“All Politics is Local” and Regional

“All Politics is local”, said former U.S. House Speaker Tip O’Neill.

Let me add “regional” the way it is currently played.

As a very interested observant and student of politics in the United

States and the Philippines I was lucky to have actively participated

in presidential and local elections in both countries.

In the United States, the presidential winner seems to be determined

by the results of certain “Swing or Battleground” States like Florida,

Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and a couple of others.

In the U.S. 2012 presidential elections, I correctly predicted the

results with the help of well known statistician Nate Silver’s formula. In

the Philippine presidential elections where my own Law classmate Rod

Duterte was a candidate, I also correctly predicted the victory of

both Duterte as President, and Leni Robredo as Vice President.

Noticeable in the 2016 Philippine presidential elections are the

sources of the votes. Mindanao gave Duterte landslide votes. His

closest opponent Roxas, not surprisingly, was the winner in most of the

major Visayan provinces.

The battle for the Vice Presidency between Ferdinand Marcos, Jr.

(Bongbong) and Leni Robredo is more interesting to note.  While Leni

Robredo won, the results were close. Bongbong obtained about 80% or

more of the votes in the Ilocos Region. The latter is known in local

politics as Solid North. In fact, the region produced several Ilocano

presidents since the Philippines became a Republic: Elpidio Quirino,

Ramon Magsaysay, Marcos, Sr., and Fidel Ramos. Although Carlos P.

Garcia is known to have hailed from Bohol, he is considered a

Full-Blooded Ilocano (FBI) because both of his parents are from Abra.

The Ilocano votes of Bongbong Marcos were matched by the Bicolano

votes plus more that Leni Robredo obtained from the Bicol provinces. She

also obtained about 80% or more of the votes in the area. VP

candidates Senators Escudero and Honasan also hail from the

region.There has never been a winning presidential or vice

presidential candidate from Bicol.

While all politics is local and therefore territorial, it is also

ideological in the United States. One must either be a conservative or a

progressive.

This is not so in the Philippines. Major parties are not distinguished

along ideological lines.

I am an Ilocano. That is why a friend was surprised when he found out

during Martial Law that I was an avid critic of Marcos. I explained to

him that being an Ilocano does not necessarily mean pro-any Ilocano

or pro-Marcos. I went on to explain how the battle was drawn using the

political spectrum analysis during Martial Law.

On the extreme left, I said, was Jose Ma. Sison, an Ilocano UP

professor who founded the Kabataang Makabayan (KM), led the Communist

Party of the Philippines and the New People’s Army.

The Christian Left was led by Ilocano rebel priest Fr. Conrad Balweg ,

a Catholic priest who began his revolutionary career defending the

ancestral land rights of the Tinggians, of Abra Province in the

Cordillera Mountains of Northern Luzon, against government-backed

mining operations. Abandoned by the Church and hunted by the

government, he went underground and joined the Communist Party of the

Philippines/New People's Army. He is the Philippines’ Fr. Camilo

Torres who espoused the Theology of Liberation and a comrade of Latin

America’s Che Guevara.

Left of Center were Raul S. Manglapus and Sonny Alvarez of the

Movement for a Free Philippines (MFP), President and Secretary

General, respectively. The former was an Ex-Senator and Foreign

Affairs Secretary who hailed from Tagudin, Ilocos Sur while the latter

was a Delegate to the Constitutional Convention who came from

Santiago, Isabela.

Of course, on the extreme right was dictator/fascist Ferdinand Marcos

and his Ilocano generals led by his Chief of Staff Ilocano Fabian Ver.

Based on this analysis, I have shown that not all Ilocanos were so bad

that they blindly and solidly supported a dictator who actually robbed

them blind – of their civil rights and their bright future. 

MARCOS: To Be or Not To Be @LNMB

My doctors say that I miraculously survived a stroke. After several

months in the hospital and rehab, I am currently at home to continue

the recuperating process. I intend to resume my Asian Journal column

and Google BlogSpot Blog.

Reading the latest news online, I noticed that the issue of whether

Marcos should be buried at the Libingan Ng Mga Bayani is again

headline news.

The Presidential Legal Counsel claims: “It does not distinguish

whether a president is good, bad, handsome or ugly. If you’re a

president, you’re entitled to be buried there.” He says that as a

soldier it is irrelevant whether he was a  “fake” hero with “fake”

medals.

