Talk:Ferdinand Marcos/Archive 3

Last paragraph of the summary
Before:

According to source documents provided by the Presidential Commission on Good Government,  a government agency created by the Aquino Government (which by itself was affected by controversy), the Marcos family had plundered $5–10 billion USD. The Presidential Commission on Good Government also maintained that the Marcos family enjoyed a decadent lifestyle—taking away billions of dollars from the country  in the course of their US-backed rule between 1965 and 1986. His wife Imelda Marcos, whose excesses during the couple's kleptocracy  made her infamous in her own right, spawned the term "Imeldific". In 2008, Philippine trial court judge Silvino Pampilo acquitted Imelda Marcos, then widow of Ferdinand Marcos, of 32 counts of illegal money transfer after having previously been convicted of graft in 1993. In 2010, she was ordered to repay the Philippine government almost $280,000 for funds taken by Ferdinand Marcos in 1983. In 2012, a US Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit upheld a contempt judgement against Imelda and her son Bongbong Marcos for violating an injunction barring them from dissipating their assets, and awarded $353.6 million to human rights victims. Despite still facing numerous ongoing criminal graft charges and as a result of winning the cases filed against her in courts, as of March 2016, she was still active in Philippine politics along with two of her four children, Imee Marcos and Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. As of October 2015, Imelda Marcos still faces 10 criminal charges of graft, down from more than 900 cases in the 1990s, as most of the cases were dismissed for lack of evidence.

Proposed:

The last paragraph of the summary is:

According to source documents provided by the Presidential Commission on Good Government,  a government agency created by the Aquino Government, the Marcos family had plundered $5–10 billion USD. PCCG as supported by several court rulings, also maintained that the Marcos family enjoyed a decadent lifestyle—taking away billions of dollars from the country  in the course of their US-backed rule between 1965 and 1986. His wife Imelda Marcos, whose excesses during the couple's kleptocracy  made her infamous in her own right, spawned the term "Imeldific". Numerous criminal graft charges have been filed against her, some of which are still ongoing, and majority have been acquitted by the court. Due to this,, she was still active in Philippine politics along with two of her four children, Imee Marcos and Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr.

Ill-Gotten Wealth... Section: In 1990, Imelda Marcos, the widow of the former Philippine President, was acquitted of charges by a U.S. Jury that she raided the country's treasury and invested the money in the United States. In 1993, she was convicted of graft in Manila for entering into three unfavorable lease contracts between a Government-run transportation agency and another government-run hospital. In 1998, the Philippine Supreme Court overturned the previous conviction of Imelda Marcos and acquitted her of corruption charges. In 2008, Philippine trial court judge Silvino Pampilo acquitted Imelda Marcos, then widow of Ferdinand Marcos, of 32 counts of illegal money transfer from the 1993 graft conviction. In 2010, she was ordered to repay the Philippine government almost $280,000 for funds taken by Ferdinand Marcos in 1983. In 2012, a US Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit upheld a contempt judgement against Imelda and her son Bongbong Marcos for violating an injunction barring them from dissipating their assets, and awarded $353.6 million to human rights victims. As of October 2015, Imelda Marcos still faces 10 criminal charges of graft, down from more than 900 cases in the 1990s, as most of the cases were dismissed for lack of evidence.

The Imelda case chronology becomes more complete this way if put in the section since it connects 1990 up to 2012 cases. The summary instead will serve as a preface to this section since there is a mention of multiple graft charges, ongoing, acquitted whatsoever.Phthalocyan (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Ferdinand E. Marcos He is a Hero. He implement the Martial Law for our country. The Marcos made the bridge, etc. the money is coming from the Yamashita Treasure. He helps other without anything exchanged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.198.231 (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Marcos' accomplishments and other facts
The entire article I would argue, tells only one side of the history. Indeed, I have attempted to bring some balance in the article but my contributions was removed and the article was locked by users who are apparently not open to other views, even if they are supported by reputable sources. Instead of raising counterarguments to rebut the points I made, my entire contribution was deleted and I was namecalled. Initially, some of the sources I cited aren't the most reliable, which was used as a justification to remove my entire contribution. However, after removing the portions attributable unreliable sources, you'll see that the sources I cited are by far the most reputable local and international media sources, like Business Mirror, Manila Standard, Philippine Star, Rapper, NBC News and New York Times. Moreover, by starting my contribution with "Marcos' supporters argue", I was even implying that what I contributed on the section could not be the view of the general population. This is also aligned with with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View WP:DUE specifically section 2.3 Due and Undue Weight.

