Category: history

Celebrating Ninoy #21Aug83

Sharing this excerpt from an essay by my favorite historian following Ninoy’s assassination that captures the temper of, and expands the thinking on, those agitated times.  

ANCIENT HISTORY IN THE PRESENT CRISIS
by Reynaldo C. Ileto
15 November 1983

The Philippines gives the image nowadays of a people suddenly galvanized into action by Aquino’s murder. There have been demonstrations, boycotts, marches, and prayer rallies. As one would expect, these started in the universities and public plazas, recalling the student-dominated displays of pre-martial law days. But now churches are very much in the center of protest. Add to that business districts like Makati, and the slums. The workers are moving, and every day one hears of strikes by this or that union or association. Even at the village level there is much agitation.

While the release of mass energies is noted by the media, the usual explanations for it invariably lead away from the experience to the stresses presumably causing it and to the instability it threatens. Marcos’ authoritarian rule and a deepening economic crisis, to cite Time, is fostering “widespread apathy and cynicism and [driving] young Filipinos into the country’s small but increasingly troublesome Communist movement.” Implied here is that the crucial, non-violent center is crumbling. This goes for the “legitimate” opposition as well: the murder of Aquino created “a serious leadership vacuum in the opposition.” This all raises the spectre of a military take-over on one hand, and communism on the other. (Time, Sept. 5) Newsweek summed up its distance from popular sentiments by lamenting that “in the long run [Aquino’s] death could only hurt the cause for which he had sacrificed himself.” (Newsweek, Sept. 5)

It is clear that for the Western press, stability and order are the main concerns. Instability and disorder (both internal and regional) are threatened by the impending fall of the center– Marcos– and so most scenarios dwell on his possible successors, hopefully the restorers of order. The assassination and subsequent mass actions are seen as aberrations, or interruptions best pushed to the background as soon as possible.

From another perspective, however — and this includes that of the participants in the rallies — a very different notion of what is “normal” seems to prevail. To put it another way, recent events are very much part of a certain rhythm of Philippine history, comprehensible in its own terms, and not necessarily a minor partner to the assigned “stable” order of things. The Aquino affair and its sequel provide us with a set of events to illustrate this point.

Probe into Aquino’s background and you find no revolutionary. He was a politician, a member of the ilustrado political oligarchy that was nurtured under the American regime. His father had been the chairman of the Kalibapi, the mass political party that the Japanese organized in 1942. Ninoy himself is said to have had connections with the CIA during his early career as a journalist. He was an exile in the U.S., the former colonial power that backed his rival, Marcos. His wife, Cory, is the first cousin of a crony from the Marcos camp. And some have speculated that he was returning in order to bolster the faction to which he was connected by kinship. (McCoy, Sydney Morning Herald, Aug. 23)

Observers recognized that both protagonists emerged from the same scene, and were still playing the old game– thus the maze of contradictions surrounding the contest. According to a close Marcos aide, “Marcos and Ninoy were the most able intelligent pair of political strategists. There was a contest of wills between them. It was like the arms race. No one thinks that either side is capable of pulling the trigger. But they keep pushing each other to the limit, and suddenly it explodes.” It was “the tragic last act of a long, almost medieval drama.” (Time, Sept. 5)

The medieval drama is, indeed, a fitting analogy. Trouble is, attention has been fixed on the supposedly “real people” behind the masks and the costumes. What the study of Philippine politics often misses are the readings of the play by the various sections of the audience. Controversies in Philippine history have arisen out of the practice of locking events and personalities to singular, supposedly true and factual, meanings. Thus Rizal, to cite a well-known example, was the intellectual of Chinese-mestizo origin who inspired nationalism through his writings but condemned the armed uprising against Spain (thus speaking for order). We don’t see that Rizal was not always what he intended to signify, that he also was the magical curer and the Liberator returning from overseas, whose martyrdom inspired people to join the uprising. He is very much the emblem of disorder in this alternative reading of his life and work.

Aquino is just the latest in a series of figures whose meanings (not origins) have and will continue to inform popular responses to the present crisis. The fact that Marcos politics has been fundamentally de-centered (or de-stabilized) by the Aquino figure is more “normal” than it looks. Philippine history has generally been written in a linear fashion– it is the saga of a people coming into its own, discovering their identity through opposition to the various colonial powers.

