Essay about \"Aquino\'s Speech to the US Congress\" PDF

Preview

Summary

Bandoy, Sweet Vanniell Josh Catalan, Aaron Josh Peru, Gabriel Roxas, Kyla Denise Sardido, Alyssa MikaylaExercise 2.9 (PAGE 169-170) Open essay to democracyThe biggest contribution of Corazon Aquino to the Filipino nation is the restoration of democracy. Read the assigned reading and write an essay a...

Description

Bandoy, Sweet Vanniell Josh Catalan, Aaron Josh Peru, Gabriel Roxas, Kyla Denise Sardido, Alyssa Mikayla

Exercise 2.9.4 (PAGE 169-170) Open essay to democracy

The biggest contribution of Corazon Aquino to the Filipino nation is the restoration of democracy. Read the assigned reading and write an essay assessing the state of Philippine democracy since its restoration after Martial Law.

"Democracy in the Philippines has always been tenuous – troubled by questionable elections, intoxicated by the parliament of the streets, spun by the carousel of a powerful few." - a quote from Miguel Syjuco's 'I thought democracy had failed Filipinos. But it is we who have failed it.'

Before delving into the status of Philippine democracy after Martial Law, let us first familiarize ourselves with the word 'democracy.' As per John Hirst, democracy is a system in which people are sovereign and have influence over their government (Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House, 2019). As a result,

democracy can be defined as both popular participation and government in the public interest and can come in different forms. The Philippines emerged as Asia's first independent democratic country, establishing a political structure patterned after that of the US (May & Selochan, 2021). The Philippines is Asia's oldest democratic country, however, according to Syjuco, dynasties have made a mockery of it by dividing up the bulk of government positions. What caused this to happen? What is the situation of democracy in our country after Marcos' regime?

One of the most significant challenges that obstructed Philippine democracy was Martial law during Ferdinand Marcos' regime. Ferdinand Marcos was elected President of the Philippines twice in a row: the first time in 1965 and the second time in 1969. The Philippine Constitution bans a president from serving more than eight years in a row; therefore, the Philippine Constitution would have ruled out his nomination for a third term. Marcos declared martial law in the Philippines in September 1972, fourteen months before his second and last time in power was set to end, with the stated goal of defeating Communist rebels and Muslim separatists (Tobak, 1978). Marcos has positioned himself as a true dictator during the last seven years to boost national security. He's put the Philippine Congress on indefinite hiatus. His administration has all but abolished democratic rights, governing through Presidential fiat and the entire allegiance and cooperation of the police and the military (Avanceña & Gato, 2021; Hapal, 2016). Publications and radio stations that refused to cooperate were closed down. Illegal arrests, questioning, brutality, and confinement without charge were all too frequent. Dread and violence are used to suppress political opponents.

President Marcos’ martial law did not only recognize the President's emergency powers in the 1935 constitution, but he seized all the governing powers, dismissed civilian courts, and then added the 1973 constitution in the replacement of the 1935 constitution for his benefits (Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines.n.d.). With its implication, the Philippines that had a presidential form of government changed into a parliamentary state. The Unicameral National Assembly, also known as the Batasang Pambansa, replaced the congress (House of Representatives.n.d.). With the coveted power that Marcos gained, abusive leadership flourished in the entire Philippines. An example would be the order of viva voce plebiscite in which Marcos reduced the voting age to 15 years old; he also used military forces to scare the voters into saying yes (Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines.n.d.). A president that only wants power. The state that President Marcos established is a constitution that controls and is feared by the people. Injustice is rampant in the state.

Even with Martial law implemented back in the day, people still wanted to be free from dictatorships. To counter this constitution, reformists started to appear. According to David Wurfel, there were three paramount types of opposition to martial law during the 1970s: reformist opposition, revolutionary opposition, and religious opposition (Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines.n.d.).

