Philippine presidential election, 1986

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Philippine presidential election, 1986
Philippines
← 1981 February 7, 1986 1992 →
Turnout 78.8% Decrease 2.1%
  Corazon Aquino 1986.jpg Ferdinand Marcos.JPEG
Nominee Corazon C. Aquino Ferdinand E. Marcos
Party UNIDO KBL
Running mate Salvador H. Laurel Arturo M. Tolentino
Popular vote 7,502,601 (NAMFREL) 9,291,716 (COMELEC) 6,787,556 (NAMFREL) 10,807,197 (COMELEC)
Percentage 46.10%
(COMELEC, later nullified)
53.62%
(COMELEC, later nullified)

1986 Philippine presidential election results per province.png
Election results per province/city.

President before election

Ferdinand E. Marcos
KBL

Elected President

Corazon C. Aquino
UNIDO

Coat of arms of the Philippines.svg
This article is part of a series on the
politics and government of
the Philippines

The Presidential election was held on 7 February 1986 in the Philippines were snap elections, and are popularly known as the Snap Elections, that followed the end of Martial Law and brought about the People Power Revolution, the downfall of President Ferdinand E. Marcos, and the accession of Corazon C. Aquino as President.

Background[edit]

Influence of the American Media[edit]

After being dared by an American journalist, President Ferdinand E. Marcos declared a snap election during an interview on the American Broadcasting Company political affairs programme, This Week with David Brinkley in November 1985.[1][2][3] On 3 December, the Batasang Pambansa passed a law setting the date of the election on 7 February 1986[4] On 4 February 1986, Marcos declared 6 and 7 February as nationwide non-working special public holidays to "give all registered voters fullest opportunity to exercise their right of suffrage."[5]

The courage and the essential goodness of Corazón Aquino was so impressive in her battle against enormous odds. And the bravery of her followers— many of whom were killed as they pursued their belief in a true democracy... And then there was this: the role of the press, print and electronic. Through television cameras and newspapers, the whole world was watching. President Marcos could lie and cheat, but in the end he could not hide.[6]

Tom Brokaw, NBC Nightly News

The assassination of Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino Jr. on August 21, 1983 revived the oppositionist press, and not far behind it did the pro-Marcos press retaliate. Both catered to the intense news-hunger of the Filipino people, but it was a smaller group of reporters who delivered the crucial blow to President Ferdinand E. Marcos' image, with rumors circulating about Marcos' hidden wealth and war record. An example of this would be the article written by Eduardo Lachica in December 1982. It stirred interest after being published in The Asian Wall Street Journal on the alleged Marcos property holdings in New York.[6]

By late January 1985, the pursuit for the truth behind the rumors began with Lewis M. Simons, a Tokyo-based correspondent for the San Jose Mercury News, who sent a memo to his desk editor, Jonathan Krim. There have been incessant speculations of Philippine "capital flight" that not only involved Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos themselves, but also government officials and friends of the first family. Simons provided Krim with a list of names, telling him to look into Philippine investments in the San Francisco Bay area. Krim handed over several clips (including Lachica's article) and miscellaneous letters from the Filipino exile community to the investigative reporter Pete Carey attached with a note, "Look into this." Carey began his paper trail after setting up his personal computer and a telephone modem as well as using real-estate data bases to acquire both California and out-of-state records. Another method he used in tracking the story were his interviews with the members of the Filipino exiled opposition who were divided between those who were resolute in helping him and those who deemed themselves apolitical, fearing reprisals if they spoke. In an interview, Carey says, "I kept telling them, 'I'm not interested in quoting people, I'm not going to use yours or any names. I'm interested in documentary evidence,' That convinced people...." Due to budgetary concerns, He continued his trail by exploring records in New York and Chicago through telephone. At a later date, Katherine Ellison from the San Francisco Bureau, who Carey dubs as another "great investigative reporter," joined the group as they conducted interviews and convinced reluctant locals to provide essential information.[6]

On June 23–25, 1985, the Mercury News series under the by-lines of Carey, Ellison, and Simons elicited a staggering response after revealing a list of names, showing how the Filipino elite had illegally invested millions in the U.S., why real estate conditions made California a prime investment territory, and how capital flight fueled Philippine insurgency. Meanwhile, local publications in the Philippines such as Malaya, Veritas, Business Day, and Mr. and Mrs. all reprinted the series. There were protests on the streets, attempts by the National Assembly's opposition minority to file an impeachment hearing (which was quickly annulled) while President Marcos was forced to order an impartial inquiry (though it lasted briefly).[6]

