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

Independence Day 2022

By AMELIA HC YLAGAN

It had to be clarified in Memorandum 2022-066 dated May 22, 2022 by the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) that directed the Independence Day flag-raising to local government units that it was the 124th Independence Day, reckoning from June 12, 1898 when Emilio Aguinaldo declared from his residence balcony in Kawit, Cavite that Pilipinas was free from the colonizer Spain. The DILG Memo is based on “Republic Act No. 4166 (An Act changing the date of Philippine Independence Day from July 4 to June 12 and declaring July 4 as Philippine Republic Day”).

But here we go again, debating and quarreling about when Filipinos really gained their independence. Perhaps the rise and fall of self-doubt are urged as historical events are celebrated (or generally ignored) such as Independence Day, the most significant marker of nationhood. But history is about concluded events more than emotional assumptions about the whys and wherefores that made it happen. Nor can post-facto emotions or changed principles and values justify any revision of what had already happened in history.

What better written history is there than the Official Gazette to review the events leading to the granting of Philippine Independence:

“The Philippine Revolution of 1896 was led by the Katipunan, a secret society led by Andres Bonifacio, which aimed to attain independence for the Philippines. The Katipunan expanded and affiliated with other revolutionary groups in Manila and other provinces in the Philippines. Due to political and other differences among the leaders, divisions arose in the organization. The Magdalo group headed by Emilio Aguinaldo of Cavite soon controlled the revolutionary movement. In the power play, Andres Bonifacio was accused of treason against the combined organization, and was arrested and sentenced to death in Maragondon, Cavite.”

When the Revolution was failing, “Aguinaldo entered into negotiations with the Spanish government. This resulted in an agreement under which Philippine Revolutionaries would go into exile in Hong Kong and surrender their arms in exchange for financial indemnities and pardons” (Official Gazette, “Araw ng Republikang Filipino, 1899”). That was just about the time that Spain was very busy, besieged and embattled by the United States of America, who came in to assist in the war for Cuban independence from Spain. That was the 10-week Spanish-American War for the colonies, fought in both the Caribbean and the Pacific, including the Philippines.

“The war ended with the 1898 Treaty of Paris (signed Oct. 1, 1898), negotiated on terms favorable to the United States. The treaty ceded ownership of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippine islands from Spain to the United States and granted the United States temporary control of Cuba. The cession of the Philippines involved payment of $20 million to Spain by the US to cover infrastructure owned by Spain” (Benjamin R. Beede, The War of 1898 and US Interventions; 2013).

“Aguinaldo had returned to Manila on May 19, 1898 and declared Philippine independence on June 12. When it became clear that the United States had no interest in the liberation of the islands, Aguinaldo’s forces remained apart from US troops. On Jan. 1, 1899 following the meetings of a constitutional convention, Aguinaldo was proclaimed (by a rebel junta) president of the Philippine Republic. Not surprisingly, the United States refused to recognize Aguinaldo’s authority and on Feb. 4, 1899 he declared war on the US forces in the islands. After his capture on March 23, 1901, Aguinaldo agreed to swear allegiance to the United States, and then left public life. His dream of Philippine independence came true on July 4, 1946. He died in Manila in 1964.” (US Library of Congress: The World of 1898: The Spanish-American War: Emilio Aguinaldo y Famy 1869-1964)

“During the American occupation of the Philippines (1898-1946), the Filipinos were governed by the Commonwealth of the Philippines (since Nov. 15, 1935) and earlier by the Government of the Philippine Islands or PI, both under the Americans” (pna.gov.ph, July 4, 2021). Meantime, World War II broke out, and the Japanese Army overran all of the Philippines during the first half of 1942. “On Oct. 14, 1943, Japan symbolically granted independence to the Philippines by establishing a new government headed by its Filipino president, Jose P. Laurel. The government was branded by historians as a ‘Puppet Government’ because of the tight control that the Japanese wielded over its affairs.” (esquiremag.ph, June 7, 2019).

“The United States and Philippine Commonwealth military forces fought together to liberate the Philippines until the Japanese forces were ordered to surrender by Tokyo on Aug. 15, 1945.

“On July 4, 1946, pursuant to the provisions of the Tydings-McDuffie Law or the Philippine Independence Act, the Commonwealth of the Philippines became the Republic of the Philippines — the Third Republic. It was on this date that the United States of America formally recognized the independence of the Philippines and withdrew its sovereignty over the country.

“The independence of the Philippines — and the inauguration of its Third Republic — was marked by Manuel Roxas, third president of the Commonwealth, re-taking his oath, eliminating the pledge of allegiance to the United States of America which was required prior to independence, this time as the first President of the Republic of the Philippines. The Congress of the Commonwealth then became the First Congress of the Republic, and international recognition was finally achieved as governments entered into treaties with the new republic.” (officialgazette.gov.ph).

Yet despite the tight chronology of events that built up to the sure pinpointing of when is the factual date of Philippine Independence, President Diosdado Macapagal issued Proclamation No. 28 in 1962, moving the anniversary date from July 4 to June 12 — the date independence from Spain was proclaimed in Emilio Aguinaldo’s home in Kawit, Cavite. In his proclamation, President Macapagal cited “the establishment of the Philippine Republic by the Revolutionary Government under General Emilio Aguinaldo on June 12, 1898, marked our people’s declaration and exercise of their right to self-determination, liberty and independence” (Ibid.).

The Official Gazette says it for the record, “the move was made in the context of the rejection of the US House of Representatives on the proposed $73 million additional war reparation bill for the Philippines on May 28, 1962. The rejection, according to President Macapagal, caused ‘indignation among the Filipinos’ and a ‘loss of American good will in the Philippines.’ He explained that he deemed it the right time to push the change of the independence date, a political move he was planning even before his ascent to the presidency.”

There is surely no further protest or even the last whimper to review and possibly change Independence Day back to July 4, or to again consider yet another anniversary date. But it is still important that historical facts and events are accurate so that the remembering of a nation of its history is always in the context of the experiences, good or bad, that have shaped its soul and spirit.

It is thanks to President Corazon C. Aquino, president after the 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution, who by Executive Order No. 200 revived the Official Gazette that was stifled in Ferdinand Marcos’ martial law dictatorship 1972 to 1986. The Official Gazette, which is printed by the National Printing Office (NPO), is the public journal and main publication of the government of the Philippines. Its website only uploads what has been published; it is managed by the Presidential Communications Operations Office [PCOO] (based on the attribution found in the footer of the Official Gazette website).

Look it up, it’s there: “A History of the Philippine Political Protest — Official Gazette.” (www.officialgazette.gov.ph)