Anyway, I'm proposing that the following be added to the article just so it won't present a too one-sided view of the history.

I. Introduction

A.
Marcos' supporters argue that his government built an unprecedented number of infrastructure projects, including hospitals like the Philippine Heart Center, Lung Center, and Kidney Center, transportation infrastructure like San Juanico Bridge, Pan-Philippine Highway, and Manila Light Rail Transit (LRT), and dozens of hydroelectric and geothermal power plants  to lessen the country's dependency on oil. By 1983, the Philippines became the second largest producer of geothermal power in the world with the commissioning of the Tongonan 1 and Palinpinon 1 geothermal plants. On the education front, Marcos built 47 public colleges universities, outperforming all the presidents after him. To help transform the country's agricultural-based economy to a Newly industrialized country, he spearheaded the development of 11 heavy industrialization projects including steel, petrochemical, cement, pulp and paper mill, and copper smelter. Cultural and heritage sites like the Cultural Center of the Philippines, Nayong Pilipino, and Philippine International Convention Center were built. Likewise, in no other Philippine president's term has the country crafted more laws than during Marcos' term. From 1972-1986, Marcos codified laws through 2,036 Presidential Decrees, almost all of which are remain in force today and are embedded in the country's legal system.

My initial comments here are 1) We must do away with WP:PEACOCK terms like unprecedented, outperforming, in no other president's term. 2) When you say dozens of hydroelectric.. How many exactly? 3) We can forget about "outperformance" in terms of the number of schools built or laws created, and say having been the longest serving president, Marcos accomplished all of those, or just totally forget all about it. 4) the newly industrialized economy is nowhere to be found in your sources. First paragraph is too subjective, it won't pass. Im sorry.--RioHondo (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * @RioHondo Thank you very much for your feedback. Let me address your concern one by one. The paragraph has also been revised below to reflect our discussion. Additional feedback is welcome.
 * 1) We must do away with WP:PEACOCK terms like unprecedented, outperforming, in no other president's term.
 * Removed the following terms as suggested: unprecedented, outperforming, in no other
 * 2) When you say dozens of hydroelectric.. How many exactly?
 * The source mentions 17 hydroelectric and geothermal plants. The article has been revised.
 * 3) We can forget about "outperformance" in terms of the number of schools built or laws created, and say having been the longest serving president, Marcos accomplished all of those, or just totally forget all about it.
 * It must be noted that the paragraph started with "Marcos' supporters argue...". Although I agree that it'd be better if we present an analysis on a year-to-year basis.
 * In terms of laws passed:
 * The 2036 PDs passed averages 145 / year during the 1972-1986 period. It's a ton by today's standards. To put this into context, only 14 laws were passed in 2015, 12 laws in 2014, 11 laws in 2012, and 4 laws in 2012. http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/12/27/1536601/lawmakers-pass-14-laws-year. Also it's noteworthy that of 2036 PDs passed, only 67 has been repealed or modified.
 * In terms of infrastructure:
 * Speaking of a year-on-year infrastructure performance, Dr. Sicat has this in his study as mentioned by Business Mirror:
 * “A study of infrastructure construction by various presidents shows that Marcos was the president who made the largest infrastructure investment. This is not because he was the longest-serving leader of the country alone.
 * “On a per-year basis, he led all the presidents. Only Fidel Ramos had bested him in road building for a period of one year. But overall in terms of quantity of infrastructure investments, their impact on the rest of the economy and on the breadth and depth of the investments, Marcos was by far the most prolific, undertaken on a per-year basis and cumulatively over the years that he held office.
 * This is the study that Business Mirror is referring to which can actually be used as a source for this paragraph: http://www.econ.upd.edu.ph/dp/index.php/dp/article/viewFile/679/144. I have also added the above quotation in the paragrapth except for the last sentence
 * On Education:
 * I only cited the article and again, the paragraph started with "Marcos Supporters" argue. An analysis similar to above needs to be done if you prefer to see a per-year analysis to support the argument. But we can simply cite the author in the Wikipedia article or reiterating that Marcos Supporter's argue is enough. However, it's not really hard to analyze the number of public universities and colleges established during the Cory, Ramos, Erap, Noynoy era, which is 24 years in total. One can simply looked at the laws passed to check if the number of public universities and colleges established.
 * 4) The newly industrialized economy is nowhere to be found in your sources.
 * Newly Industrialized Country was mentioned here http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/marcoss-unmatched-legacy/. Added a new source http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1985/eirv12n33-19850823/eirv12n33-19850823_014-the_philippines_battle_for_devel.pdf to be sure.--Thetruth16 (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have issue with the whole premise that Marcos and Marcos alone accomplished all of those. To satisfy WP:NPOV, the paragraph should be made to appear neutral and balanced considering a presidential administration is not the work of just one man. You have govt ministers assigned to handle education and legislators also create and pass laws not just the president. During or under the Marcos administration, [this number of schools were built or Congress was able to pass this many laws]--should be a more acceptable way of presenting it. Also, it would be more academic and more credible to actually provide the name of the Marcos supporter who made those claims than just say "according to Marcos supporters" without establishing their notability and acceptability. Much better if you can provide a more credible source, say a historian or member of the academe, than just an opinion column from a random newspaper columnist. Per WP:DUE, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." This means you have to establish the prominence of your sources first like you did with Gerardo Sicat. If you ask me, an unnamed newspaper columnist's opinion (on BusinessMirror) is hardly prominent.--RioHondo (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@riohondo Thank you for the additional feedback. The paragraph was revised so it now refers to Marcos administration instead of Marcos to give credit to the other government members. Other points are also taken and the paragraph has been revised accordingly. Let me know if you have any further feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruth16 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@riohondo We can remove "Marcos argue" if that's what you prefer. The list of infrastructure, laws, schools are facts and and you'll get the same facts even if you look at other sources. You can check the Wikipedia infrastructure themselves like Philippine Heart Center or other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruth16 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