The international clamor surprised the three Mercury News investigators with Carey commenting, "There's a vast difference between simple allegations and something with a factual, documentary basis," he says. "It provokes a totally different psychological reaction in the readers. Gossip stirs their apathy; facts galvanize them to action."[6]

After the successful publication of the series, newer articles were produced by the Mercury News team, among other things, such as how the Manila elitists smuggled fortunes, in the form of American currency, out of the country. More reporters from The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times developed other angles as well. The most significant were those uncovered by Times' Jeff Gerth, who wrote on the misuse of American aid money by the Marcos' administration. Although President Marcos continued to deny these allegations, it did little to avert the consequences. His support in the congress quickly dissipated while news of his misrule endangered U.S. military interests.[6] Though revelations of Marcos' hidden wealth disparaged him in America, in the Philippines, it was the truth of his war records that did him in.

Organizing the 1986 Philippine Elections[edit]

On November 4, 1985, Sam Donaldson and George Will interviewed President Ferdinand E. Marcos on the American Broadcasting Company political affairs program, This Week with David Brinkley.[7][8] Marcos was being asked about his policies and support when, without warning, he announced that he would hold a Snap Elections on February 7, 1986, a year earlier than the supposed 1987 elections. Marcos said that in the Snap Elections, the vice president would also be determined. Also, the final decision regarding the elections would be determined by the National Assembly. On 3 December 1985, the Batasang Pambansa passed a law setting the date of the election on 7 February 1986.[9]

Marcos declared the early elections since he believed that this would solidify the support of United States, silence the protests and criticisms both in the Philippines and the United States, and finally put the issues regarding the death of Benigno Aquino Jr. to rest.[10]

The opposition saw two problems regarding the announcement of Marcos. First is the credibility of the announcement since at the time two-thirds of the national assembly were from KBL, which means that they could decide not to push through with the Snap Elections. This would then give Marcos an image that he was willing to entertain opposers, which would then contribute to his popularity. Second problem is that the opposition was yet to choose a single presidential candidate to who had a chance to win.[10] This posed a problem for them since the opposition were yet to be united, supporting only one presidential candidate.

For the opposition, they were torn between the widow of Benigno Aquino Jr., Corazon "Cory" Aquino, and Doy Laurel, son of President Jose P. Laurel. Cardinal Jaime Sin talked to both the potential candidates. Cory was hesitant to run since she believed that she was not the best and most able choice. She also feared the loss of privacy once she enters the political arena. Cory agreed to run if there was a petition campaign with at least a million signatures supporting her as a presidential candidate. Doy on the other hand, was earnest in running as president since he believed his family background, training, and experience have prepared him for the presidency.

Campaign[edit]

The campaign period lasted 45 days, from 19 December 1985 to 5 February 1986.[11][4][12]

As the election campaign continued, Marcos was able to campaign in selected key cities while Aquino was able to campaign intensively and extensively, even going to remote places from the north of the Philippines to the south of the Philippines. The Aquino campaign concluded a rally that is believed to have 800 000 participants wearing yellow in Rizal Park and Roxas Boulevard forming a “sea of yellow.”[13]

Results[edit]

About 85,000 precincts opened at seven o’clock in the morning of Election Day.[14] Each precincts was administered by a Board of Election Inspectors (BEI), wherein they were tasked to overlook the manner of voting. However, the BEI did not continuously abide by the stipulated voting procedure, which raised the impression of fraud.

The voting period was also scheduled to close at three o’clock in the afternoon but was extended to give way for people who were in line. Counting of the ballots followed and in most precincts was able to finish by six o’clock in the evening.[15]

Results showed that a huge number of eligible electorates did not vote. Out of the 26 million registered voters, only 20 million ballots were cast. This showed a decreased percentage of voters from the 1984 election, which had 89% of registered voters cast their ballots, to around 76% during the snap election.[15]

Number of Voters in the 1986 Election
Number of registered voters 26,181,829
Actual Number of votes canvassed by the Batasan 20,150,160
Percentage of Actual to Registered Voters 76.96%

A number of disenfranchised voters were evident during the snap election.

