Category: marcos

Bongbong Marcos should apologize for his father

ANTONIO CONTRERAS

INDEED, children should not inherit their parents’ sins. But in reality, we do. In a culture where debt of gratitude is inherited, even debts, whether financial or moral, are bequeathed by deceased parents to their offspring. We cannot take pride in the accomplishments of our parents, without balancing it with a sense of remorse, and the duty to ask forgiveness from those they may have offended.

I once argued against the act of asking for forgiveness for our parents’ actions, simply because I was a firm believer of a kind of ethics where you can only be held liable or responsible for the things that you had control over, or that in which you had an active participation. But upon much deeper reflection, I soon realized that this is a very Western construct, where responsibility and rights are very much defined within an individualistic ethos.

This is not what happens in our communitarian culture where family honor is considered to be a well-revered institution, that in some cultural groups, clan wars erupt to defend it. Thus, preserving honor is not a mere individual construct, and becomes a family duty.

It is in this context that former senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. should apologize for the sins of his father, the late President Ferdinand Marcos Sr.

At the outset, it must be emphasized that the Marcos family has always been pleading for a fair and objective treatment. They appeal to our sense of balance as we pass judgment on the complex period which Marcos Sr. had presided over, including the dark years of martial law. In fact, it is precisely because of such fairness and objectivity that Bongbong Marcos should not gloss over such complexity, by denying that everything was bright and sunny.

I lived through that period, and while I know that there were benefits that came out, there were also black memories that darkened the period of his father’s rule. To be objective is to take stock of both the positive and the negative. Bongbong Marcos cannot remind us of the good things that his father did without recognizing the bad things that happened during his term in office. After all, Marcos Sr. was not perfect as he was human, and he had his flaws. He was also not in total control of the actions of his people, but as president he bore the responsibility of being in command.

I know of people who disappeared in the dark of night, brothers in the student organization I joined. I have been told stories of torture. Indeed, these are people who may have rebelled against the state and joined the communist insurgency that threatened to make the Philippines into one of the Asian dominoes that faced the risk of falling, as the communist ideology was wreaking havoc and bringing death and destruction as it engaged in its expansionist project.

Nevertheless, there are rules of war which state parties are duty bound to uphold. While I do not expect rebels to uphold the law, what distinguished the state agents from them is the commitment to act within the boundaries of civilized combat, that inhuman punishments are prohibited, and that rights even of people who committed crimes against the government should be respected and protected. Thus, when state agents commit these atrocities, government leaders are duty bound to apologize and take responsibility.

There have been allegations of corruption, and the amassing of hidden wealth. I have always depended on the courts to adjudicate and determine the veracity of such allegations, and it is a given fact that sans the partisan agenda of those who hounded the Marcos family, independent courts both here and abroad have made judicial determination of the veracity of some of those claims.

If only for these, then it is in order for Bongbong to act honorably by recognizing that there were instances where laws of reasonable engagement against dissidents were violated and that there were instances where the courts established that indeed there were economic crimes committed. There is a preponderance of things that warrant, at the very least, a display of sincere remorse and contrition.

But instead, Bongbong has doubled down by refusing to apologize. He boldly declared that he is thankful that he is a Marcos, even congratulating himself for choosing his parents very well. Of course, no one is telling him not to be thankful for having been born into a very privileged family. And while he actually didn’t choose his parents, he can actually choose how to honor them.

As children, we do not control the actions of our parents. And while we owe so much to them, there are many parts of their lives that we are not familiar with or that were probably hidden from us. We are not privy to all the lies they told, every transgression they made, and every sin they committed. There is nothing dishonorable if we apologize for these. And it becomes a duty when we somewhat knew, and we tolerated it, and worse, we benefited from it.

For me, that is the biggest honor a son can perform on behalf of an imperfectly human parent — to bear the burden of an apology which the parents were denied of asking when they were still alive.

