such words, foresights, if one has the
mind to unravel, is of a pioneering, erudite, man with a mission, but lonesome
and feeling isolated because of the huge task still unfinished.
After all that have been said, written
and done about President Marcos, in the finality of things, none of us will be
his judge. It is history that will evaluate the man; it is history that will
write his biography.
THE SON NOW RISES
More than 30 years have passed and
five administrations changed seats, and the Philippines today is seemingly a
country on the state of flux, having a new, radical president beloved by the
constituents, as proven by his record high ratings in the social surveys,
despite allegations from his political opponents and foreign institutions of
extra-judicial killings due to his extremely drastic anti-drug campaign. With
President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, change has indeed come, sudden, radical and
extreme. The people knew of his character and attitude, but still voted for
him. Indeed the Filipinos want change, tired of the political status quo, tired of the wretched
system, the graft and corruption in government, the crimes and hopelessness
that this country experienced in the last three decades. President Duterte is
like an electron that defies its orbit; defies the Laws of Physics.
Another personality in the limelight of this flux is the son of a President Marcos. As if his name is not historically controversial enough, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Romualdez Marcos Jr is at the forefront of two controversies: The burial of his father at the Libingan ng mga Bayani and his election protest to claim the seat of the vice-presidency. The young Marcos is like a proton colliding with two neutrons, in the process, creating so much energy able to polarize an entire archipelago of 100 million people. The B-Bomb is now at hand!
THE MARCOS NAME
The young Marcos, nicknamed “Bongbong,”
first hugged the spotlight when he was seen in his father’s true-to-life story
film, Iginuhit ng Tadhana (1965), as
himself, along with Vilma Santos as his sister Imee, Luis Gonzales as his
father and Gloria Romero as his mother.
In a television interview some years
back, Bongbong’s wife Liza revealed that he could read four books at the same
time. He must have probably inherited his father’s photographic memory and
fast-reading ability.
Being the namesake of your father who
had served as leader of a country for more than 20 years is a heavy load to
carry. When that leader is branded both as a corrupt dictator and the best
president of that country, it becomes a herculean task.
Whatever people think about former
President Marcos affects Bongbong in all aspects. But the young Marcos will
stand firm by the name he inherited. He, however, is not alone. A 2015 Internet
survey revealed that 57 percent of Filipino voters think that the Philippines
was a better place during the administration of the senior Marcos. Members of
the Marcos family were contemplating then of Bongbong running either for
president or vice-president in the 2016 national election. The name “Marcos” is
still well molded in the hearts and minds of the Filipinos.
No need to ask why. Just look around, and no matter where you put your sight to, you’ll see a structure built by President Marcos. In the same context, the peasant farmers remember the deeds the former president did for them. Not only because through him they got a taste of emancipation, but because he joined them in the muddy fields planting rice or harvesting vegetables, all dirtied but unmindful of it. The urban poor remember former First Lady Imelda Marcos as one who would attend to them directly in times of calamities like typhoons and floods oblivious of how far and deep she goes; one who would go to slum areas to bring much-needed help; one who would shake the hands of street sweepers without an alcohol bottle in tow. The anti-Marcos branded these as mere trivial acts, political facades. Nonetheless, these acts that their political opponents were unable to “stomach” are the ones forever carved in the memories of the people. There’s no argument against that.
SEEKING THE VICE-PRESIDENCY
After serving as Governor of Ilocos
Norte (1983-1986, 1998-2007), Representative of the Second District of Ilocos
Norte (1992–1995, 2007–2010), and Senator (2010-2016), and confident of
winning, Bongbong Marcos set his sight on the vice-presidency. In less than a
year’s time, his poll ratings rose from 3 percent (March 2015) to 26 percent
(February 2016), according to surveys of the Social Weather Station. Two months
into Election Day, he was tied at Number 1 with fellow senator Chiz Escudero. Despite
the anti-Marcos campaign of alleged human rights victims, his numbers kept
going up. Just before Election Day, Bongbong got 29 percent (May 1-3) topping
the SWS survey.
