BANALO, ABDONICHIE ALVAREZ

LEGAL WRITING 5:00PM- 7:00PM

MARCOS ERA, A DILEMMA

After more than 30 years since it ended, the question whether or not the Marcos Era is the
Golden Age of the Philippines still elicits an emotional, heated, animated and sometimes violent
argument among Filipinos (If youre a marketing specialist who wants to get a quick boost of
engagement, all you have to do is post something on Facebook talking about how Marcos
plundered OR made our country better).

On one side you have the people who vehemently declare that without Marcos leadership, our
country wouldnt have the infrastructures created during that period. It was in Marcos time that
cultural tourism and heritage sites were constructed like the Cultural Center of the Philippines,
Folk Arts Theater, Philippine International Convention Center, the National Arts Center, the
Peoples Park in the Sky in Tagaytay City.

Of all the presidents of the country (to this time), Marcos built the most extensive infrastructure.
The projects were interrelated and complemented sector-development objectives. He put in the
major trunk-line road networks within the country, linking them from Luzon to the Visayas, and
then to Mindanao. These networks were essential in bringing down the cost of transportation,
thereby raising the prospects of commerce throughout the affected regions of the country. In his
two terms in office, he concentrated on a network of roads, simply designed and inexpensive
school buildings, and irrigation systems that also built farm-to-market roads. In Luzon, major
irrigation systems and hydroelectric power plants were built. These were the Upper Pampanga
River Project, Angat multipurpose power and irrigation project and the Magat River Project.
These projects firmed up the role of Central Luzon and the Cagayan Valley in the Green
Revolution of the 1970s. In addition, community irrigation systems were built in many other
provinces where agricultural activities thrived, especially across the nation and in the big
islands. This increased agricultural activities in the big Visayan Islands and in Mindanao and
helped cover a wide area of the rice and food-producing region. The result of these investments
could be seen in the rise of agricultural output, especially in the increase toward greater
sufficiency in palay production. Irrigation helped to raise farmer productivity. He improved the
older networks of national roads that connected provinces, and rehabilitated them to durable
construction. A lot of these projects eased the transport bottlenecks within provinces and across
provinces, and improved intra-island travels within the big islands. He linked these with airport
constructions. If Marcos were to be judged only on his infrastructure-construction program
during his first two terms alone, he would have been considered an outstanding president.
(Sicat, 2015)

They speak of how discipline was instilled and the much-hated bureaucratic corruption is almost
non-existent. On the other side we have the people highlighting the somber human rights
records, suppression of the freedom of the press and basic right to associate, and the decades
long war ravaging Mindanao.

Each side has valid and strong points so before I state my stand on this, its only important to
define what we call Golden Age. The term Golden Age as defined in Wikipedia comes from the
Greek mythology, particularly the Works and Days of Hesiod, and is a term used to denote
peace, harmony, stability, and prosperity.
From time immemorial, there was never a government which have achieved complete peace
(there will always be wars), harmony (there will always be disagreements), and stability (politics
is a struggle for power after all). For this very reason, Utopia never existed. However, in my
opinion, the existence of these imperfections doesnt diminish the qualifications of an era to be
called the Golden Age.

I believe that the basis of whether or not we can call an era the Golden Age is by looking at the
last aspect: prosperity. After all, a prosperous nation is a nation of happy people. Happy people
generally cause fewer troubles. And this is where I make my stand.

The Marcos Era is not the Golden Age of the Philippines. During this era, new buildings and
infrastructures were constructed left and right, a glittery culture was presented for everyone to
see, and international celebrities and personalities were abound. All of these present an image
that the Marcos Era is Philippines heyday. Wrong.

First, lets start with the nations GDP. The gross domestic product (GDP) is one of the primary
indicators used to gauge the health of a country's economy as it represents the total dollar value
of all goods and services produced over a specific time period. The average GDP from 1972 to
1985 (Marcos was ousted 1986) was at a measly 3.4% per annum. The per capita GDP, which
is essentially the earning of each person in the country, is at a very dismal 0.9%. World Bank
data shows that the average GDP of the world in 1985 was at 2%. To get more context how
horrific this growth is, lets take a look at the stats of one of the worst times of our democracy -
the Arroyo period. The GDP from 2003 to 2014 was has been 5.4% per annum, while the GDP
per capita is four times that of the Marcos Era at 3.5%. (de Dios, 2015)

Enough with the numbers. To understand how the Marcos Era achieved very little in terms of
economic growth, we have to look into how the money was generated. Think of it this way:
Philippines is a man who received his credit card and went on a shopping spree without
realizing the debt hole he has gone into. The consequences of this action will not become
immediately apparent. People will notice the new buildings just as people will notice the mans
new clothes and shoes. This man will eventually have to pay for the credit card bills, and to do
so have to suffer prolonged hardships and possible bankruptcy.

Building new structures and public facilities, sponsoring glittery international conventions, and
showcasing our cultural heritage is well and good, but all of these were extravagances which
were funded with the borrowed money which we have no way of paying our obligations. In
essence, the Marcos Era is being lived in a borrowed time and the catastrophic collapse of the
economy is unavoidable.

Borrowing it itself is not bad. In fact, I believe that its sometimes necessary to stimulate a
nations economic growth. This technique was demonstrated in the US by the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which allowed ailing companies to borrow money from
the government. This is not the same as a nation borrowing money from the international funds,
but it can be used in the same context. However, what happened during the Marcos Era was an
unsustainable borrowing with disastrous results. The Marcos procured the money without deep,
structural reforms to be able to cope up with its impending obligations.

Its important to point out that unlike our Asian neighbors, each Filipinos annual income sharply
declined in the waning days of the Marcos Era. While South Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, and
Indonesia experienced steep increase in their per capita GDP, Philippines sharply declined and
this further cemented our title as the sick man of Asia. By the time our economy recovered, our
neighboring countries have amassed a growth of up to 4 times from when we began our
decline. We have lost so much ground that until today catching up to these countries still proves
to be a challenge.

Another thing that needs to be highlighted is the breakdown of the nations public and private
manufacturing sector. Marcos was characterized with crony capitalism in which businessmen
and personalities close to the first family were awarded with government contracts and permit to
operate large businesses. One good example is the Bataan Power Plant which proved to be
not only inefficient but also a threat to the environment. As only a select number of people were
given access to the ability to manufacture, majority of the manufacturing sector simply died out
or stagnated which further contributed to the slow economy growth.

All of these contributed to a very dark period of the Philippine economy which resulted to severe
poverty and an all time low jobless rate. It took the country an entire generation to recover from
the bad outcomes of the Marcos regimes economic policies and management.

The Marcos era can be distinguished by the governments failure to bring prosperity to the
people and therefore cant be considered as the Golden Era of the Philippines.

REFERENCES:

De Dios, Emmanuel S. (2015, November 16). The Truth about the economy under the Marcos
regime. Retrieved from www.bworldonline.com

Sicat, Gerardo P. (2015, November 13). Marcoss Unmatched Legacy: Hospitals, Schools and
Other Infrastructures. Retrieved from https://businessmirror.com