Insurmountable evidence points to Marcos as dictator, plunderer

Fr. Ranhilio Aquino originally tweeted that the present generation is loud in its condemnation of Marcos. Having not experienced Marcos, he adds that its rant against him is but directed at its construct of Marcos. As to what he means by construct, he explains that “(a) construct is not fiction. It is not false. It is the way we arrange and select and interpret data,” pointing out that “there are rival constructs, rival interpretations, rival selections of data considered significant,” with some constructs prevailing and are favored. He ends up saying that all human knowledge is interpretation.

So what does that make then of Marcos? Is he really a dictator, plunderer, and human rights violator as the present generation condemns him to be? Father Rannie said they never experienced Marcos and thus a different selection and interpretation of data could possibly lead to a different and even contradictory construct of who Marcos really is, i.e. that his being a dictator, plunderer, or human rights violator is but a figment of wild imagination.

What is the truth then insofar as Marcos is concerned? Is he in fact a dictator, plunderer, or human rights violator? As a student of law which all of us are, Father Rannie must grant that the selection or interpretation of data cannot be arbitrary. There are rules for ascertaining the truth respecting matters of fact and that to lawyers goes by the name of EVIDENCE. As a student of philosophy, he must certainly be aware of the principle of non-contradiction, that if one construct sees Marcos as a dictator, plunderer and human rights violator and a rival contradictory construct sees him otherwise, both constructs cannot be true at the same time.

The present generation may not have experienced Marcos. But can they ignore the body of testimonial evidence of those who suffered during the Marcos dictatorship who to this very day still bear the scars of torture they were subjected to? Can they ignore the body of documentary evidence indisputably proving the thievery of the Marcoses which served as basis for a number of Supreme Court decisions rendered against them?

As a student of the law, Father Rannie must surely be aware of the body of laws of the martial law period which prove without shadow of doubt that Marcos arrogated unto himself all governmental powers establishing one-man rule in this country. Sadly, whatever rival constructs, rival interpretations, and rival selections of data which Father Rannie may have in mind cannot possibly be given any credence at all in the light of these insurmountable evidence that Marcos indeed is a dictator, plunderer, and human rights violator.

Regarding Marcos, one construct of someone who listed the many edifices he built concluded that he is a “nation builder.” Sadly, said construct ignores relevant evidence. My response: the edifices that you credit Marcos for were built out of a people he has oppressed, whose freedoms he has robbed, out of the blood whose lives he has imprisoned, tortured, and killed. Those edifices were built out of loaned money, which he himself has robbed, for which he has earned worldwide the notoriety as one of the most corrupt leaders of the world, which until now we and generations to come will pay for.

It is utter violence to the truth and complete disrespect of facts to imply that one construct is just as good as another.

Severo Brillantes
[email protected]