A.
(1st Revision; for 2nd revision, please see the next section)

Marcos' supporters argue that his government built a large number of infrastructure projects, including hospitals like the Philippine Heart Center, Lung Center, and Kidney Center, transportation infrastructure like San Juanico Bridge, Pan-Philippine Highway, and Manila Light Rail Transit (LRT), and 17 hydroelectric and geothermal power plants  to lessen the country's dependency on oil. By 1983, the Philippines became the second largest producer of geothermal power in the world with the commissioning of the Tongonan 1 and Palinpinon 1 geothermal plants. According to UP Economics Professor Dr. Sicat, "a study of infrastructure construction by various presidents shows that Marcos was the president who made the largest infrastructure investment. This is not because he was the longest-serving leader of the country alone. On a per-year basis, he led all the presidents. Only Fidel Ramos had bested him in road building for a period of one year". On the education front, Marcos built 47 public colleges universities, more than all the presidents after him. To help transform the country's agricultural-based economy to a Newly industrialized country, he spearheaded the development of 11 heavy industrialization projects including steel, petrochemical, cement, pulp and paper mill, and copper smelter. Cultural and heritage sites like the Cultural Center of the Philippines, Nayong Pilipino, and Philippine International Convention Center were built. Likewise, the country crafted a large number of during Marcos' during Marcos' term From 1972-1986, Marcos codified laws through 2,036 Presidential Decrees,, an average of 145 during the 14 year period. To put this into context, only 14 laws were passed in 2015, 12 laws in 2014, 11 laws in 2012, and 4 laws in 2012. Almost all of the laws passed during the term of Marcos are remain in force today and are embedded in the country's legal system.