Former President Ferdinand Marcos then fled to another nation, leaving the Philippines in an impoverished and vulnerable economic situation (12. Aquino's Speech

to the US Congress.mp4, 2021). National debts were also accumulating during the period, with buildings in disarray and unsustainable (Diola, 2011). When Corazon Aquino, the so-called "icon" of Philippine democracy, succeeded Marcos, hushed critics were finally allowed to embrace the freedom of the press that the dictator had suppressed. The re-opening of the free media aided the communication between the citizens and the government regarding people's perception of government services and projects.

Hence, in 1986, the Philippines became an openly democratic nation following the end of the dictatorship during Martial Law; however, the situation of Philippine democracy has not been smooth.

The restored democracy of our country during Cory Aquino's regime was proved unfulfilled (Villanueva, 1992). The incapacity of the Aquino government to deliver was exacerbated by the structure of the Philippine political system. Although the framework is democratic, the content is not; this perfectly illustrates how we can never convert political reform into significant and real social progress. The country's challenges have not been appropriately handled and stayed unaddressed. Additionally, Villanueva (1992) claims that Philippine society remains as stratified as during American control, with a massive gap between the super-rich and the super-poor. The super-rich profit from Aquino's restoration of democratic structures and a slight 6.5 percent increase in the gross national product, while the super-poor receive hardly anything (Dohner & Intal,

1989). Consequently, the wealthy get wealthier while the poor get poorer, widening the gap between them and deepening society's divide.

If democracy is defined as civil freedom that promotes open government and a free press, we think the Philippines will pass the test. However, if equality also entails the redistribution of the nation's wealth, which is now centralized in the clutches of a few affluent households, Philippine democracy, in our view, has failed the criterion. Democratic political institutions established by Aquino and her dormant alliance in the post-Marcos period have been slanted in favor of democratic elitism (Villanueva, 1992). As a result, democratic elitism has skewed toward non-decision-making (Gilens & Murakawa, 2002). Those at the bottom of the societal pyramid have indeed been left out as a consequence. We believe that political transformation in the post-Marcos period has represented the dominance of structure over substance: the political system meets all of the requirements of Western democracy, but Filipino society lacks an egalitarian foundation with which to establish democratic political systems.

Unfortunately, there is not much difference between the post-Marcos era and today. If we had to describe the democracy of our nation in today's day and age in one word, it would be the word frail. For instance, today's Filipinos are divided and revolt against their fellow countrymen for independence, which is ironic because our forefathers were united and battled our oppressors for the same reason in the past. Furthermore, today's society exhibits a vulnerability in our democracy since we question

the fairness of elections as if electoral fraud is already in our nature. Because of fraudulent elections, the Philippines' democracy has always been in jeopardy.

In fact, Philippine elections have evolved into a means for obtaining political authority from people in today's society. The becoming of Philippine elections as a power-tripping event is the first, most obvious sign of our democracy becoming fragile (Untalan, 2015). Formerly deposed politicians or their relatives hold essential posts in the administration. Vote-buying and electoral violence has become more common, casting doubt on elections' ability to keep influential political organizations and dynasties in check (Canare et al., 2018; Smith & Reyes, 2021). While the oligarchs, a small group of people who control a large portion of the country's power and influence, are culpable of electoral crimes, their mass market, made up of the underprivileged and "uneducated," is mocked by the elite class as "bobotante." The "elites" doubt the political underclasses' ability to make intelligent governing judgments due to their susceptibility to peddling votes and populism. Hence, we can say that our elections are just a sham of democracy, with a significant percentage of the population oppressed and only a few in power.

Moreover, in David Timberman's book 'A Changeless Land: Continuity and Change in Philippine Politics,' published in 1992, he indicated a dilemma that notwithstanding the transformation in the type of government from authoritarian to democratic in 1986, Philippine politics remained entrenched in unending regularities of corruption, election rigging, and underdevelopment. According to Untalan (2015), a brief

examination of economic indices reveals that 25.2% of Filipinos are still impoverished, falling below Vietnam and Sri Lanka, with Vietnam having a one-party system governed by communists (BBC News, 2021). In addition, the Philippines now ranks 115 out of 180 countries in the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) with a score of 34/100, wherein lower scores mean higher corruption rates (Transparency International, 2020).