Different opinions are encouraged but they will most likely be ignored.

Here is my legal opinion:

There are two relevant laws: Republic Act No. 289 and AFPR G 161 374.

The former is the statute that provides for the creation of a national

pantheon for Presidents of the Philippines, National Heroes and

Patriots of the country while the latter is the last of a series of

implementing rules relating to the construction, development and

maintenance of the pantheon.

The main reason for the national pantheon’s being is provided in

Section 1 of Republic Act No. 289: “to perpetuate the memory of all

the Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes and patriots for

the inspiration and emulation of this generation and of generation

still unborn.”

In short, to be buried in the hallowed ground are the remains of

Filipino heroes who would serve as “inspiration and emulation” of the generation when the law was enacted, today and most especially those of tomorrow who are yet to be born.

By the very letter of the law alone, given what transpired during his

dictatorial regime and the way he was eventually deposed, it would be

very hard to justify making Marcos as someone to emulate and as a

model to inspire any generation.

AFPR G 161 374 specifically provides who are qualified and who are

disqualified to be interred in the national pantheon. It requires that

they must have the qualifications and none of the disqualifications.

Paragraph 2 of AFPR G 161 374, entitled, Allocation of Cemetery Plots

at the Libingan ng mga Bayani enumerates who are qualified to be

interred in the cemetery. It says, “The remains of the following

deceased persons are qualified and therefore, authorized to be

interred in the Libingan ng mga Bayani:

a.      Medal of valor awardees:

b.      Presidents or commanders-in-chief AFP;

c.       Secretaries of national defense;

d.      Chiefs of staff, AFP;

e.       General flag officers of the AFP;

f.       Active and retired military personnel of the AFP;

g.      Veterans of Philippine Revolution 1896, WW1, WW2 and

recognized guerillas;

h       Government dignitaries, statesmen, national artists and other

deceased persons whose interment or re-interment has been approved by

the commander-in-chief, Congress or the Secretary of National Defense.

i.       Former presidents, secretaries of defense, CSAFP,

generals/flsg officers, dignitaries, statesmen, national artists,

widows of former presidents, secretaries of national defense and chief

of staff are authorized to be interred at the LNMB.”

The Presidential Legal Counsel could be relying on this provision

because clearly and understandably Marcos would qualify as among those

enumerated.

Unfortunately there is another paragraph in the said rules which also

clearly states those who are NOT qualified to be interred in the

Libingan ng mga Bayani. It says, “The remains of the following shall

NOT be interred in the Libingan ng mga Bayani:

a.      Personnel who were dishonorably separated/reverted/discharged from the service.

b.       Authorized personnel who were convicted by final judgment of

the offense involving moral turpitude.

Read with R.A. 289, mere inclusion in the list is not

sufficient. Anyone in the list must also serve as “inspiration and

emulation” for the current and future generation. So they must not

therefore bring dishonor in any shape or form. That is why the

provision on disqualification was also added.

Marcos cannot be disqualified on the basis of letter “b”. He was never

convicted by final judgment of any offense involving moral turpitude.

Although we can cite several offenses involving moral turpitude

allegedly committed by him, he died before he could be charged, tried

and convicted. There are legal effects or consequences of death. In

this material world, our finite courts cannot acquire criminal

jurisdiction over the soul of the dead. It would be too late for any

measure of personal and material reformation and / or retribution. The Divine courts take over for final judgment.

Letter “a” is another matter. Marcos was President, Dictator and

Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. He installed himself as such

virtually for life. There is only one way for him to be dishonorably

discharged, separated or deposed – by revolution of the people who as

the sovereign authority had temporarily vested its governmental powers

to him. The EDSA or People Power Revolution of 1986 “dishonorably

discharged” him not only for conduct unbecoming of an officer but most

significantly for killing democracy, for violation of human rights and

a list of other reasons too long to enumerate in this article.

A quick read of the affidavits submitted by human rights victims and

relatives of deceased victims for compensation depict cumulatively not only Crimes Against Humanity but include offenses involving moral turpitude.

MAHARLIKA

The Presidential Legal Counsel mentioned Marcos and his Maharlika outfit. It would be wise to take notice what the U.S. military records show: (See document)