A.
(Revised to reflect discussions above - 2nd revision)

Marcos' government built a large number of infrastructure projects, including hospitals like the Philippine Heart Center, Lung Center, and Kidney Center, transportation infrastructure like San Juanico Bridge, Pan-Philippine Highway, and Manila Light Rail Transit (LRT), and 17 hydroelectric and geothermal power plants  to lessen the country's dependency on oil. By 1983, the Philippines became the second largest producer of geothermal power in the world with the commissioning of the Tongonan 1 and Palinpinon 1 geothermal plants. According to UP Economics Professor Dr. Sicat, "a study of infrastructure construction by various presidents shows that Marcos was the president who made the largest infrastructure investment. This is not because he was the longest-serving leader of the country alone. On a per-year basis, he led all the presidents. Only Fidel Ramos had bested him in road building for a period of one year". On the education front, 47 state colleges and universities were built during the Marcos administration, which represents over 40% of all the existing 112 state colleges and universities in the country. To help transform the country's agricultural-based economy to a Newly industrialized country, he spearheaded the development of 11 heavy industrialization projects including steel, petrochemical, cement, pulp and paper mill, and copper smelter. Cultural and heritage sites like the Cultural Center of the Philippines, Nayong Pilipino, and Philippine International Convention Center were built. Likewise, the country crafted a large number of during Marcos' during Marcos' term. From 1972-1986, the Marcos Administration codified laws through 2,036 Presidential Decrees,, an average of 145 per year during the 14 year period. To put this into context, only 14, 12, and 11 laws were passed in 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Almost all of the laws passed during the term of Marcos are remain in force today and are embedded in the country's legal system.

B.
Marcos, together with agriculture minister and Harvard-educated Arturo Tanco and later on Salvador Escudero Jr., was instrumental in the Green Revolution in the Philippines and initiated an agricultural program called Masagana 99, improving agricultural productivity and enabling the country to achieve rice sufficiency in the late 1970's.

C.
Despite the unexplained wealth and corruption allegations, both U.S. and Philippine courts have cleared Marcos of corruption charges.


 * False. Please do not include the above in the main article.
 * Inquirer: Marcoses lose US appeal - CONTEMPT CASE INVOLVES $354-M AWARD TO HUMAN RIGHTS VICTIMS
 * GMA News: Singapore court awards $23M in Marcos money to PNB
 * Good read: The Guardian: The $10bn question: what happened to the Marcos millions? In the 21 years Ferdinand Marcos ran the Philippines, billions went missing. As his son stands for vice-president, will the stolen fortune ever be recovered?


 * -Object404 (talk) 11:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

C.
(revised and expounded previous version following discussions below)

The Philippine Supreme Court considers all Marcos assets beyond their legally declared earnings/salary to be ill-gotten wealth and such wealth have been forefeited in favor of the government or human rights victims. However, except for a former Marcos aide who conspired to sell a Monet and other artworks sequestered by the Philippine government, no one accused of taking what the Philippine government calls "ill-gotten" assets has been convicted for plundering the Philippine treasury, receiving bribes, or corruption. In 1990, Imelda Marcos, the widow of the former Philippine President, was acquitted of charges by a U.S. Jury that she raided the country's treasury and invested the money in the United States. In 1993, she was convicted of graft in Manila for entering into three unfavorable lease contracts between a Government-run transportation agency and another government-run hospital. In 1998, the Philippine Supreme Court overturned the previous conviction of Imelda Marcos and acquitted her of corruption charges. As of October 2015, she still faces 10 criminal charges of graft, down from 900 cases in the 90's, as most of the cases were dismissed for lack of evidence.


 * @Object404
 * No, not necessarily.


 * We are actually presented with conflicting facts. On the one hand, Marcos has indeed proven to have unexplained wealth in Swiss banks and courts have awarded Marcos' unexplained wealth to human rights victims, but on the other hand, Marcos has never been found guilty and there were virtually no direct evidence or testimonies from former ministers and Central bank governors (Jaime Laya, Jose B Fernadez, Cesar Virata, Enrile) that Marcos plundered money from the Philippine treasury, Central Bank, or received kickbacks from projects, even after he fled the country.


 * Possible explanations (and feel free to add):


 * If you believe that Marcos is guilty of plunder:


 * - Marcos is very good in hiding corruption and all the crooks who surrounded him pocketed money and got rich, and hence never testified. All his former ministers like ex Prime Minister Cesar Virata (who is respected in the business circles and is currently Vice Chairman in RCBC) and ex CB governor Jaime Laya (founder of the 2nd biggest accounting company in the Philippines and Chairman of a bank) were so prolific and in defending themselves against corruption charges such that none were found guilty or jailed during the Cory administration. All of them must have bribed the judges and prosecutors during the term of Cory.