The failure of protest and people power is yet another manifestation of our country's already frail democracy. In today's urban area, street protests are deemed ineffective, if not detrimental. If Thailand has become known for coups, as Marwaan Macan-Markar (2021) puts it, the Philippines has been known as an "EDSA state." After unsuccessful attempts to first depose and afterward reinstate President Joseph Estrada, dubbed EDSA II (January 2001) and EDSA III (April 2001), the plausibility of repeating the first EDSA Revolution during the twenty-first century has diminished. The failure of repeating and reliving the effectiveness of EDSA People Power I in EDSA II and III highlighted the nation's, in Gustav Le Bon's terms, "crowd mentality." When Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was accused of vote-rigging, raising doubts about her eligibility to govern, the large percentage of Filipinos had forgotten the will to engage, let alone respect those who diligently protested on the roads.

Another instance where the people, who are supposed to be the protagonists in this democratic system that we have, and the power of these people is not recognized by the ruling class, is during President Duterte's first year of presidency. In 2017, the President also imposed martial law on Mindanao, the Philippines' southernmost island,

until the end of the year to aid forces fighting an armed Muslim rebel faction in Marawi City (Sarmiento, 2019). On Mindanao, curfews and roadblocks stoked anxieties that Duterte will prolong martial law to the rest of the 7,100-island archipelago. Thousands of university students as well as opposition party members marched in Manila in September of that year, on the anniversary of Ferdinand Marcos' Martial Law, opposing what they saw as excessive repression in the fight against illegal drugs (Jennings, 2017). Some activists compare Duterte to Ferdinand Marcos, who imposed martial law and limited people's liberties. They claim that as part of an effort initiated in 2016 to abolish the drug trade in six months, Duterte has sanctioned extrajudicial executions by police forces. In relation to this, according to Jennings (2017), the Metro Manila-based research institution Social Weather Stations reported that 80% of Filipinos were "satisfied with the way democracy works in the country" in the same year. 57% say they are satisfied with "the way things are going in their country," increasing from 36% in 2014, according to a report revealed in 2017 by the Pew Research Center. Protests against Duterte have lacked the size and duration of those against other rulers in other nations. Tens of thousands assembled in Taiwan for 24 days in 2014 to start a protest that ultimately harmed the ruling party in elections (Morris, 2019). Hundreds of thousands marched in South Korea in 2016 to pressure then-president Park Geun-Hye to step down (BBC News, 2018).

Furthermore, the social media highway is unquestionably a fast track to raising consciousness and motivating an audience. Others claim that the Filipinos have discovered a brand new alternative to the streets in cyberspace. It is now to condemn a

crooked politician. The netizens' voice appears more incisive than the traditional street protesters due to the ease of having only a phone as a weapon against the authorities (Thompson & Warzel, 2021). However, while the country has been the world's social networking center for a long time now, a big Facebook group does not equal a dynamic democracy. As unrestricted as they appear, social media networks are similar to traditional types of media (Untalan, 2015). The wealthy elites, people in power, captains of industries, and fraudulent players can pursue their interests and disguise them as serving the public good. Furthermore, the media no longer serves as a critical mediator in public debate.

In the Philippines, this is the visage of today's "people power." Protests, elections, and the power of netizens are three significant influences perceived to exist outside of the country's political system's oligarchic and unreliable authorities. However, these things have only served to disillusion the populace, and their power to resist has been merged into a Huxleyan dystopia.

Syjuco's article supports how Philippine democracy grew tainted and weak years after Marcos' downfall and Cory Aquino's presidency; he goes on to explore the instability of our nation's democracy. As he stated, it is we Filipinos who have failed democracy, rather than democracy failing us. Furthermore, he added that Filipinos today do not consider democracy a structure that protects minorities and prohibits exploitation (Syjuco, 2017). After the downfall of Marcos, democracy in our country has

been mischaracterized with populism, or the term defined as an ideology of a political party member claiming to represent the ordinary people (HISTORY, 2019).