There is one other compelling reason why Bongbong should sincerely apologize. He is a presidential candidate offering himself to the people. If we believe surveys, scientific and otherwise, he has a chance of being the next president of the Republic. He has a solid base of support. He has nothing to lose if he apologizes. He may not convince many of those who have an intense dislike for him and his family, but he may just create more space to unify this toxically divided country by changing his narrative and redeem it in the eyes of those who are still open to changing their minds.

 

Historical revisionism and fake news

Amelia H. C. Ylagan

History is always the most revered authority, and the ultimate teacher. It is empirical proof of expected results from conditions and contexts as naturally presented by science or as conjured and executed by minds. What has happened, has happened, and there is always a lesson learned.

But the life that History gives to concepts and principles can be limited not only by the durability of physical archives but the fickleness of minds — who may carelessly forget lessons learned, or, worse, actively tamper with facts and data to suit biases and whitewash personal culpability in the deconstruction and revision of what may be a notorious Past.

An example of negative historical revisionism is David Irving’s controversial book, Hitler’s War (1977), where the dictator Adolf Hitler is shown as innocent of the Holocaust and that only Heinrich Himmler and his cohorts masterminded and executed the genocide of six million Jews in Nazi Germany between 1941 and 1945.

Are Filipinos about to accede to a revision of history over the 14 year-dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos — editing out as well the glorious EDSA People Power Revolution that ended the most notorious period that killed about 3,240, imprisoned 70,000, and tortured 34,000 people from 1972 to 1981, according to data of Amnesty International?

On the 48th anniversary of Marcos’ declaration of Martial Law, an online conference on historical revisionism titled “Balik Ka/Saysay” was held from Sept. 21-25 by the Ateneo University-based Asian Center for Journalism (ACFJ) and Consortium on Democracy and Disinformation, in partnership with Tanggol Kasaysayan and Bulatlat. The conference focused on disinformation and the machinations of politics, on the inadequacy of education, and extensively described the exacerbating influence of social media and fake news on perception and the formation of new mores and values.

Keynote speaker at the ACFJ webinar was novelist Lualhati Bautista (Dekada ’70 and Gapo) who went underground during the Marcos martial law, and despite the strict censorship imposed by the government, wrote about the anxieties and fears of ordinary Filipinos in those tremulous times. “Never forget; never again!” was her heart-wrenching message. But for those listening to her recounting of the hounding and torture of those who defied Marcos then, her horrible reminiscences might have fallen differently on unreceptive ears of those who did not directly experience martial law. How devastating to hear a young reactor at the conference, a self-proclaimed “fan” of Ms. Bautista for her art, dismissing the pathos of a dark history by concluding a long-winded to-and-fro on doubting what may be “exaggerations” in the telling of the martial law situation then. “It is not my context,” she might have said in so many words, as she quite directly insinuated to this aghast listener who has seen Lualhati Bautista’s horrible scenarios in the context of 48 years ago.

“It is not my context” is the obvious indifference of most of the younger generation that did not see the excesses and horrors of martial law played out in reality. Adding cold emotion to whatever near-boiling empathy might be brought by stories told by seniors is the obtrusive social media virtual reality replete with ready fake news that the younger generations might have made its instant real Reality — their “context.”

At the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) theater showing early in the year of Kingmaker, a documentary by Emmy-winning filmmaker Lauren Greenfield about former First Lady Imelda Marcos, an open forum was held mainly to wrap up for attending groups of students from various schools, the “Never Again” information campaign of rights groups to educate the younger generation about the perils of autocratic government. Resource person Etta Rosales, tortured and imprisoned in Martial Law, gave inputs and answered questions from the students. It was the same basic concern of the Youth: “What is in it for Me?”

Recalling that open forum, and reviewing the ACPJ conference on historical revisionism, it sends chills through this older person to realize that a better way must be found to protect those who have not personally experienced Martial Law and its excesses from the frightful chimera of History repeating itself. The protective instinct of the Elders must work within the context of the Youth, in their Reality and in their Present — and perhaps resignedly acquiesce to their focus on “What is in it for Me.”