 * If you are in the minority camp who believe that Marcos is not guilty of plunder:


 * - Marcos obtained massive gold wealth from World War II treasures, as per former Ayala CEO Enrique Zobel's sworn statement and Caritas Manila Director Marcelino Tagle's words. Gold appreciated tremendously from the 1970's (like 2000% ) and Marcos has been a very intelligent investor. He reinvested his money by using cronies to buy Philippine companies like PLDT further grow his wealth while keeping his privacy. Thetruth16 (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * False. US and Philippine courts HAVE NOT cleared the Marcoses of all corruption charges. According to the Philippine Supreme Court, all Marcos assets beyond their legal earnings/salary are considered to be ill-gotten wealth, even the so-called Yamashita Treasure if indeed, Marcos had found the bulk of it. http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/189434.htm -Object404 (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, Again let me say, it shouldn't be about what we (you, me, him) believe but the argument should be between sources. I already said this "Marcos supporters argue..." kind of presentation is unacceptable because we should only rely on what reliable sources say, all the time. Name the source of claims, and the source of counter claims, is how this is all supposed to be presented. Who exactly made the corruption allegations? And which specific US and Philippine courts cleared him of those charges? Only way this could be admitted is if the proposal presents both sides, with the more widely recognized version of the story being presented first, and your well-sourced dissent or counterclaim following it. Im not seeing anything in your proposal but pro-Marcos claims which are poorly sourced and with questionable prominence or notability due to lack of specifics and actual names of persons of authority making those claims.---RioHondo (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * @riohondo
 * - And which specific US and Philippine courts cleared him of those charges?


 * US Acquittal: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/03/nyregion/marcos-verdict-marcos-cleared-all-charges-racketeering-fraud-case.html?pagewanted=all

This is the exact quote if you open the New York times link above "Imelda Marcos, the widow of the former Philippine President, was acquitted yesterday of charges that she raided the country's treasury and invested the money in the United States." "In the end, the jury remained unconvinced by thousands of pages of documents that had been entered into evidence."


 * Philippine Acquittal (1): http://www.nbcnews.com/id/23555294/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/marcos-cleared-million-corruption-case/#.V90qJJh96Uk

"Imelda Marcos was exonerated after a 17-year trial in the case involving millions of dollars stashed in Swiss bank accounts.Judge Silvino Pampilo Jr. of the Manila Regional Trial Court said the prosecution presented witnesses who were not directly relevant to the accounts and failed to prove wrongdoing by Marcos beyond a reasonable doubt."


 * Philippine Acquittal (2): Another one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/187295.stm

"The Supreme Court in the Philippines has overturned the conviction of Imelda Marcos on corruption charges, for which she had earlier been sentenced to at least nine years in jail."


 * Now tell me, are these questionable sources?


 * @Object404
 * Excess wealth above legal earnings have been presumed to be ill-gotten, but there's never been any guilty verdict (or at least, one guilty verdict was overturned by the Supreme Court) on specific corruption charges. Similarly, somebody could have betted 1 million in an a casino in Macau or Vegas and grew his money to 1 billion. While this is beyond legally declared earnings, in no way is this considered stolen or plundered money, and in no way will you get convicted with this for corruption or plunder.


 * To quote WSJ in an article dated March 7, 2013 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323494504578343254294114668)

"To date, no one accused of taking what the Philippine government calls "ill-gotten" assets has been convicted of any crime."


 * Anyway, I've revised the paragraph above to take into account your comments and to add more details from the sources I cited.