President Rodrigo Duterte, as he characterizes populism, is unable to fully restore democracy in the Philippines. President Duterte has won followers by portraying himself as a champion of the people, particularly ordinary people, against the elite, despite resemblance to Marcos' rule. He has pledged his fealty to the Marcos family and has offered to reinstate martial law (Syjuco, 2017). The method he wields power is taking the Philippines backwards from Corazon Aquino's achievements, as he seeks to reintroduce martial law. His followers applaud his democratic disciplinary approach, yet they persist to mistake democracy as populism.

Democracy would be striving for people's power, whereas populism would be using people's power. They are oblivious to the fact that he is a leader who seeks legitimacy through democracy. His derogatory remarks toward the public, along with an ethically and constitutionally indefensible drug war, violate the nation's human rights, posing a new challenge to the country 's development toward a flourishing democracy. The Philippines' situation remains perplexing, as there are those who fall into the vast bulk of the President's popularity.

President Duterte is delighted with his followers and loyalists, especially those who show support for him in social media since sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and the likes have evolved into a forum for advocacy (Syujuco, 2017). This is a vivid example of

how popular support feeds the illusion of a democratic government, despite the fact that the president does not really support the people.

However, we believe that although our democracy may seem frail, it thrives and continues to live on.

To conclude, the Philippines' efforts to restore democracy are being stymied by a misinterpretation of what a true democracy should appear. People voted for a president who does not support the people of the country. Despite the fact that the majority oppose Duterte and are seeking justice, the people must continue to struggle for the democratic governance that the country deserves.

In the light of the democratic changes our constitution experienced, it is far better than what we experienced during Marcos's reign. To support this concept, In the EIU's 2020 democracy index, the Philippines recorded an average 6.56 score, after scoring 9.17 in electoral process and pluralism, 5 in functioning government, 7.78 in political participation, 4.38 in political culture, and 6.47 in civil liberties (A. Parrocha 2021). With this result, we can see that democracy is alive within the country. It is adamant about changing the views that the country of the Philippines is oppressed to their right. To further maintain democracy in this country, democratic institutions are built, such as the independent judiciary, independent legislative and executive departments. It is also stated in the 1987 constitution of the Republic of the Philippines article II section I that

the Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people, and all government authority emanates from them.

Exercise 2.9.5 (PAGE 171-172) Give three reasons why President Corazon Aquino’s Speech before the U.S Congress on September 18, 1986 is important to the grand narrative of Philippine history.

On September 18, 1986, the former president of the Philippines, Corazon Aquino or "Cory," delivered a speech in Congress in Washington DC, United States. By that time, it was three years after the death of the former senator Benigno Aquino, her husband, and seven months after the EDSA insurgency happened on February 25, 1986. Encapsulated within the core of her speech, former president Cory Aquino primarily intended to address three things. First, she wanted to proclaim the freedom of the Filipinos from the Marcos system. Second, she tried to stamp a fresh start for the Filipinos and its administration. Third and last, she wanted to request monetary help by illuminating the Americans about the Philippines.

One of Corazon Aquino's goals in her speech to the United States Congress in September 1986 was to request and persuade them to offer urgent financial aid to the Philippines in order to assist the country's economy recover.

Followers of former

President Marcos would argue that his reign was a golden one. Data from the World Bank and the Philippine Statistics Authority, on the other hand, contradict this. In fact, a study shows that the country's GDP did not rise as quickly as surrounding countries during martial law. Following that, Marcos' tenure left the Philippines with a $26 billion debt from which, according to Corazon Aquino, we Filipinos did not benefit from.

According to her speech at the U.S. Congress, "Today, we face the aspirations of a people who had known so much poverty and massive unemployment for the past 14 years and yet offered their lives for the abstraction of democracy. Wherever I went in the campaign, slum area or impoverished village, they came to me with one cry: democracy! Not food, although they clearly needed it, but democracy."

The speech of the late President Aquino before the U.S. Congress assumed an essential part in the grand narrative of the Philippines since she has pointed to a lot of occa...