Then came the May 2016 Election results: Maria Leonor “Leni” Robredo was declared vice-president with 14,682,290 votes against Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr’s 14,418,817 votes, or a difference of 263,473. How did this happen? Many are in disbelief, especially when the counting of votes was marred by frauds, irregularities and unauthorized data and system interference.
MATHEMATICAL
IMPOSSIBILITY
The glaring question is how did Bongbong
Marcos incredulously lose a more than 1-million vote lead over Leni Robredo at
midnight of May 9, and wind up with a quarter-of-a-million vote deficit by 5
a.m. of May 10?
Representative Jonathan Dela Cruz,
campaign adviser of Bongbong Marcos, disclosed that the decrease in the lead
began after what Comelec said was a “glitch” that delayed the updates of the transmitted
votes in the transparency server. The glitch was the computer showing “?”
instead of “ñ” as in “Nape?as” for “Napeñas.” When the glitch was corrected,
Robredo’s numbers started gaining, and eventually overtook, Marcos.
Logic and common sense dictate: An
entity like Smartmatics, whose business involves computers, will not make such
a petty error of “? & ñ” that would make them the laughing stock of the
cyberworld! Bongbong Marcos’ accusation is well founded. The script change may
not directly cause the cheating, but something “secretly” done may have favored
the Robredo count. Fortunately, in the cyberworld, you can’t hide conspicuous
anomalies like these. There are good people, some “anonymously,” who will
reveal these dastardly schemes.
What happened in the election count
between midnight of May 9 and early morning of May 10 is a mathematical anomaly.
Impossible unless something sinister was done to change the algorithm of the
counting machines.
Indeed, algorithm. The website Get Real Philippines.com posted on May
10, 2016 a revealing article titled “1.37 Million ‘Registered Voters’
Discrepancy Observed in Unofficial Results Reporting Operations!” The author, “Benigno,”
related how several netizens took keen interest in the extraordinary way that
Robredo “chipped away” at the more than 1-million vote lead of Marcos, and then
succeeded in wresting the lead. They noticed the algorithmic way the process
was accomplished. An algorithm is a systematic procedure of solving a specific
problem. Algorithmic, in a sense, means a mathematical program was introduced
into the system that produced the fixed linear summation progressively giving
Robredo higher tallies than Marcos.
Benigno’s
article read: “Facebook netizen Benjamin Vallejo, Jr. plotted the progressive
decrease of Marcos’ lead over Robredo over time and found an almost perfect
linear correlation and posted it on his Facebook profile. The correlation
plotted a straight path downward trajectory for Marcos’ lead. Di kapanipaniwala! (unbelievable!) Observed
Vallejo, noting the perfectly straight line.
Statistician
and Ateneo de Manila faculty member David Yap also closely monitored the
movement of Marcos’ lead over Robredo and arrived at the same conclusion
independently. Like Vallejo, he also posted the results of his analysis on his
Facebook profile. Yap said: ‘Starting from the 80% (of returns) mark, BBM’s
lead has been dwindling by 40k per 1%. The progression is so consistent.’
What
is going on?”
To answer why was there an anomaly. It
is because the election tally counts that came in the server for each candidate
(six of them) should be random. The probability that it became linear for the
two candidates, Marcos and Robredo, is staggering, exceeding perhaps that of
winning through a single combination the 6/55 lotto jackpot.
The late senator and also Marcos’ presidential
running mate, Miriam Defensor Santiago, compared the vice-presidential race to
a “garrison state” where the “authoritarian government feels free to
manufacture numbers as they are needed.... This is an eventuality that will
cause the peoples of the democratic world to shake their heads and question the
values of the society it produced.”
Indeed, the results of the vice-presidential
race remained questionable up to the present.