Marcos in his multi-volume history Tadhana (Destiny) has himself rewritten this history in order to install himself as the successor to the series of fighters for freedom from the 16th century Lapulapu on. However, for each nationalist figure that appears dominant (and to which Marcos links himself) in this history, one can put forth either a contrary reading of this figure or another figure in opposition to it.

For example, during the American period dominated by “compadre colonial politics” opposition was represented in the schoolteacher and former revolutionary general Artemio Ricarte. Exiled in Hongkong, he promised to return as the liberator, he preached independence through struggle, and criticized the dominant politics as false and deceptive. His opponent in the drama was Manuel Quezon, the American protege who succeeded in 1916 (with the passage of the Jones Law) in displacing Ricarte as the Liberator who would gain independence. Historical writing, however, largely suppresses Ricarte, the radical “other” of Quezon. So does it suppress other figures who emerged to succeed Ricarte– some of whom were executed or given long jail sentences for “banditry.” The net effect is a coherent history dominated by first by nationalist rebels, then parliamentary politics, and progressing from the first or Malolos Republic, to the Philippine Assembly, the Commonwealth, and on to the New Society.

How does the Aquino affair relate to all this? It has thrust into the foreground a meaningful politics which previously appeared only in the gaps of this linear history. This politics represents an alternative to “pulitika” or the jockeying for positions among the old political oligarchy. To assert itself today, it has had to co-opt a traditional politician, Ninoy himself, and turn him inside out. Death made this possible. The old suspicion that somehow a politician’s fine words are not matched by sincerity and action, has melted in Ninoy’s case.

Ninez Olivares, viewing Aquino’s body recalled what Ninoy had said to her in New York: “And you doubt it?” According to her: “I doubted that because Aquino was a politician, he may not have had the interests of the Filipino at heart; that he may not have loved his country and our people. I looked at his ashen face, the bullet wound, and the blood all over hs shirt. No, Ninoy, I said to myself. I have no more doubts. You loved your country and your people. God be with you, always, wherever you may be.”

Words like these are usually thrown out by analysts because they belong to the realm of the sentimental or religious rather than real politics. But if the history of the 1896 revolution is at all useful as a guide, the break with Spain began precisely with a tearful, sentimental dialogue, expressed in popular poems and songs, between Mother Spain and daughter Filipinas over the bodies of three executed reformist priests. Andres Bonifacio terminated the dialogue by declaring Inang Bayan as the true mother. The spread of the Katipunan was facilitated by the appeal to remember and pity the suffering Inang Bayan. Something like this is happening today. After the common grief over Ninoy’s death, it appears that the bulk of the Filipino people have shifted their loyalties and are preparing for the next move. The memory of Ninoy is a crucial factor.

Like Rizal in the 1890’s, Ninoy scattered statements and signs that would become meaningful in the light of his death. “It’s time,” he said, “to be home with our people and suffer with them. And if you’ll remember, when I left home, I promised to return. I’ll be keeping that promise.” Then came his remark, said half-jokingly at that time: “I would rather die a glorious death than be killed by a Boston taxicab.” The imprisoned Rizal did something similar when he sent a sketch of the “Agony in the Garden” to his family, with the note “this is but the first station.”

*

The construction of Aquino the martyr was almost too easily done. Quite common are passages like the following:

“Mourners comment on his smile and the sweetness of the face and the kindness there. That face with its singularly haunting look and the smudges that the final violence left on it will haunt the Filipino people for a long time. Like Jose Rizal’s final act of trying to defeat his killers by turning towards the sun and their bullets just before death, Ninoy’s enigmatic look may well be his final victory.” (H. Paredes, Mr&Ms, Sept. 9)

In a way this is literary overkill. But the reference to Rizal is not at all forced. For all the anting-anting (magical power) stories woven around him, Marcos has never aspired to Rizal status. Aquino has succeeded on this point. The juxtaposition is clear in the portraits of Rizal and Aquino carried side by side in street demonstrations underscored by the words “Great Men Sacrifice their Lives for Freedom.”

***

120 years of America

These days find me wondering, what if, ano kayâ, kung hindi tayo sinakop nasakop ng America after we had won the war against Spain in 1898.  Ano kayâ kung hindi tayo masyadong naniwala sa pangako na ikaaangat, ikabubuti, ikagiginhawa, ng Pilipinas ang pagsuko sa Amerika. A century and some 20 years later, maliwanag na kalunus-lunos ang sinapit, tuluyang sinasapit, ng nakararaming Pilipino. Worse, nasabit na tayo nang bonggang-bongga sa hidwaang Amerika-Tsina. 

