“History is like tsismis (History is like gossip),” said actress Ella Cruz in an interview with TV5, referring to the subject’s biased and filtered nature.
It is for the same reason that many believe the historical revision—the reinterpretation of events—of the Marcos Era is justified. Yet history’s biased nature is misleading, as it seemingly validates not only revisionism but historical distortion. As the public opens its arms to a new interpretation of its past, it leaves its democracy vulnerable by burying the truth.
History may not be the absolute truth, but it is still based on verified information. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines history as “a chronological record of significant events, often including an explanation of their causes.” Therefore, it is only natural for historians to make revisions as new information comes to light. However, the Marcos Era revisionism differs because it goes against some well-proven pieces of evidence.
As of 2020, the Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG) has recovered P174.2 billion of the Marcoses' ill-gotten wealth, despite the family’s continuous denials. The Supreme Courts of Switzerland and the Philippines have confirmed this after investigating assets deposited in a Swiss bank by an affiliate of the late President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. Moreover, there is no denying the number of extrajudicial killings, unjustified arrests, and media suppression during Martial Law—with various written and first-hand accounts from historians and victims alike. Yet many continue to ignore these, dismissing them as overreactions and biased journalism.
Denying and romanticizing events, despite presented evidence, is a distortion of the past, not just historical revisionism. Historical distortion silences and invalidates the voices of others who have gone through different, but real, experiences.
In his call to revise history textbooks last 2020, President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. argued that the prolonged propaganda of the opposition is responsible for shaping the collective view of the Marcos Era. In reality, the Aquino presidency happened in response to the people’s call for change that resulted from the injustices of the Marcos dictatorship. Corazon Aquino won the 1986 snap elections and later rose to power because of what the Filipinos went through.
No doubt everyone—even the Marcoses—should have their voices heard. However, with that right comes the responsibility to uphold the truth. The truth considers every aspect of a story—never turning down facts just to suit one’s biases and personal agenda.
In light of the new administration, I believe that the concerns surrounding historical distortion are valid. After all, in a GMA Network broadcast last May, now Vice President Sara Duterte simply stated that revising martial law in history books would be hard and is not a priority; she never denied that it would be done. Moreover, attempts have already been made to romanticize the past. For instance, Representative Arnolfo Telves Jr.’s filing of House Bill 610 aims to rename the Ninoy Aquino International Airport into Ferdinand E. Marcos International Airport. Telves Jr. argues that the international airport was built during the late Marcos Sr.’s term. In reality, it was already established before he took office.
When an event is romanticized, the public is made to forget; they forget all the struggles, hardships, and lessons learned. As a result, history repeats itself, placing the future at risk. As Theodore Roosevelt once said, “The more you know about the past, the better prepared you are for the future.”
History is an integral part of our democracy—designed to commemorate our victories, record our mistakes, and remind us of our roots. It is a part of who we are, and it would be a disservice to our country to forget it. As we celebrate Filipino heroes in light of National Heroes’ Day, let us honor their legacies by honoring the past. Let us honor the past by defending it…always.
Comments