 * Thetruth16 (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that Marcos "won" his wealth in a casino? The Yamashita treasure was stolen from the people of Asia. It is still stolen and plundered wealth. -Object404 (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * @Object404 My point is, you could earn money beyond legally declared earnings, and it doesn't necessarily mean that it's stolen. You could easily substitute "casino" with "investing in stocks" or "commodity trading" where you could also earn a ton of money, and it doesn't have to be "legally declared". Certainly for public officials especially, having money in excess of your legally declared earning is suspect, but it's not conclusive and it's not enough to convict an individual in court for corruption or plunder. Therefore, you just can't state in Wikipedia that Marcos is a plunderer as if it's a fact. Anyway, please let me know if you have additional feedback on the revised paragraph. Thetruth16 (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Explain the source of Marcos's wealth then. If you say "The Yamashita Treasure", that's still ill-gotten wealth, and definitely plunder. http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/152154.htm Also, excuse me? "...to date, no one accused of taking what the Philippine government calls "ill-gotten" assets has been convicted of any crime" -> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-24984558 -> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/nyregion/aide-to-imelda-marcos-is-sentenced-in-sale-of-masterpieces.html?_r=0 -Object404 (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, please read Asian Journal: Chronology of the Marcos Plunder -Object404 (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * @Object404 1. The Supreme Court link you gave above did not convict Marcos or his associates and "Plunder" can nowhere be found. 2. If indeed Marcos' wealth comes from Yamashita treasure, or if anyone becomes wealthy for finding a huge treasure, I'm not so sure if you can label that person as a plunderer or the person can be convicted of plunder by a court. 3. Asian Journal: Yes I've read this. It shows the Marcos' spending crazily shopping luxury goods in the U.S. This raises an issue of corruption, but it does not convict them. 4. "to date, no one accused of taking what the Philippine government calls "ill-gotten" assets has been convicted of any crime" is a quote from the article in the Wall Street Journal cited as source. Indeed, the claim is a stretch since "any crime" is too broad. The conviction on Imelda Marcos' aide is she sold the artworks that's not hers by manipulating the papers and she pocketed the money. We can revise the sentence above just so it won't be too broad: "to date, no one accused of taking what the Philippine government calls "ill-gotten" assets has been directly convicted of plundering the Philippine treasury, receiving bribes, or corruption." Also, numerous references in the current article says that Marcos pocketed $10 billion from the $30b loans without credible basis (e.g., testimony from finance ministry / Bureau of Treasury or papertrail, court conviction) and has to be revised. See revised paragraph above. Thetruth16 (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You just made the sentence more unwieldy and still not true given the conviction. That WSJ article is from 2013 and has been superceded by the 2014 conviction of her aide. The Yamashita treasure is stolen wealth and can't be just claimed and used as you think. It is plundered wealth. -Object404 (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Was the former aide convicted of plunder or graft? Besides, the ownership of the artworks is still in question - she could either be stealing from Marcos or from the government, depending on who the real owner of the artwork is. But then for the sake of balance and completeness, we should mention that as a fact in the paragraph. What's mentioned by the WSJ just needs to be modified to recognize the exception you mentioned. So the sentence shall be revised as, "However, except for a former Marcos aide who conspired to sell artworks being confiscated by the Philippine government, no one accused of taking what the Philippine government calls "ill-gotten" assets has been convicted for plundering the Philippine treasury, receiving bribes, or corruption."

marcos loyalists and apologists seem to be obfuscating the facts. there will never be a court case that will be decided in favor of the filipino people and the reason is that most of the crooks are still in power. they were never removed by cory aquino's revolutionary government and many are so entrenched and wealthy that they simply bribed and bought their way out. the only truth is through the personal stories of the people who lived during that time inside the philippines, inside martial law. hitler and stalin and mussolini and mao and pol pot were never convicted in any court. if that is the standard of proof needed then they will all be saints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.90.222 (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

D.
Enrique Zobel, founder of Makati Business Club and former chairman and president of Ayala Corporation, in his sworn statement, estimated Marcos gold hoard valued at US$100 billion and that Marcos wealth and that the riches were part of the Yamashita's treasure. Moreover, Marcelino Tagle, ex-director of Caritas Manila, corroborated Zobel and said that Marcos' gold were not stolen from the Philippine government, but came from Yamashita gold hoard and Vatican gold captured by Hitler.

during his last days. mr zobel became paralyzed due to a polo accident. he was paralyzed from the neck down. this was the time he started spouting this nonsense. there is no yamashita treasure and if there was it was not in those amounts. yamashita captured the philippines and singapore both poor countries during that time. where did the gold come from?this is stupidity. the gold he talks about would make marcos one of the largest gold owners in the world during that time. if you want more proof look at imelda when he went to the party of the shah of iran. she did not have fabulous jewelry during that time. this was before martial law (1971)when they still didn't have fabulous wealth. I think this was the reason for imelda's obsession with jewelry. she was the lowest attendee being only a first lady without any government post and beside her were the royal families of europe, japan and thailand with hundreds of years in history.they had fabulous jewelry. if marcos found a gold hoard purportedly worth 100billion in the 90s in 1945 this would still be worth a fabulous fortune. then imelda would not look so shabby attending that party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.90.222 (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

E.
In his dying days, Marcos was visited by Vice President Salvador Laurel. During the meeting with Salvador Laurel, Marcos offered 90% of his stolen wealth to the Filipino people, an offer also disclosed to Enrique Zobel. However, Marcos' offer was rebuffed by the Aquino government.