Sharing here excerpts from two opinion essays: ‘Separate and equal’ by Michael Lim Ubac and In the Philipines, Haunted by History by Gina Apostol. Good to be reminded what we’re up against, still.

‘SEPARATE AND EQUAL’ 
by Michael Lim Ubac
June 13 2024

… History tells us that neither Spain nor the US acknowledged the provisional government established by Aguinaldo in 1898 or the formal declaration of independence ratified by the Malolos Congress in 1899. Instead, Spain ceded the Philippine archipelago to the US for $20 million on Dec. 10, 1898, through the Treaty of Paris. The treaty relinquished Spain’s control of Cuba and gave away its other colonies, such as Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, to the US. It also sounded the death knell for over four centuries of the Spanish Empire, and provided the US with a renewed sense of confidence—a sense of manifest destiny, as it were, for its future as a Pacific power.

This still-evolving American foreign policy would logically undermine the goals for self-determination of the nascent Philippine republic. With virtually all of the Philippines outside Manila already under the control of Aguinaldo’s forces after shaking off the Spanish yoke, Filipino revolutionaries and at least seven million Filipinos were prepared to settle and enjoy the benefits of hard-fought freedom. But when Private William Grayson, a member of the Nebraska Volunteer Infantry Regiment, opened fire on Filipino soldiers at 9 p.m. on Feb. 4, 1899, that shot ignited what would become the Filipino-American War. The rest is history.

One vote. Strategically, the McKinley administration saw Manila as an ideal location to defend US interests in China against European interventions. The presence of the US could also increase American influence in the far east. But the Treaty of Paris had a polarizing effect on American politics. It was narrowly ratified by the Senate on Feb. 6, 1899, with just one vote more than the necessary two-thirds for approval.

In 2011, while researching at Harvard’s Widener Library, I stumbled upon a pamphlet that contains excerpts from a three-hour speech of US Sen. George F. Hoar on April 17, 1900, during the debate on the ratification of the treaty. Hoar vigorously opposed the conquest of the Philippines, describing the archipelago as “a nation entitled as such to its separate and equal station among the powers of the earth by the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” Hoar could not fathom why America had to civilize a country like the Philippines, which already had a “written constitution, a settled territory, an independence it has achieved, an organized army, a congress, courts, schools, universities, churches, the Christian religion, a village life in orderly, civilized, self-governed municipalities; a pure family life, newspapers, books.”

Hoar acknowledged the intellectual prowess and patriotic fervor of Filipinos, saying it had “statesmen who can debate questions of international law, like [Apolinario] Mabini, and organize governments, like Aguinaldo; poets like José Rizal; aye, and patriots who can die for liberty, like José Rizal.” He added: “No people can come under the government of any other people, or any ruler, without its consent.” Hoar then asked his colleagues whether it was justifiable to “crush that republic, despoil that people of their freedom and independence and subject them to our rule.”

“Is it right, is it just, to subjugate this people? To substitute our Government for their self-government, for the Constitution they have proclaimed and established? … Are these mountains of iron and nuggets of gold and stores of coal, and hemp-bearing fields, and fruit-bearing gardens to be looked upon by our legislators with covetous eyes?” he asked.

Hoar’s questions are still relevant today, even though the international context has evolved. Since 1946, the Philippines has had a trusted economic and military ally in the US. The Philippines remains valuable geopolitically to the US even as its economy is closely tied to China.

***

IN THE PHILIPPINES, HAUNTED BY HISTORY
By Gina Apostol
April 28, 2012

THE Philippines is haunted by its relationship with the United States. I remember the day, in 1991, when the Military Bases Agreement between the two countries was rescinded. The headlines yelled, finally: Freedom! But worrywarts held on to their beads. Clark Air Force Base and Subic Naval Base were America’s largest overseas outposts — powerful vestiges of colonial rule decades after the American occupation, which lasted from 1899 to 1946, had ended. In American history books those decades have fallen into an Orwellian memory hole: lost or abridged.

On the Philippine side, however, the relationship with America looms like Donald Barthelme’s balloon, a deep metaphysical discomfort arising from an inexplicable physical presence. In Barthelme’s story “The Balloon,” a huge glob inflates over Manhattan, affecting ordinary acts of puzzled citizens for no apparent reason. American involvement in Filipino affairs sometimes seems like that balloon, spurring fathomless dread. Bursts of anxiety over the bases’ return pop up every time America finds a new enemy.

