WHY Cory stopped U.S. from taking Marcos to Ilocos

While it is true that Cory’s final order to the Americans was to take Marcos away from the Philippines ASAP, it was NOT her first reaction when she was informed early Tuesday evening (Feb 25) that the Marcoses were preparing to leave the Palace.

CORY: Early in the evening, I was back in Wack Wack, talking with opposition leaders, when Ambassador Bosworth called me up to say that the Marcoses had finally been persuaded to leave. Their sons-in-law had been able to convince them that it would be the best thing to do.
http://edsarevolution.com/chronology/day4.php

Close to 9 p.m., Cory received another phone call from Bosworth telling her that Marcos was ready to leave the Palace but was asking to stay for at least two days in Paoay, his home in the north.

Her first reaction was, “Poor man, let us give him two days.” This, according to former Supreme Court Justice, then MP, Cecilia Muñoz Palma, one of her close advisers who overheard, and disagreed. Like  other advisers who were with Cory then, she believed that given the chance, Marcos might regroup his forces or extend his stay indefinitely.

True enough. It is said that when the Marcos party got to Clark Air Base, Marcos got on the phone to his ministers and supporters, allegedly with plans of organizing an “Ilocano army” to fight its way to Metro Manila and “recover” the capital. http://edsarevolution.com/chronology/theflight.php  Some of these supporters reported his calls to Enrile and Ramos who began asking Cory and Bosworth what Marcos was up to.

According to Time correspondent Sandra Burton, Cory had wanted to be “magnanimous in victory,” remembering how Marcos and Imelda had released Ninoy from jail and allowed him to fly to the U.S. for heart surgery in 1980. But her advisers warned her of likely consequences, and once Bosworth assured her that Marcos was not dying, just very tired, she decided that Marcos simply had to go after a night in Clark.

SANDRA BURTON: Although General Ramos denied having been consulted on the matter, sources close to the negotiations claimed not only that he was consulted, but that he was particularly strong in urging that Marcos be given no more leash. … He explained that loyalist generals still controlled much of the north. Once Marcos returned to his province, he would be protected, and he was likely to become a magnet for hundreds of thousand of discontented supporters. “Get him out of there” is the way one of the parties to the negotiation described Ramos’s advice to Aquino. [Impossible Dream | The Marcoses, The Aquinos, and The Unfinished Revolution (1989) page 412]

FIDEL RAMOS: Both Minister Enrile and I wanted whatever was for the greater good of the greater number of Filipinos, which was to have the thing settled as fast as possible and in a bloodless, peaceful way. There are still many emotional Ilocanos who think I should have stepped in and provided Mr. Marcos the chance to go to Ilocos Norte at least to say goodbye. But at the time any deviation from the plan would have given the remaining loyalist forces the opportunity to create a rallying point, mobilize military units, and come storming back to Manila. We couldn’t let that happen while the Aquino government was still consolidating its forces. http://edsarevolution.com/chronology/day4.php  

PAMPANGA PEOPLE POWER

Clark Air Base, 9:45 P.M. — Marcos was met by US Ambassador Stephen Bosworth. He also got a “welcome” from hundreds who massed at the main gate of the base to chant “Co-ree!” while a convoy of some fifty vehicles held a noise barrage for twenty minutes along the base’s perimeter fence. http://edsarevolution.com/chronology/day4.php

JUSMAG Commander, Brigadier General Teddy Allen, who had promised to take Marcos anywhere he wished just to get him out of the Palace was in a bind.

— Deputy base commander Colonel Romeo David had already pledged his loyalty to General Ramos. “I told the head of U.S. intelligence inside Clark that I could not guarantee the safety of Marcos. If our people saw the president, they might shoot him.”

Just as threatening, said Allen, “Word went out in the province to mobilize People Power around the base, and I had visions of one million people converging on the gate by morning.”

Newly aware of the political pressures to get the ex-president out of the country soon, and worried about Marcos’s security inside the base, which was in rebel hands, General Allen sought permission from Washington to leave for Guam as soon as possible.

