Aquino’s tirade against Bongbong is unreasonable

By Alfredo C. Garvida Jr.

Contributor

President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III took the occasion of the 30^th anniversary commemoration of EDSA to lambast survey-leading vice presidential aspirant, Sen. Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos Jr., for the oft-repeated "excesses" of his father's martial law regime, which the senator has steadfastly refused to apologize for in response to their political enemies' self-serving demand for Bongbong to do so in this year's political campaign.

The issue about President Marcos' martial law has been debated on for the past 30 years, with yet no substantive, clear-cut judgment by history if the late dictator's ouster from power did more good than bad for the Filipino people. The debate continues to rage on in the face of the Marcos family's return to the political mainstream, heightened, it now appears, by the looming threat that the late strongman's only son could become the nation's vice president for the next six years—and president thereafter. 

Mr. Aquino argues that Mr. Marcos does not deserve to be elected to the vice presidency because of his father's martial law regime. Which is analogous to Noynoy Aquino, now better known as PNoy, should have not been elected as president because of his mother’s miserable performance in her presidency, or his father's suspected, but unsubstantiated, dalliance with the communists during the glory days of his political life. 

There are similarities in Bongbong's and PNoy's cases. One of which is that they are both the children of presidents. Another is that they are being imposed with inheriting the legacy of their parents. The unhealthy difference, however, lies in the fact the while the pro-Aquino pundits want Bongbong to inherit only the bad side of his father's legacy, the only side they want for PNoy to inherit from his parents were the good part of their legacies, namely, their being treated as the icons of liberty. 

There is no doubt in this writer's mind that people were robbed of their freedom during the martial law years; that there were abuses committed by the military. Yet to some historians, the nation was under a revolutionary state: a self-revolution imposed by the nation's leader to reform society and raise the people's being to a higher level. That it was necessary therefore to use strong-armed policies to get people back to the fundamentals of discipline and righteous living. The martial law enforcers—the military, that is—were not wholesome in their enforcement of the military law, however, that some went beyond the bounds of their mandate, which resulted thus to tortures, disappearances and undue enrichment on themselves. But things like these occur under a revolutionary regime, some historians say—without condoning the beastly acts of the abusive military personnel however. 

It would be foolish to think that Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., who was only 15 years old when his father imposed martial law on the land, and 28 when it ended, had a hand in the torture and disappearance of people. This writer may attest that he did not have a hand in the alleged plunder committed by people in his father's government, lest he would have lived the life of a pauper in Los Angeles California, where he temporarily resided during his family's banishment from the country. I can attest to this because I have had the occasion of personally contributing $10 to an emergency fund instantaneously set up by his sympathizers for his routine activities while in L.A. I also remember him driving alone from San Francisco to Los Angeles on a not-so-much road worthy car just to get in time for a speaking engagement in L.A. I also remember that on instructions of now Party-List Congressman Jonathan Dela Cruz, I had to book him at the Sheraton Hotel in LA during that occasion on the least expensive room available which the congressman personally paid for. 

It is therefore my personal assessment now that Bongbong would have not suffered that humiliating life in LA if he had the money, which substantiates my assertion that the senator did not have a hand in the well-trumpeted plunder allegedly committed by the martial law people, including his family. 

The military abuses and plunder, Bongbong did not have a hand on, why must he be made to answer for them now? If President Marcos was a bad president, as his critics are saying and therefore, his son should be punished for it, why must PNoy be exempted from being criticized for his mother's bad presidency likewise? The candidate Marcos should be judged by the electors not on what he did not do but rather on what he has done. The jury is yet out as to what the senator has accomplished in his long years of public service, but certainly absence of his involvement in the martial law affairs, the only yardstick to gauge his election must be what he has done, and plans to do for the Filipino people if he gets elected again to a public office.

This writer has not made up his mind as to who will be the recipient of his vice presidential vote given the fine lines contained in all the vice presidential candidates' respective resumes. Robredo, Escudero, Cayetano, Honasan and Trillanes, Bongbong's rivals for the vice presidency, are all impeccably decent and intelligent people deserving of the office they are running for. That Bongbong is my provincemate does not automatically guarantee my vote for him. But Aquino's constant reference of EDSA, and apportioning some blame to Bongbong—even in the face of certain historians' and writers' thinking that EDSA was a failed revolution—as the battle cry of the Liberal Party's objective to retain power in government holds no water in the court of reason. Therefore, if only to register my protest to President Aquino's illegitimate reasoning, I may vote for Bongbong after all.