The high-level April 30 [2012] meeting between the United States and the Philippines in Washington occurs during a standoff between Beijing and Manila over disputed territories. Hillary Rodham Clinton has called the contested portion of the South China Sea “the West Philippine Sea,” fanning Chinese ire and Filipino nationalism alike over obscure islands known by most as the Spratlys. (They have oil, and China wants it, too.) And tensions have not been soothed by joint military training exercises featuring 6,000 American and Filipino troops practicing so-called mock beach invasions on the coast facing China. Indeed, as America pivots to Asia and China rattles Manila, old phantoms are rising.

… The bases haunt us because they emerged during a dreamspace, when we still believed in our capacity for revolution. America “friended” the Philippines during our 1896 war against Spain then “unfriended” us when it paid Spain $20 million dollars for the islands in 1899. The building of military installations began apace, in step with the trauma of our sense of betrayal.

We agitated against the Clark and Subic bases during the Marcos years, that conjugal dictatorship propped up by American good will. There are photographs of the Marcoses with every American president since 1965, many on Wikicommons: Imelda dancing with the sweaty and the suave: with Nixon, as the Vietnam War waxed, and Reagan, as the cold war waned. A brutal war against ill-equipped, proto-Maoist insurgents kept the Marcoses, and American guns, in business. It’s no surprise that the bases became a linchpin in our constitutional debates after we threw out the dictator in 1986.

… Our brand-new 1987 Constitution banned foreign bases, but America’s lease wasn’t up for four more years. Pundits quipped that only an act of God would kick the bases out. God obliged. Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, pulverizing Clark Air Force Base and devastating Subic. America abandoned Clark and moved to renegotiate the bases treaty. I remember the day the Senate rejected the treaty because my own child was newborn, of age with the country. President Corazon Aquino, a sugar heiress whose family made a fortune during World War II providing alcohol to American G.I.’s, reluctantly signed it in 1991.

A smoldering volcano, Mount Mayon, had heralded the arrival of American forces in 1899, and in a seismic mirror Pinatubo ushered them out — a nation foretold by tectonic shifts. In between the acts, rubble remains.

American policy has always benefited the Filipino elite — the Marcoses, the Macapagal-Arroyos and the current presidential family, the Cojuangco-Aquinos, are among the handful who have reaped a bonanza. The interests of the oligarchy are the ties that bind. Our spectral angst is not so immaterial: our dread is drenched in military dollars and haunted by civilian blood.

***

Ninoy & the Marcoses #40years

On this 40th death anniversary of Ninoy Aquino, it was good to wake up to these words from President Marcos Jr., even if only for the record.

I stand united with all Filipinos worldwide in commemorating the Ninoy Aquino Day. By standing for his beliefs and fighting for battles he deemed right, he became an example of being relentless and resolute for many Filipinos.

In our purposive quest for a more united and prosperous Philippines, let us transcend political barriers that hamper us from securing the comprehensive welfare and advancement of our beloved people.

What’s interesting is that the article ends with a video clip of a BBM interview by Anthony Taberna (date unknown) titled “Did your father order Ninoy killed? No, says Bongbong”.

Not surprising naman that Marcos Jr. said no, his father did not order the killing, not to his knowledge anyway. What surprises really is his pahabol.

BBM. … Nung nakuha namin yung balita we were having… Sunday yon, nagla-lunch kami, and habang kumakain kami, tinawag siya sa telepono. Pagbalik niya, sabi niya, pag-uwi ni Ninoy, binaril siya. … Siguradong magkakagulo.

For the record din lang, all documented accounts have it that Marcos was then very sick after a failed kidney transplant and was confined in the Palace Guest House that had been transformed into an “impromptu hospital.” Si Imelda naman was about to have lunch with Chitang Nakpil, JV Cruz, and others at the Gloria Maris @ the CCP complex when she got the call from Gen. Ver about the killing and forthwith they all rushed to the Palace.

In August 2004 it was Imee Marcos who reminded that it was “a known fact that my father was extremely ill that time” when Ninoy was assassinated.  Which was to insist that Marcos could not have ordered the killing because he was too sick, but which does not necessarily mean that he didn’t have anything to do with it, considering that it was members of Fabian Ver’s AFP that were found guilty of the double murder.

In any case, this could also be just another He-said-She-said drama that the sibs like to engage in, probably meant only to muddy the waters some more. So what else is new.

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.