We must also remember that many of the
advocates of four of the five presidential candidates supported a Bongbong
Marcos vice-presidency. While Leni Robredo only had Mar Roxas and the LP backers,
which are not even solidly behind her as there were even groups in the Visayas
that bannered a Roxas-Marcos tandem. Clearly, all the exit polls including that
of the SWS (34.6 for Marcos and 32.8 for Robredo) and other transparency groups
have confirmed their own internal polling and showed Marcos getting an average
of 34.9 percent of the votes compared with Robredo’s 32.2 percent. These should
have translated in Bongbong Marcos winning by at least 1.1 million votes.
Considering, further, regional surveys, the margin could increase up to 2.5 to
2.7 million votes.
The Robredo camp may argue that survey
results could change on the actual counts. Possible but very unlikely,
especially when you look at the nonchalant way most voters regard the ruling Liberal
Party and the people’s preference in some regions which Robredo supposedly won.
Questionable are the results from Regions 4-A (Calabarzon), 10, 13, ARMM, and
some parts of Region 8.
The best way to resolve this is to have a recount. That is if the tally results haven’t already been tampered with.
THE FORCES BEHIND THE
B-BOMB
Bongbong Marcos’ road to Malacañang
encountered a pesky pothole; his election to the vice-presidency being
temporarily blocked by a “dark matter” of some sort. In cosmic parlance, by a
seemingly unwanted impossibility. Nevertheless, if God wills it, the road will
be paved and concretized.
Last October 19, 2016, in a meeting
with the Filipino community in Beijing, China, President Duterte said Bongbong
Marcos could take the place of Vice-president Robredo. “If he wins in his (electoral)
protest, we might have a new vice-president!” It was received with a thunderous
roar of approval. Incidentally, Marcos won the Filipino Overseas Workers votes
getting more than doubled Robredo’s number.
Speaking at the 80th Anniversary
celebration of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Manila last
November, Marcos said people should watch out for the next chapter of his
political career, saying he “will have a resurgence.”
If this is any indication, then Marcos
supporters should be ready to march with him. To claim what is rightfully his –
the seat of the vice-presidency. Upon regaining the people’s trust then after,
his next step is onward back to Malacañang in the next presidential election.
In all of Bongbong Marcos’ political
endeavors, there were always immovable forces behind him, the Solid North and
the Iglesia Ni Cristo. None of his adversaries can match these. He has huge
supports from the older class D-E voters, which nostalgically remembers the
deeds that his parents did for them. Analyzing his senate election in 2010 and
the results of the 2016 polls, he also has sizable backings from the so-called
Millennials, the educated intellectuals, the youth and the emerging women’s
sector.
The Millennials, those born between
1981 to the 1990s, which comprises some 40 percent of the Filipino voting
population, demographically gave Marcos several million votes in the last two
elections. Most voters 50 years old and above, the age group who directly
experienced his father’s administration, also went for Bongbong.
Among classes A-B-C and those who have
completed college education or finished a post-graduate degree, many have also
joined the Marcos bandwagon. Whereas they were also critics, along the way,
they became the most disappointed members of society because they expected more
radical changes after the 1986 EDSA Revolt that didn’t happen. These people
know that the problem is systemic and the country’s problems cannot be
attributed to one candidate or one family. That is why they are unaffected by
the negative campaigns against the Marcoses.
The most volatile sector of Philippine
society is the youth. It is also the most strident in the criticism against the
Marcoses. In spite of this, Bongbong Marcos got a huge chunk of the youth votes
both in his senate and VP bids. Televised Marcos campaign sorties in different
colleges and universities also showed that despite the black propaganda hurled
against his person, crowds and crowds of students and teachers were
enthusiastic toward him, especially the female population. In the May Election,
Marcos won by a big margin over all his opponents in Metro Manila where most of
the major colleges and universities are located.
Lastly
and perhaps the most unlikely source of support for Bongbong Marcos’ political
career is the women’s sector. In recent elections, women power was felt, not
only in the local but in the national level. You’ve probably noticed more women
executives and legislators in government now-a-days.