— At 2:30 A.M. Allen contacted Tommy Manotoc and Bong Bong Marcos and informed them of the necessity of leaving before daybreak for Guam, where he could guarantee the family’s safety until it could decide upon a final destination. 

— There was a bitter exchange between Ferdinand and American officials. He demanded to be flown to his home in the Ilocos. They had orders from President Reagan and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to fly him to America. At 4:00 A.M, Ferdinand stopped arguing.  [EDSA UNO (2013) page 318]

WHAT IF
What if the Marcoses had not so distrusted the pilots of the presidential helicopters who were prepared, since Monday morning, to fly them anywhere in the islands; or what if Marcos had motored to Paoay in an equipped ambulance. Then, again, perhaps Marcos was just too sick for a long road trip, which would render impressive the fact that he was able to walk out of the palace on his own two feet.

Still and all, if they had snubbed the American offer, if they had left under their own steam, chances are they would have made it to Paoay, and People Power would have had to regroup.

So do we owe the Americans a debt of gratitude for taking him away into exile? I have always thought the better ending would have been if the Marcoses had taken the presidential choppers, and the pilots turned out to be reformists and took the First Couple to Crame instead. With Enrile in charge, no harm would have come to them, but they would have had to face the judgement of the people in a revolutionary court, and maybe, just maybe, People Power would have levelled up to the challenge of standing strong for the greater good vs. elite and crony interests represented by Cory and Enrile.

That would have brought closure, and ushered in a new order. [EDSA UNO (2013)]

How Philippine Education Contributed to the Return of the Marcoses

The inclusion of factual errors and blatant misinformation in school textbooks has provided fertile soil for the historical revisionism of the Marcos clan and its allies.

By Franz Jan Santos
May 23, 2022 | thediplomat.com

Back in 2018, I spoke in front of big group of teachers from schools across the country about the challenges of Social Studies education. One of the challenges I mentioned at the time was the rise of negative historical revisionism, most notably in the form of efforts to present former dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos, his family, and the Martial Law period in a positive light.

During the open forum, a teacher from a school in Northern Luzon asked how something can be labelled as historical revisionism, or worse, a distortion of history. She said that no one can really say what is true in history; that it has always been matter of perspective and interpretation. The accusation that the Marcoses were engaged in a perverted form of historical revisionism was therefore just a propaganda of the “other side,” which wanted their preferred interpretation of history to be the canon. She was truly passionate about her views, and was close to tears as she spoke.

This incident might sound surprising to those who are knowledgeable about history and Martial Law. However, in my experience as an educator and teacher trainer for the last 15 years, it was an expected response to discussions related to the Marcoses and Martial Law. Of all the topics in Philippine history, these have proven to be among the most contentious for teachers, and produce the most passionate exchanges. There are many reasons for this: regional loyalties, differing Martial Law experiences, and access to information, among others. Whatever the case, it is safe to say that it is a cause of concern when teachers themselves – those charged with the education of a future generation of Filipinos – question the facts and legacy of one of the darkest periods in Philippine history.

Issues in Martial Law Education in the Philippines

As the Marcoses have gradually crawled back to the heights of national politics, commentaries have abounded on how they were able to harness the power of social media to rehabilitate their image for a post-People Power generation. There have also been commentaries on how the Marcoses have successfully allied with prominent political clans in the past in order to strengthen their bid for national leadership, which culminated with the victory of Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Jr. at this month’s presidential elections.

One topic that needs a more detailed discussion, though, is the role that education played in the rise of the Marcoses over the last three decades. Some articles have raised concerns about Araling Panlipunan (Social Studies) textbooks that contained errors and misinformation about Marcos Sr. and Martial Law. In such books, the former strongman is usually presented in a positive light, as a benevolent dictator who had to use force to cure society’s ills.

As a content editor for Philippine History textbooks, I have seen firsthand how factual errors, carelessness, and even blatant misinformation have escaped scrutiny, making it into manuscripts, and even into print at times. As I have discussed elsewhere, I once raised a concern with a publishing house after the writers of their Philippine History textbook copied an erroneous write-up from a heavily criticized post from the Official Gazette in 2016, which claimed that Marcos had “stepped down” from the presidency in 1986, instead of being ousted by the People Power Revolution. The government’s communications department eventually edited that segment after a public uproar.

