Wanted: a lot less gullible voters
LAST OCT. 16, Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago filed her certificate of candidacy for president. After which, she entertained questions from eager reporters who asked her mostly about her running mate, Sen. Ferdinand Marcos Jr. The queries eventually led to the issues concerning martial law. Then one reporter asked, “Ma’am, do you believe… that the Marcoses still owe the nation an explanation?”
“No, I do not think that on a family basis, the Marcoses as a family owe us an apology…”
The ellipsis obviously indicates that Santiago had a long answer, but the media needed only the phrases quoted above to agitate the public. A few hours after the interview, news articles flooded social networking sites with a common banner: Marcoses do not owe Filipinos an apology, Miriam says. Loyalists were elated and showered the lady-senator’s declaration with praises, while defenders of #NeverAgain were disappointed. One of them even disdainfully commented, “You disgust me!” Indeed, this news created such a ruckus that gullible people on opposite sides reacted with misplaced passion.
Of course, it was misplaced. In the full interview (the video of which is freely accessible online), Santiago’s complete answer is glaringly different from what the media tried to frame. Santiago explained that public apology is not a family obligation incurred by all of the Marcoses, since martial law is “the result not of a familial discussion or decision, but the result of the policy decision of the man at the executive head (sic) of the government, President Marcos, plus his advisers.”
In defending the Marcos family, therefore, Santiago was not necessarily defending Ferdinand Marcos Sr. Still, beguiled netizens who bothered no more to watch the full interview automatically concluded that Santiago became a new (or newly-proclaimed) member of Marcos loyalists.
We may prove otherwise that Santiago’s argument is wrong and that indeed the Marcos family also conspired to enforce martial law, but this should not lead us to a hasty judgment of Santiago as a loyalist. Still in the interview, she explained that during the first years of martial law, she was commending what she thought were its positive results, but over the years, its adverse consequences transpired and made her “critical,” “sardonic” and even “sarcastic.”
Neither should we just adopt the alternative and brand her as anti-Marcos, for when asked if she would allow the late dictator to be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani, Santiago answered that she would concur if the people consent to it.
The interview then is by no means a sufficient basis to determine whether Santiago is pro- or anti-Marcos. At the very most, it may have hinted that she was vacillating, or appeared to be so in an attempt perhaps to win over the median voter. This we can only confirm in due time, based on more than a single interview riddled with ambiguity.
If there is any certainty we can deduce from that interview, it is that there is a notable discord between Santiago’s and Marcos Jr.’s views on martial law. As mentioned earlier, Santiago recounted how she eventually came to scorn its negative effects, which Marcos Jr. denies to this day. Moreover, she disagreed with her running mate’s contention that the details of martial law should be forgotten. Quite the contrary, Santiago claimed that a deeper evaluation of the events that occurred in that period is important “to know that path we will take for the millennials.”
Rather than ignoring these conflicting opinions, the media could have also focused on them. Rather than only emphasizing that Santiago defended the Marcos family, the media could have also pointed out that Santiago and Marcos Jr. are defending different historical views.
Instead, the media preyed on the credulity of many netizens, which would not have happened had the latter read or listened to Santiago’s complete answer. It did happen, however, and social networking sites on that certain day witnessed an amusing display of public overreaction, which was nonetheless quite entertaining (at least for me).
But as much as unwariness is comical, the elections are fast approaching, and we really need to have a lot less gullible voters in this country.
Lord Zedrique T. Macatiag is a political science graduate of the University of the Philippines Diliman and is currently a student at the UP College of Law.
