Arsenio Lacson, president of the Philippines?

[Vinization]

So I found out about this guy after a cursory look at Wikipedia and the Filipino politics thread in Chat, and he's definitely a character who deserves more attention in this site.

Arsenio Lacson was mayor of Manila from 1952 until his death, and during this time he cultivated the image of a tough reformer/anti-corruption campaigner who wasn't afraid to go against his party to do what had to be done. For example, although he belonged to the Nationalist party, he supported Liberal candidate Diosdado Macapagal against incumbent president (and fellow Nationalist) Carlos P. Garcia in the 1961 election. Lacson and Macapagal broke relations not long after the latter's inauguration, and Lacson was seen as a strong candidate for the Nationalists in the next presidential election, which would be held in 1965.

Unfortunately, Lacson suffered a stroke and died in 1962, the Nationalists eventually chose Ferdinand Marcos as their presidential candidate, and the rest is history.

So, what could've happened had Lacson avoided his early death? His close relations with José Diokno, who discovered a major corruption scheme involving an American businessman and several Filipino politicians (the Stonehill scandal), seem to indicate, to me at least, that a hypothetical Lacson administration would've made a major effort in curbing corruption, or at least attempt to do so. How would the economy and foreign policy be handled? Would the NPA still launch its rebellion, and if so, how could a Philippine government not led by Marcos (who took advantage of the unrest to declare martial law) deal with it?

 

[Vinization]

@Namayan

 

[ramones1986]

I thought the strong forte of a hypothetical Lacson administration was reforming the national economy in order to remain competitive (PS: You can see some of the suggestions on another Philippine-related thread, that of a surviving Magsaysay) as the Asian Tigers were emerging, and perhaps administrative reforms as well.

 

[Namayan]

So I found out about this guy after a cursory look at Wikipedia and the Filipino politics thread in Chat, and he's definitely a character who deserves more attention in this site.

Arsenio Lacson was mayor of Manila from 1952 until his death, and during this time he cultivated the image of a tough reformer/anti-corruption campaigner who wasn't afraid to go against his party to do what had to be done. For example, although he belonged to the Nationalist party, he supported Liberal candidate Diosdado Macapagal against incumbent president (and fellow Nationalist) Carlos P. Garcia in the 1961 election. Lacson and Macapagal broke relations not long after the latter's inauguration, and Lacson was seen as a strong candidate for the Nationalists in the next presidential election, which would be held in 1965.

Unfortunately, Lacson suffered a stroke and died in 1962, the Nationalists eventually chose Ferdinand Marcos as their presidential candidate, and the rest is history.

So, what could've happened had Lacson avoided his early death? His close relations with José Diokno, who discovered a major corruption scheme involving an American businessman and several Filipino politicians (the Stonehill scandal), seem to indicate, to me at least, that a hypothetical Lacson administration would've made a major effort in curbing corruption, or at least attempt to do so. How would the economy and foreign policy be handled? Would the NPA still launch its rebellion, and if so, how could a Philippine government not led by Marcos (who took advantage of the unrest to declare martial law) deal with it?

Lacson was a populist. He also had regular radio shows which could easily expose any politician. He is not a statesman though. He is definitely brave. It is like having Dirty Harry as your mayor. Or if old enough New Yorkers in this site still know Fiorello La Guardia probably similar to him.

Corruption would revert back to minimal levels assuming he wins. In Manila as Mayor, he did exactly that. He is also excellent in fiscal spending. I would put his administration similar to Magsaysay at least in the financial management.

Unlike Marcos, Lacson does not need to hire former Huks and arm them. I suppose Lacson alive will also expose Marcos lies of his medals when Marcos announced he had like 33 of them in 1963. So that will put a cork on Marcos bottle. He was also one of Marcos' former lawyers when Marcos was accused of murder of Nalundasan. Lacson could easily expose whatever Marcos hiding. Although he can beat down Marcos and irritate in debates, he was recorded to be easily irritated equally by Macapagal according to their Congressional debates to the point that Lacson asked for a fist fight.

In terms of foreign policy, he would probably not put boots in Vietnam judging by his Congress speeches(when he was Congressman) during the Korean war.

Lacson's policies were more urban centric. So the NPA may or may not be there. However, the Huks that was armed by Marcos in 1965 will not happen to win Central Luzon from Macapagal. Lacson has his own medium, which is the media.

Assuming 1965 Macapagal was still president from 1961 to 1965, The policy would revert most likely back to rails as Lacson promised several times to expand rail networks in Ilocos before his death. Not much will change since by this time, the tax and tariffs done by Garcia and Macapagal are already online. Peso was already devalued. Iligan Steel Mill was already sold to Jacintos. In Manila since 1950s, he had plans to build Monorails similar to Germany and housing similar to Mexico in the 1940s-50s according to Amador Brosio. So once he fixes the financial situation, he probably do that on a national scale to the major cities.

What will change is the financial and bureaucratic culture. Less spending on unnecessary things, more financial accountability, better customs, better revenue collection. He would have a hard time getting loans from US nor would he support US foreign policy anywhere like Magsaysay. So there is a chance he will not win a second term especially if the US spent a lot for him not to get elected not unless he too declares Martial Law and extends his term. But I suspect he will dominate 1965 and struggle to win 1969 reelection similar to his run in Manila as mayor. Doing good can create lots of enemies like people who benefitted from Graft and Corruption.

With regards to unrest, Lacson will not have that problem at the same level that it will lead to first quarter storm. Marcos slowly reacted to situation and was a contributor to the existence of the NPA(since the root cause is neglect of people and letting them arm) and the problems existed from 1969 to 1973 like economic problems and peace and order problems. Better government service leads to less agitation, arrests immediately with proof. Worse case scenario, the NPA can easily nipped in the bud before they become NPA when they are still Huk gangsters.