'''II. On Martial Law:'''

A.
At the height of armed communist insurgency in the Philippines, Philippine Military Academy instructor Lt Victor Corpuz led New People's Army rebels in a raid on the PMA armory, capturing rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, a bazooka and thousands of rounds of ammunition in 1970. In 1972, China, which was then actively supporting and arming communist insurgencies in Asia, transported 1,200 M-14 and AK-47 rifles for the NPA to speed up NPA's campaign to defeat the government.

Based on interviews of The Washington Post with former Communist Party of the Philippines Officials, it was revealed that "the (Communist) party leadership planned -- and three operatives carried out -- the (Plaza Miranda) attack in an attempt to provoke government repression and push the country to the brink of revolution... (Communist Party Leader) Sison had calculated that Marcos could be provoked into cracking down on his opponents, thereby driving thousands of political activists into the underground, the former party officials said. Recruits were urgently needed, they said, to make use of a large influx of weapons and financial aid that China had already agreed to provide."

Martial Law was put on vote in July 1973 in the Philippine Martial Law referendum, 1973 and was marred with controversy with the following results:

During that time all opposition politicians were in prison. all newspapers, radios, tv stations were in the hands of marcos. during the election, police forces were stationed in the polling precints. it was manual voting on pieces of paper. it was received by government employees who saw your vote and who worked for the marcos government.what do you think the result would be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.90.222 (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

B.
University of the Philippines economics professor and former NEDA Director-General Dr. Gerardo Sicat, an MIT Ph.D. graduate, portrayed some of Martial Law's effects as follows : "“Economic reforms suddenly became possible under martial law. The powerful opponents of reform were silenced and the organized opposition was also quilted. In the past, it took enormous wrangling and preliminary stage-managing of political forces before a piece of economic reform legislation could even pass through Congress. Now it was possible to have the needed changes undertaken through presidential decree. Marcos wanted to deliver major changes in an economic policy that the government had tried to propose earlier.”

The enormous shift in the mood of the nation showed from within the government after martial law was imposed. The testimonies of officials of private chambers of commerce and of private businessmen dictated enormous support for what was happening. At least, the objectives of the development were now being achieved…”."

C.
More than 2,000 laws in form of Presidential Decrees were passed during the term of Marcos, many of which are still recognized up to present.
 * The constitution changed in 1987. Many of Marcos's significant laws became obsolete then so you cannot say "almost all are still recognized up to the present". -Object404 (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * @Object404 On what basis did you say that they are obsolete? Because the laws are old? Actually, Only 67 Presidential Decrees or less than .01 percent have either been repealed or modified. The constitution is a different story - the paragraph above talks about Presidential Decrees and it doesn't claim that the 1973 constitution is recognized up to present.
 * Among the major Presidential Decrees still recognized and enforced are:
 * The 13th Month Pay Law [PD 851]
 * Labor Code of the Philippines [PD 442]
 * Real Property Tax Code [PD 464]
 * National Building Code [PD 1096];
 * Philippines Environment Code [PD 1152];
 * Fire Code [PD 1185];
 * Government Auditing Code [PD 1445];
 * Tariff and Customs Code [PD 1464]


 * Among the critical Marcos-era laws governing real estate and commercial transactions are as follows:
 * a. Condominium Act of 1966 . Buying a condo? This law protects you from getting duped and from the developer from taking back the condominium after 20 or 30 years. In case the condo needs to be knocked down, you are a part owner of the land based on this law.
 * b. Corporation Code of the Philippines. Philippine companies are still governed by the Marcos-era Corporation Code
 * c. Bouncing Check Law. http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/bataspam/bp1979/bp_22_1979.html which is still used by people, banks and companies to demand payment (under the threat that they can sue the borrower for Estafa).


 * We should definitely expound this paragraph just to clear misconceptions that laws crafted during the Marcos administration are obsolete.