Estimated number of Disenfranchised Voters[15]
1984 Percentage of Actual to Registered Voters 89%
1986 Number of voters base from the 1984 percentage 23,422,264
Actual Number of votes canvassed by the Batasan 20,150,160
Estimated number of disenfranchised voters 3,272,104

President[edit]

COMELEC[15] NAMFREL (partial; 69% of precincts reported)[16]
Marcos Aquino Canoy Padilla Total Marcos Aquino Total
National Capital Region 1,394,815 1,614,662 794 10,687 3,020,958 1,312,592 1,530,678 2,843,270
Region I 1,239,825 431,877 282 3,399 1,675,383 578,997 282,506 861,503
Region II 856,026 139,666 111 381 996,184 188,556 105,934 294,490
Region III 1,011,860 1,008,157 243 2,268 2,022,528 647,318 761,771 1,409,089
Region IV 1,190,804 1,425,143 336 3,831 2,620,114 757,689 995,238 1,752,927
Region V 433,809 761,538 258 376 1,195,981 354,784 634,453 989,237
Region VI 902,682 777,312 386 244 1,680,624 582,075 561,177 1,143,252
Region VII 773,604 827,912 4,012 394 1,605,922 535,363 722,631 1,257,994
Region VIII 627,868 411,284 475 213 1,039,840 527,076 372,179 899,255
Region IX 540,570 365,195 3,686 505 909,956 234,064 256,819 490,883
Region X 563,547 519,841 8,244 223 1,091,855 293,799 308,751 602,550
Region XI 609,540 662,799 13,413 773 1,286,525 353,413 404,124 757,537
Region XII 662,247 346,330 1,801 358 1,010,736 166,636 222,418 389,054
Total 10,807,197 9,291,716 34,041 23,652 20,156,606 6,532,362 7,158,679 13,691,041

The COMELEC proclaimed Marcos as the winner[14] with more than 1.5 million voted greater than the next contender, Cory Aquino. In the COMELEC's tally a total of 10,807,197 votes was for Marcos alone. Conversely, NAMFREL's partial tally had Aquino winning with more than half a million lead.

Vice President[edit]

COMELEC[15] NAMFREL[16]
Tolentino Laurel Kalaw Arienda Tolentino Laurel Kalaw
National Capital Region 1,411,863 1,366,162 219,763 - 1,323,201 1,288,285 231,318
Region I 1,173,312 394,255 96,257 - 552,624 246,681 67,111
Region II 825,886 150,538 8,111 - 176,739 102,537 3,879
Region III 984,045 920,095 104,957 - 664,601 741,294 91,386
Region IV 853,600 1,691,011 58,524 - 504,364 1,221,014 44,349
Region V 388,961 774,336 25,654 - 328,526 653,025 23,772
Region VI 814,910 783,183 56,910 - 542,428 573,447 44,362
Region VII 790,432 799,565 7,571 - 552,760 694,377 7,296
Region VIII 606,648 403,660 21,931 - 506,552 377,735 22,243
Region IX 531,457 359,502 5,192 - 233,765 252,371 4,843
Region X 552,528 519,502 7,451 - 397,572 421,107 7,543
Region XI 599,462 635,701 37,640 - 422,444 464,813 33,565
Region XII 601,020 375,595 12,224 - 179,717 213,239 7,922
Total 10,134,124 9,173,105 662,185 35,974 6,385,293 7,249,925 589,589
Summary of Election Results
COMELEC[15]
Ferdinand Marcos Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (New Society Movement) 10,807,197 53.62%
Corazon Aquino United Nationalist Democratic Organization 9,291,716 46.10%
Reuben Canoy Social Democratic Party 34,041 0.17%
Narciso Padilla Movement for Truth, Order and Righteousness 23,652 0.12%
Arturo Tolentino Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (New Society Movement) 10,134,130 50.65%
Salvador Laurel United Nationalist Democratic Organization 9,173,105 45.85%
Eva Estrada Kalaw Liberal (Kalaw Wing) 662,185 3.31%
Roger Arienda Movement for Truth, Order and Righteousness 35,974 0.18%
NAMFREL[16]
Ferdinand Marcos Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (New Society Movement) 6,532,362 -
Corazon Aquino United Nationalist Democratic Organization 7,158,679 -
Arturo Tolentino Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (New Society Movement) 6,385,293 -
Salvador Laurel United Nationalist Democratic Organization 7,249,925 -
Eva Estrada Kalaw Liberal (Kalaw Wing) 589,589 -

Aftermath[edit]