Policing history textbooks in the Philippines can prove to be a daunting task for academics, historians, and even the Department of Education, since textbook production in the country has been liberalized since the ouster of Marcos. While the Department of Education still has control on which topics need to be covered and which learning outcomes to measure, they have very little control over the actual content of textbooks. What we see in our textbooks is the product of many factors, such as the authors’ personal beliefs and knowledge, the editorial staff’s assessment and recommendations, and of course, the business side of textbook publication.

It is important to discuss accuracy in textbooks because in the Philippines, most Araling Panlipunan (AP) teachers are not history majors and thus rely heavily on textbooks. This poses a challenge for the sector, since prior to the Philippine educational reforms enacted in 2013, most AP subjects at high school level dealt with history: 3 out of 4 subjects, the only exception being economics. It is hoped – and expected – that schools and teachers would invest in faculty development to address this issue. But the reality is that there is very little incentive for most AP teachers to invest in content specialization after already investing in becoming accredited teachers. Given this reality, it is of the utmost importance that quality of textbooks are used in classrooms.

An equally pressing concern is how Martial Law is discussed and analyzed in both textbooks and classroom instruction. A study spearheaded by the Far Eastern University Public Policy Center in January 2022 found that discussions of Martial Law in selected AP textbooks were fairly limited, despite the significance of the topic. This was also true in the classroom. Since Philippine history is usually discussed in a chronological manner, topics like Martial Law and the People Power Revolution tend to come at the tail end of the curriculum. Given the amount of topics needed to be covered by AP teachers in one school year – along with the usual class cancellations brought about by incidents such as typhoons – Martial Law is often not discussed with the length and depth it deserves. In some case I have personally seen, it was not discussed at all.

There is also the issue of presentation, emphasis and interpretation of Martial Law. For example, how was corruption during the Martial Law era discussed? In many instances, too much focus was given to the corruption of Marcos cronies, and not to that of the Marcos family itself, which could have been easily facilitated by presenting Supreme Court rulings recognizing the extent of the clan’s ill-gotten wealth. Without a solid discussion on the Marcoses direct hand in corruption, we run the risk of perpetuating one Marcos myth: that the family was not corrupt, but were surrounded by corrupt individuals who took advantage of their position.

Another common topic in the discussion of Marcos and Martial Law was the president’s massive infrastructure projects. Again, in both textbooks and classroom discussions there has often been a tendency to highlight this aspect of Marcos’ rule, citing living symbols such as the Cultural Center of the Philippines, the Lung Center of the Philippines, the Philippine Heart Center, and the San Juanico Bridge, among many other projects, without an adequate discussion of the context surrounding them. For example, one must adequately discuss the costs of infrastructure development such as the ballooning international debt, the absence of transparency, and corruption, and even the simple fact that Marcos was in power for more than 20 years. One must also discuss which types of Filipinos benefitted most from such projects: ordinary Filipinos, or his cronies and other Filipino elites? Without such scrutiny, one will inadvertently reinforce another Marcos myth, the idea that the era was a “Golden Age,” despite the irrefutable fact that the Philippine economy was in rubbles by the early 1980s.

A further concern related to Martial Law education is how it is processed, evaluated, and appreciated. A common pedagogical approach in teaching AP topics is to ask students to look at two sides of the topic, identifying both the “positive” features and effects and the “negative.” Applied to Martial Law, infrastructure development is usually logged in the positive column, and human rights violations in the negative. In the end, students are usually asked to weigh the positive and negative aspects of Martial Law and make their own conclusion and evaluation. While such an approach may have its merits, one would hope that the teacher will process the experience accordingly and encourage students to judge this period in history based on our values as a nation, as well as universally accepted values. If done this way, students and teachers should reach a clear answer on the legacy of Martial Law.

