KAS 1 THX3 Q4

1. Explain the context of the document.

The National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) released a research document last July 12,
2016. It presents information as to why President Rodrigo Duterte needs to reconsider his decision to allow the
burial of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos in the Libingan ng mga Bayan (LNMB) "…because he was a
Filipino soldier, period.” His claim, in accordance with guidelines that were set by the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, was said to make Marcos “eligible” for committal there. The document is an appeal based on
historical grounds and not on a narrow and thoughtless reading of the law. The purpose of the Commission in
undertaking the study is to disseminate historical research and resolve conflicts historical in context with
finality. Its study shows inconsistencies with Marcos’ claimed military records. It exposes such as fraudulent
and therefore disproven meaning that there are no more legitimate grounds to bury Marcos at the Libingan ng
mga Bayani.

2. Methodology: What were the primary sources used? Explain its contents. What is the significance
of the documents?
According to the article, most of the important primary sources came from declassified documents in the
Philippine Archives Collection of the U.S. National Archives/National Archives and Records Administration.
In particular, two sets of archival documents have been deemed integral in building the pieces of evidence
and arguments for the inquiry. First of the two is the Ang Mga Maharlica Grla Unit (Independent), File No. 60.
This primary source is a collection of correspondences, memoranda, reports, and accounts about the attempts
sought by Maj. Marcos in order for the U.S. Government to duly recognize a guerrilla unit (which he had failed
to achieve so) he claims to have founded and led during the war. The second one, the Allas Intelligence Unit,
File No. 140, contain accounts from an organization led by Cipriano Allas which claims to be the intelligence
unit of the Ang Mga Maharlika. The documents concern the unit’s request to revise their date of recognition by
the U.S. Government primarily in an effort to obtain larger back pay and benefits.
These documents were used by the NHCP to rebut the claims made by Pres. Marcos regarding his
achievements during the World War. Consequently, it aimed to justify why the late dictator shouldn’t be buried
in the LNMB. Like any other primary sources, these documents are important because they provide raw,
legitimate and unbiased pieces of evidence as a means to analyze events of the past and prevent historical
revisionism. Despite the efforts poured in attempt to alter history, the similarity and consistency in the primary
sources to which these interpretations have been derived from will only provide the populace of the brute facts
which can never be changed. In the end, the truth will always come out and will prevail from such debaucheries.

3. On methodology: What were the secondary sources used? How did they portray Marcos?
Some of the secondary sources used were online articles of U.S. government agencies and official documents
that contain excerpts of primary sources. Aside from it, several officially sanctioned biographies of Mr. Marcos
which presented his claims about his exploits during the war were also considered. Among these biographies include
the following: For Every Tear a Victory (Spence, 1964), Rendezvous with Destiny (Gray, 1968) and Marcos of the
Philippines (Spence, 1969). Secondary sources from online articles on U.S. government agencies and several official
documents that contain excerpts of primary sources clearly deny the claims made by Pres. Marcos. Nevertheless,
mentioned authorized biographies and memoirs portrayed the late dictator as a brave soldier, and according to one,
'the most-decorated and valor-cited warrior in his nation's history.’ Clearly, it only shows the late dictator’s
earnestness to be projected highly at the present and even in the future. Nonetheless, these accounts contain less
proven facts and were found to be subjects to bias and manipulation.

4. What is the muddiest point?

Overall, the document was well written and was able to support its position on its claims. In order to show
evidence of the fraudulent acts of the late Marcos, the NHCP highlighted the inconsistencies found on their
acquired primary sources. However, highlighting these errors are relatively not enough, for us they should have
presented these errors with a separate thorough explanation as accompaniment instead of just direct quoting
some parts. Nonetheless, we had not seen any significant problem in the structure and content of the document.