The final results of the February 7, 1986 Snap Elections led to the popular belief that the polls were tampered and considered an electoral fraud. The following days consisted of countless debates and actions as a sign of aversion to the result. Violence was at a peak. Anyone who got in the way would get murdered even in broad daylight. But in the end, as according to the International Observer Delegation, the "election of the February 7 was not conducted in a free and fair manner" due to the influence and power of the administration of Ferdinand Marcos. The International Observer Delegation reaffirmed that the proclamation of the victors of the election were invalid because the Batasan “ignored explicit provisions of the Philippine Electoral Code [Batas Pambansa Blg. 881] requiring that the tampered or altered Election Returns be set aside during the final counting process, despite protests by representatives of the opposition parts”. After further investigation, a multinational team of observers cited cases of vote-buying, intimidation, snatching of ballot boxes, tampered election returns and the disenfranchisement of thousands of voters[17]

On 9 February, thirty five computer programmers walked out of the COMELEC's electronic quick count at the Philippine International Convention Center, some fearing for their safety and seeking sanctuary in Baclaran Church. The technicians—whose protest was broadcast live on national television[18]—claimed that the Marcos camp had manipulated the election results.

The Catholic Bishop's Conference of the Philippines President Cardinal Ricardo Vidal released a declaration in lieu of the Philippine Church Hierarchy stating that "a government does not of itself freely correct the evil it has inflicted on the people then it is our serious moral obligation as a people to make it do so." The declaration also asked "every loyal member of the Church, every community of the faithful, to form their judgment about the February 7 polls" telling all the Filipinos "[n]ow is the time to speak up. Now is the time to repair the wrong. The wrong was systematically organized. So must its correction be. But as in the election itself, that depends fully on the people; on what they are willing and ready to do."[19] The United States Senate passed a resolution stating the same. This chain of events eventually led to the resignation of Marcos' Defence Minister Juan Ponce Enrile, and Armed Forces Vice-Chief of Staff General Fidel Ramos. Enrile and Ramos then secluded themselves in the military and police headquarters of Camp Aguinaldo and Camp Crame, respectively, leading to the People Power Revolution from 22–25 February 1986, which toppled the Marcos regime.

The snap elections and its aftermath are dramatized in the 1988 film A Dangerous Life.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Russell, George (18 April 2005). "The Philippines: I'm Ready, I'm Ready". Time. 
  2. ^ "Philippines - The Snap Election and Marcos's Ouster". www.country-data.com. Retrieved 25 June 2017. 
  3. ^ http://politics.inquirer.net/politics/view/20101216-309237/Marcos-told-this-reporter-he-had-a-mission-from-God
  4. ^ a b "B.P. 883". www.lawphil.net. Retrieved 25 June 2017. 
  5. ^ http://www.gov.ph/1986/02/04/proclamation-no-2487-s-1986/
  6. ^ a b c d e f Bain, David Haward (1986). "LETTER FROM MANILA.". Columbia Journalism Review. 25: 28–31 – via Communication & Mass Media Complete, EBSCOhost. 
  7. ^ Russell, George (2005-04-18). "The Philippines: I'm Ready, I'm Ready". Time. ISSN 0040-781X. Retrieved 2016-11-15. 
  8. ^ "Philippines - The Snap Election and Marcos's Ouster". www.country-data.com. Retrieved 2016-11-15. 
  9. ^ "B.P. 883". www.lawphil.net. Retrieved 2016-11-15. 
  10. ^ a b "Turmoil, transition...triumph? The democratic revolution in the Philippines.". archive.org. Retrieved 2016-11-15. 
  11. ^ While Batas Pambansa Blg. 883 mandated a campaign period starting on 11 December 1985, this law was put on hold until the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality on 19 December.
  12. ^ http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNABK494.pdf
  13. ^ Santos, Antonio (1987). Power politics in the Philippines: The Fall of Marcos. Quezon City: Center for Social Research. pp. 22–25. 
  14. ^ a b "Nation commemorates 25th anniversary of the 1986 Snap Presidential Election" (PDF). Election Monitor. 1- Issue No. 61. 2011 – via NAMFREL. 
  15. ^ a b c d e f Atwood, J. Brian; Schuette, Keith E. "A Path to Democratic Renewal" (PDF): 350 – via National Democratic Institute for International Affairs and National Republican Institute for International Affairs. 
  16. ^ a b c "NAMFREL". www.namfrel.com.ph. Retrieved 2016-11-19. 
  17. ^ (PDF) http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNABK494.pdf.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  18. ^ Soho, Jessica. "Walkout on 9 February 1986". via YouTube. Retrieved 28 October 2013. 
  19. ^ http://www.cbcponline.net/documents/1980s/1986-post_election.html

External links[edit]

Radio commercials[edit]