Thetruth16 (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

D.
In January 1973, the constitution was approved by 95% of the voters in the Philippine constitutional plebiscite.

'''III. On Snap Elections'''

A.
The alleged fraud culminated in the walkout of 35 COMELEC computer technicians to protest the manipulation of the official election results to favor Ferdinand Marcos. However, not known to many, the walkout of computer technicians was led by Linda Kapunan, wife of Lt Col Eduardo Kapunan, a leader of Reform the Armed Forces Movement, which plotted to attack the Malacañang Palace and kill Marcos and his family , leading some to believe that the walkout could have been plotted with ulterior motives.

'''IV. On His Death'''

during that time doing this would be a death sentence. you would be removed from your job and probably arrested by the military police. these people would not have done this had they not been ready to die to try to bring back democracy to the philippines by electing cory aquino.if you allow this edit then please tell the story of how marcos tried to cheat the election by manipulating the computer results also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.90.222 (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

A.
Prior to his death, he expressed his desire to be buried in the Philippines and to turnover 90% of his stolen assets to the Filipino People. When he was visited by Vice President Salvador Laurel in Hawaii several months before, he said :

Mrs. Aquino refused to meet Salvador Laurel to receive Marcos' message.

laurel was the vice president of cory involved in a coup d etat against her. of course she won't see him. he isn't credible. he even stole funds of paskuhan village in clark during the time of president ramos. he's the ultimate predatory politician.

B.
The Aquino government refused to allow Marcos' body to be brought back to the Philippines. The body was only brought back to the Philippines only after 4 years after Marcos' death during the term of President Fidel Ramos. Thetruth16 (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Debt growth in the first section


Before

He was elected President in 1965. During his term, the Philippine national debt grew from $2 billion to almost $30 billion —while used to fund development projects, of which the Marcos family had plundered $5-10 billion USD, according to source documents provided by the Presidential Commission on Good Government.

Thetruth16 (talk) 06:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed revision

He was elected President in 1965. During his term, the Philippine national debt grew from $2 billion to $28 billion. In the meantime, based on World Bank data, Philippine Annual Gross Domestic Product grew from $5.27 billion in 1964 to $37.14 billion in 1982, a year prior to the assassination of Ninoy Aquino which triggered an economic recession. By the end of 1985, GDP stood at $30.7 following two years of economic contraction.

Discussion

1. Debt is raised to fund development projects. To shorten the paragraph, we may not need to state the obvious. 2. It's misleading to say or imply that Marcos pocketed foreign debt. While is accused of taking away money, let's not mix this on the debt section. The PCGG didn't say that Marcos took money from the foreign debt. Other paragraphs in this section have already mentioned about he corruption issue. 3. Debt has to be put into context with GDP. I added data from the World Bank. 4. Amount of debt is $28 billion to be more exact in 1986. Let's use this rather than "almost $30 billion". Check http://pcij.org/stories/glorias-inglorious-record-biggest-debtor-least-popular/

Other comments and suggestions

 * Your BusinessMirror citation links do not exist. You also cannot cite WikiPilipinas because like Wikipedia, it is another Wiki editable by anyone. -Object404 (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)




 * Hello. Thank you for your feedback. I have updated the Business Mirror links. They are working now. Strangely, Google Chrome may warn you that some BusinessMirror pages are affected with Malware. To proceed on Chrome when you see the error, click details, and click the "unsafe site." HTML files do no harm anyway. Alternatively, the Business Mirror links can be viewed using Internet Explorer and Edge without any issues. I also swamped Dr Sicat's Wikipilipinas link with a page from UP Diliman. http://www.econ.upd.edu.ph/gerardo-p-sicat-the-economist-with-a-vision/ Thetruth16 (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. Will try to go over and review each one of your proposed changes above. I hope other editors do the same. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)



Thank you both for your feedback. Following our discussion and revisions, I have moved Section I to the main article page. I'd be happy to discuss if there's any feedback or concerns on Section I.

Let me know if you have other feedback on the succeeding sections before they are brought to the main article.Thetruth16 (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Why does this wiki look like an advertisement for Marcos?
This wiki seriously needs a clean up. Parts of it urgently need neutrality.

Not sure what all these quotes are placed for as they do not seem to hold much relevance. Much of the material (all over the place so I cannot pinpoint only a few sections) look like they might as well have been written by Imelda Marcos herself!

Notthebestusername (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Precisely. The article seriously needs a lot of work. -Object404 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Recent events have drawn attention from some other editors; this may be a good thing. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)