Unfortunately, “judging” is not a task many educators like to do, and this, I believe, is one of the biggest issues in Martial Law education in the Philippines. In my experience as an educator, I have found that a large number of teachers hesitate or refuse to judge this period in history, some due to personal bias, some out of fear or insecurity, and some based on a false notion of objectivity. The legacy of Martial Law then, is reduced to a matter of personal opinion, something that is extremely dangerous in this age of post-factualism. Such a belief can only benefit those who hold power in society, such as Imelda Marcos, who made this bold statement in the 2019 documentary “The Kingmaker”: “Perception is real, truth is not.”

Education in the Age of Marcos Jr.

Even as academics and educators grapple with the multitude of problems in Martial Law education today, they face an even bigger challenge with the victory of Bongbong Marcos in the recently-concluded polls. Academics and concerned citizens are already calling for people and institutions to protect books, documents, and other sources related to Martial Law and Marcos crimes, fearing that they may be lost or inaccessible once Marcos Jr. takes office.

The concern is valid to say the least. Bongbong Marcos, along with family members like Imee Marcos and their mother Imelda, have always asserted their family’s innocence, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Bongbong himself once called for textbook revisions, saying that these books contained “lies” about the Marcos family. Despite these efforts, the Marcoses have so far failed to institutionalize their version of history. The game is different now, though. Whereas before, they had to do it via alternative sources of information like TikTok, YouTube, and Facebook, now they have the power to institutionalize the perverted version of Martial Law and Marcos family history that they have been preaching for decades.

The family actually began process of institutionalization during the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte, knowing full well that the president was an ally. In 2016, for example, the Official Gazette was heavily scrutinized for a revisionist post making the 99th birth anniversary of Ferdinand Sr. In the same year, Marcos Sr. was buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani – the cemetery of national heroes in Manila. Imagine what they can do now that they are in power, with a very strong political mandate. It is also concerning that just a couple of days after the election, the presumptive president announced his plans to nominate his running mate, and presumptive vice president, Sara Duterte as education secretary. Her nomination was both disappointing and alarming; disappointing since education has never been her focus, and alarming because of her ties with the Marcoses.

A Call to Arms

While the victory of Marcos was a big blow to educators, it was also a call to arms. Now more than ever, educators from all over the country must reassess how Martial Law is taught and evaluated in schools and even in public discussion. Admittedly, academics – and the educational sector in general – became complacent after the ouster of Marcos in 1986 for varying reasons, and this was the case for myself as well. While I would like to believe the most of us taught Martial Law the best we could, I also believe that most of us were late to realize the scale of misinformation that is spreading in and outside the classrooms, and its effect on the Filipino population.

Therefore, the most urgent task for educators, academics, and scholars is to step up efforts at combating the Marcoses’ historical distortion. Educators from all units must counter disinformation on all fronts, particularly on social media where the Marcoses and their apologists have a large head start. To borrow the words of Winston Churchill, “We shall fight them on TikTok, we shall fight them in textbooks, we shall fight them on historical markers and commemorations. We shall never surrender!”

Connected to the first point, academics and scholars must also aggressively build an army of translators who have the skill to bring down high content from academic journals and books for public consumption. These translators can be basic education teachers who are better trained in pedagogy, concerned influencers who have a much wider reach than academics, members of the religious community who are appalled by this affront to values they espouse, and even youth who share the same goals.

The academic community must also keep a close watch on how the Marcos administration approaches the remembrance and memorialization of Martial Law and related topics. Subtle changes in write-ups to official commemorations, presidential addresses, historical markers, among others, must be scrutinized, and if needed opposed. This is of utmost important since the Marcoses now have the power to institutionalize versions of history that suit their narrative.

The recent events should also encourage historians, scholars and academics to engage in textbook writing for basic education, and perhaps co-author them with teachers in basic education to ensure both historical accuracy and sound pedagogy. We must produce more books that use primary sources effectively, and cite relevant details to support assertions to counter Marcos myths. It is also essential to integrate narratives from outside Luzon, where many Filipinos suffered under Martial Law.