When the late Miriam Defensor Santiago chose Bongbong to be his VP running mate, the students and women sectors, her supporters, were aghast. When the gritty former senator defended him in public fora and asked leaders as well as advocates of women’s cause to profile the young Marcos, it introduced a turn-around, a change of viewpoint. Now, Bongbong Marcos has a sizable support group in the women’s sector. It was apparent in the last election. It wasn’t just his charm, but his support of women’s cause, the RH advocacy for one, that gave him the edge. For while Robredo maybe a women’s advocate, her LP party leadership particularly their presidential bet, Mar Roxas, is known to be either on the fence or against pro-women issues, especially the RH Bill.
FOUR-WOMEN POWER
Bongbong Marcos’ campaign experience
with Santiago “was always a learning experience” having the rare skill of
translating “important issues of the day to the experience of an ordinary
Filipino.... The way she took upon the legal issues and explained it to layman,
nothing short of remarkable. She had a very clear way of thinking that went
straight to the knob of the problem, but again, always delivered with some
personal interjection that would bring some tears to your eyes from laughing,”
Marcos remembered, referring to Santiago’s witty one-liners that appealed
especially to the youth. Indeed, Marcos has inherited quite a few from an
intellectual woman’s perspective.
Of course, Bongbong has four other
women at his side. The most telling of the young Marcos’ inherited arsenals are
the ones he got from her mother, former First Lady Imelda Romualdez Marcos. The
“Iron Butterfly” from Tacloban, Leyte, has half a century of political
experience to teach and bestow upon her son. The charisma, the tact, the savvy,
as well as the patience, determination, elegance, compassion, magnanimity, the
ability to read people, and her international diplomatic insights are bequests
that will certainly make Bongbong a strong contender for the next presidency.
For his older sister, Maria Josefa
“Imee” Romualdez Marcos, perhaps the one who inherited their father’s radical
thinking, Bongbong probably has a persistent ally that will be at his side come
what may. One thing that cannot be taken away from Imee is her dedication to
family, and Bongbong is the “closest” family to her, though perhaps she is also
her most stern critic. Her knowledge of Anthropology and Sociology will be
invaluable in Bongbong’s media front. Aside from this, Imee still have access to
the Kabataang Barangay (KB) networks that she once headed. The KB was the
forerunner of the Sangguniang Kabataan – but better trained in leadership acumen.
According to a political insider, “A number of these KBs are now in position to
influence voters in national and local government offices, in non-governmental
organizations, in universities; not a few have the ears of senatorial,
congressional, and local candidates who either consult them or whose campaigns
they are running.”
Bongbong’s younger sister Irene
Marcos-Araneta is perhaps the least profiled among the Marcoses. In Irene, her Kuya found humbleness and humility. But
in recent weeks, she has been participating in her brother’s crusades. She was
seen joining Marcos loyalists rallying outside the Supreme Court. She could
well be the bridge across feuding political families. Who knows, genuine reconciliation
could be her utmost contribution to Bongbong’s would-be administration.
The last but certainly not the least,
is Louise “Liza” Cacho Araneta, a litigation lawyer, professor of law, and
founding member of Marcos, Ochoa, Serapio & Tan (MOST) Law Office, his wife
of 24 years and mother to their three sons: Ferdinand Alexander III, Joseph
Simon and William Vincent.
Bongbong
and Liza belong to families of the political opposites. Liza’s mother, Mila
Cacho, is the older sister of Sari Cacho, wife of Don Pedro Cojuangco, the
eldest brother of former President Corazon “Cory” Cojuangco Aquino. The Araneta
side has its roots going as far back as the Spanish “Galleon Trade,” and
further ancestry points to a prominent family in the Basque region of northern
Spain. It has the same genealogy as that of defeated LP presidential candidate
Manuel “Mar” Araneta Roxas.
Like
his father and mother’s love story, in real life or as recorded in films,
Bongbong and Liza are Pinagbuklod ng
Langit (united by Heaven) and their life together is Iginuhit ng Tadhana (designed by destiny). Indeed, Liza has stood
by Bongbong’s sides throughout his political career. She was there to support him
in every way she could. With such a dedicated, hardworking and supportive wife,
history could repeat itself, and another Marcos would be sitting in Malacañang
come 2022.
o O
o