University of the Philippines Professor Francisco A. Guiang in a comment about historical revisionism cites the historian Carl L. Becker who said that “Every generation writes its own history… we build our conceptions of history partly out of our present needs and purposes…” (1955). Hence, while the older generations might be concerned about the immoral revision of their history, the younger generations are focused on writing their own, based on their present needs and purposes, their values and principles, taught to them by their parents by example, or by individual collective experiences and environments.

It must be admitted that in the 14 years of the Martial Law experience, victims and beneficiaries all have been writing history by the acceptance, refusal or compromises made then, and many have effectively rewritten and revised that history in the 34 years after the euphoric EDSA People Power Revolution, directed by changing individual and collective present needs and purposes. Some guilt might lie in admitting that the older generations might not have shown good example and firm guidance to the younger generations as to the values and principles that urged the collective judgment then that martial law the way Marcos did it was wrong and unconscionable.

Why did the Filipino people allow President Rodrigo Duterte to bury the dictator Ferdinand Marcos in the Libingan ng Mga Bayani? We have revised History. Marcos is now a hero.

The Marcoses plundered the country’s coffers, with various estimates putting the amount at between $5 billion to $10 billion, as reported by ABS-CBN in 2017. The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), the body going after the Marcoses’ ill-gotten wealth, is still recovering this money; over the past 30 years, at least P170 billion have been recovered. The Supreme Court dismissed in 2018 a civil suit seeking the recovery of over P50 billion in moral damages and P1 billion in exemplary damages sought by the PCGG over the Marcoses. The Sandiganbayan in 2011 junked the case, saying the PCGG failed to prove that the defendants connived to amass ill-gotten wealth.

In 2008, former First Lady Imelda Marcos was acquitted of an $863-M corruption case involving 32 counts of illegally transferring wealth to Swiss banks abroad during her husband’s 20-year rule. Would you wonder why the documentary Kingmaker did not jar the young viewers at that open forum held after the screening, despite the first-person account of Etta Rosales of her torture during Martial Law? Imelda is guiltless. History has been re-written.

It seems that the onus of responsibility to keep the integrity of history clearly rests on those survivors of Marcos’ Martial Law. Alas, so few of the older generation still have the passion to pursue the noble upholding of the Truth. At least those who still care that History must not repeat itself for the younger generations must devise and design active ways, albeit from physically deteriorated capabilities (but still-solid minds) to inculcate values and principles above present needs and wants of the younger generations.

The best way can only be to always visibly and audibly, strongly oppose corrupt and immoral practices in present-day government and society in general that, in the wisdom of age and experience, can be a useful template for the younger generations. The older generations are still writing their history, and their legacy.

Amelia H. C. Ylagan is a Doctor of Business Administration from the University of the Philippines.

Ideas, seismic activity, dinner, and the CCP

By Marian Pastor Roces

THE OUTRAGE spiked social Geiger counters. The Imelda Marcos re-appearance at the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP), upon the invitation of its Board to be honored as founder, set off rumblings at a time of heightened seismic activity. Even if low intensity, the bubbling-over is as much produced by pent-up steam as Taal’s.

Read on…

Decision time on Marcos electoral protest

Tony La Viña

With the impending release by the Supreme Court sitting as Presidential Electoral Tribunal of its ruling on vice presidential candidate Bongbong Marcos’ electoral protest against Vice President Leni Robredo for the 2016 national elections, the nation waits anxiously for the PET to do its constitutional duty.

Much has happened and been said since Marcos lodged the electoral protest three years ago. Vice President Robredo and political allies have been subject to relentless attacks to discredit the opposition, including the filing of sedition charges against them. On the other hand, the Robredo camp is said to be prematurely claiming victory even as the PET has yet to announce any action on the Caguioa report. As early as July, Robredo’s camp was asking for an early resolution of the election protest on the ground that “the result of the revision, recount and reappreciation of the ballots clearly confirm the victory of protestee Robredo.”

At this point of the protest, it is fitting to recall the resolution of the PET on August 27, 2017 which paved the way for the recount.

Read on…