Lastly, scholars, academics, and all educators must impress on the Filipino people that this issue matters to every single Filipino, and is not just a fight against a person or a family as Marcos and his apologists would like to claim. The fight against historical distortion is an assertion of our values as a nation; values that are enshrined in our constitution. It is a fight against efforts to make us forget who we are as a people.

Vlogging, blogging, and Mareng Winnie

It did not surprise when lawyer-vlogger Trixie Cruz Angeles was appointed communications chief & press secretary by the president-elect. Much less did it perturb when she announced that her priority is to push for the accreditation of vloggers so they can cover presidential briefings and events along with mainstream media.

Malinaw naman na malaki ang kontribusyon ng vloggers tulad nina Mocha Uson, Atty. Trixie, Thinking Pinoy, at Sass [For the Motherland], to name a few, hindi lang sa pag-defend sa Duterte admin in the last 6 years, gayon din ang naging papel nila (minus Uson) sa pagkapanalo ni Marcos Jr. nung May 9 – halos walang patid ang kanilang pagtugon, pag-dispute, sa mga paratang na ill-gotten wealth, unpaid taxes, atbp. na ibinato sa mga Marcos noong kampanya.

And to be clear – since mainstream media peeps don’t seem to realize this – vlogging is not at all like blogging or journalism.  Blogging and journalism entail the writing of a text, whether commentary or reportage, feature article or gossip column.

Vlogging is live (long ī) commentary in front of a video camera, usually accessible on Facebook or YouTube, the vlogger addressing directly his/her viewers | followers, as in a conversation, explaining issues, responding to questions, in easy informal Tagalog, if not Taglish.

Vlogging is very different from what broadcast journalists Alvin Elchico and Doris Bigornia, halimbawa, do on SRO | DZMM nightly (except weekends) where they call on resource persons and viewers to articulate the different sides of an issue—as in, pa-objective, putting forward opinions other than their own.

The vlogger, in contrast,  quotes | cites only data and viewpoints that support his/her take on a matter—as in, very subective, putting forward only his/her own feelings | opinions, purely in support | defense of the actions and policies of his/her principal/s.

Propaganda, indeed, but then, kung tutuosin, mainstream media | accredited journalists have their biases and sacred cows, too. These days, the anti-Marcos among them serve mostly the Establishment that seeks only to preserve the status quo, i.e., the existing state of affairs (before RRD and BBM), sorry na lang ang mga poor na parami nang parami ang bilang at pahirap nang pahirap ang buhay (even back in GMA’s and PNoy’s terms, correct me if I’m wrong).

Pero more immediately, ang totoong hamon sa mga anti-Marcos in mainstream media is to stop whining about the influence and reach of pro-Marcos vloggers and to start vlogging, too: Level up, do live commentary, some focusing on disputing the lies and distortions re martial law and EDSA with documented data, others on offering alternative opinions | takes re the new President’s pronouncements and policies, again, based on data.

Samantala, I love it that Mareng Winnie Monsod, after her Get Real column was “discontinued” by Inquirer, has started blogging @marengwinniemonsod.ph. Check out her take on Marcos Jr.’s inaugural speech: False Claims, Inaccurate Statements, and Exaggerations.

She could take it a step further and also start vlogging — much like what she was doing in Bawal ang Pasaway kay Mareng Winnie for GMA TV in pre-pandemic times.  A vlog where she interviews Sec Trixie on why | how she changed her mind about the Marcoses would be a blockbuster for sure!

Marcos Jr.’s mantra: Unity, dialogue, respect

SATUR C. OCAMPO  

Those words, or that mantra, got repeatedly mentioned by Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in his inaugural speech Thursday, after being sworn into office as the Philippines’ 17th president, at the façade of the National Museum in Manila.

“We shall seek, not scorn, dialogue, listen respectfully to contrary views, be open to suggestions coming from hard thinking and unsparing judgment but always from us Filipinos. We can trust no one else when it comes to what is best for us,” he said, adding, “Past history has often proven that.”

“Let us all be part of the solution that we choose [in resolving our national problems]. In that lies the power to get it done, always to be open to differing views but ever united in our chosen goal,” he stressed. Elsewhere in his speech, he recalled his reflections during the presidential campaign that led to his resolve “never ever give up hope for reconciliation.”

Oddly, while reiterating his campaign stance “not to talk about the past” but about the future, Marcos Jr. repeatedly referred to some of what his father had done during his prolonged authoritarian rule and which he vowed to emulate.

“I once knew a man who saw what little have been achieved since independence in a land of people with the greatest potential for achievement. And yet they were poor. But he got it done, sometimes with the needed support; sometimes, without. So will it be with his son,” he declared. Quickly, he added, “You will get no excuses from me.”

One action with long-term devastating consequences that Marcos Sr. took without the people’s support, without even pre-warning to them, was his declaration of martial law on Sept. 21, 1972.

Can, therefore, the Filipino people feel assured that these pronouncements by the son would remain firm – and conscientiously adhered to – throughout the Marcos Jr. presidency?

Let’s go over other excerpts from the text of the inaugural speech provided to the media:

• “By your vote, you rejected the politics of division. I offended none of my rivals in this campaign, I listened instead to what they were saying and I saw little incompatibility with my own ideas about jobs, fair wages, personal safety and national strength and ending want in a land of plenty.”

So where comes the “politics of division” Marcos Jr. alleged was rejected by the voters? And would the pursuit of reconciliation pertain only to his rivals in the presidential election?

• “You picked me to be your servant to enable changes to benefit all. I fully understand the gravity of the responsibility that you’ve put on my shoulders. I do not take it lightly but I’m ready for the task. I will need your help. I want to rely on it but rest assured I do not predicate success on the wider cooperation that’s needed. I will get (the task) done.

“There are hints of a road not taken that could get us out of here quicker, to something better, something less fragile. There is also what you, the people, did to cope [with the pandemic and its harsh economic impacts] but this time empowered by new technologies and more resources. You got by, getting some of what you needed with massive government help. And for this I thank my predecessor for the courage of his hard decisions. But there is a way… more means and choices in your hands. I trust the Filipino.”

• “But again, I will not predicate my promise to you on your cooperation. You have your own lives to live, your work to do and there too, I will help. Government will get as much done alone without requiring more from you. No excuses. Just deliver. It was like that, once upon a time.” He was referring to how supposedly it was during his father’s regime.

Marcos Jr. promised to tell the Filipino people in his forthcoming State of the Nation Address later this month “exactly how we shall get this done.”

• “Our future we decide today, yesterday cannot make that decision anymore, nor can tomorrow delay it. The sooner we start, the surer and quicker the prospect of achieving the future. We are presently drawing up a comprehensive all-inclusive plan for economic transformation. We will build back better by doing things in the light of experiences that we have had, both good and bad; it doesn’t matter.”

This, of course, requires looking back seriously to identify the weaknesses and errors that need to be strengthened or rectified. Marcos Jr. clarified:

“No looking back in anger or nostalgia. [But can that be the case if there’s no admission of misdeeds nor apologies, to say the least?] In the road ahead, the immediate months will be rough but I will walk that road with you…”

Marcos Jr. heaped fulsome plaudits on his father and his predecessor for having built “more and better roads” than those of all the administrations ahead of them. Following their steps, he said, his administration “will continue to build, I will complete on schedule the projects that have been started, without taking credit for doing so.”

His administration will present a comprehensive infrastructure plan to be carried out during his six-year term. “No part of our country will be neglected. Progress will be made wherever there are Filipinos, so no investment is wasted,” he assured.

He also assured actions to address food self-sufficiency, which he noted had been the “key promise in agriculture by every administration. None, but one, delivered,” he said – again referring to his father as the one who delivered during the early part of his 20 years in power. As for the rest, it was another story.

Deafeningly silent, however, was Marcos Jr. on national security management and its criminal consequences: foremost of which is the impunity enjoyed by state security forces in perpetrating massive human rights violations, under all administrations beginning with the Marcos dictatorship.

*     *      *

Email: satur.ocampo@gmail.com