Biyernes, Oktubre 14, 2016

Lessons from martial law

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 02:10 AM September 20, 2012

(Editor’s note: The author, formerly an editor of the Philippine News Service and contributing editor of Weekly Graphic Magazine, was one of the journalists arrested and detained immediately after the proclamation of martial law. The PNS was sequestered by the government, and the Graphic closed down. The author is also spokesperson of the Movement for Truth in History.)
We mark the 40th anniversary of the proclamation of martial law by President Ferdinand Marcos on Sept. 21, 1972. It is essential to remind present and future generations about its baneful consequences to avoid falling into the same trap again. The following are worth remembering:
Martial law did not give a better life to our people. According to H. W. Brands, professor of history at Texas A. & M. University, in his book, “Bound to Empire,” the dictatorship made Filipinos poorer, with 60 percent of the population in 1986 living in “absolute poverty.”

In 1972, rated poverty in the Philippines was just 24 percent, according to a World Bank study.
‘New Society’ dictatorship
The Philippines fell from No. 2, next to Japan, in economic development in Asia in the 1950s to near bottom after 14 years of despotism, having been left behind by the newly industrialized countries of China, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Taiwan and South Korea. We became the perennial “sick man” of Asia.
The “New Society” dictatorship did not reform society, as Marcos promised, but worsened its ugliest features. The dictatorship strengthened the economic and social oligarchy, widened the gap between rich and poor, and deepened corruption, cronyism and foreign dependency.
In his book, “In Our Image: America’s Empire in the Philippines,” American journalist/historian Stanley Karnow observed that after Marcos fled, the Philippines “was still a feudal society dominated by an oligarchy of rich dynasties, which had evolved from one of the world’s longest continuous spans of Western imperial rule.”
Marcos and his cronies stole billions of pesos from the treasury, foreign aid and foreign borrowings, Karnow wrote.
Marcos and Imelda, he said, had stashed $640 million in a Swiss bank, enough money that could have paid for the fraud-ridden Bataan nuclear power plant, which never took off and which it took years for the Philippines to repay.
The government is still trying to recover much of the stolen wealth.
Civil and political rights were abolished, Congress was dissolved, one-man rule was imposed and human rights were violated with impunity.
Thousands of Filipinos, idealistic youths, workers and peasants, men and women, professionals and students, suffered unjust imprisonment, torture, loss of jobs and unrecoverable opportunities for a better life, not to mention the sacrifice of their very lives, in the struggle against political oppression and for the restoration of civil liberty.
The continued violations of human rights and the impunity of authority, legal or illegal, is an enduring legacy until today.

Public debt
The power of Marcos to issue decrees with the force of law did not make our laws wiser.
Among the thousands of Marcos decrees that continue to be enforced is Presidential Decree No. 1177, which mandates the automatic appropriation for the repayment of foreign debt, which has ballooned to $60 billion as of 2010 (Wikipedia), comprising 31 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).
Marcos’ contribution to that debt, which continues to be paid by succeeding generations, is $30 billion, according to Brands. Total public debt, including domestic, is now P5.6 trillion, 40 percent of which is in foreign currency.
Servicing of the public debt eats up to more than half of our P2 trillion budget, cutting down by half expenditures for food production, schools, health services, infrastructure, economic development and employment generation.
Marcos abolished the two-party political system that had given our country political stability since the first Philippine election in 1907. He introduced a multiparty political system that was a crossbreed between the parliamentary and the presidential systems.
Amazingly, succeeding administrations had perpetuated this crossbreed, breaking the tradition of party responsibility and continuity, and installing in its place political dynasties, multifarious political parties and celebrity politics.
Nation of migrants
Our political system has been dysfunctional since 1972, as the political system remains volatile, unable to recover its moorings. This is shown by unremitting attempts to amend the Constitution.
An estimated 10-million Filipinos have fled abroad to seek a better life and support their families. Millions more are waiting at the gates of foreign embassies for their chance to escape.
Labor exportation was initiated by the Marcos autocracy to stem domestic protest and earn additional foreign exchange to support the corrupt and luxurious lifestyle of the first family and its cronies.
At home, the slums are expanding, hunger is growing and hopelessness is written in the emaciated faces of our men, women and children.
A study shows we are becoming a nation of pygmies, as the emerging generations are smaller and shorter because of undernourishment.

Two insurgencies
The dictatorship failed to eliminate the leftist insurgency led by the Communist Party of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front. The movement continues to wage a nationwide armed struggle through the New People’s Army.
The Marcos regime also failed to stop the Moro insurgency, which started as a secessionist movement and exploded into an armed revolt after martial law was declared.
Both insurgencies were the principal causes cited for the imposition of martial law by Marcos’s Proclamation No. 1081. Fear of their eventual victory, especially that of the Communists, eventually prompted the Reagan administration to withdraw support from Marcos.
The Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) forced Marcos to sign the Tripoli Agreement brokered by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. In the treaty, the Marcos dictatorship succumbed to the MNLF demand for Moro autonomy over large swaths of Mindanao.
US support
For 14 years, the US government supported martial law in the Philippines until the eruption of the spontaneous 1896 People Power Revolution. The first nongovernmental organization to formally pass a resolution lauding martial law was the American Chamber of Commerce.
From 1972 until 1983, the US government provided $2.5 billion in bilateral military and economic aid to the Marcos regime, and about $5.5 billion through multilateral institutions, such as the World Bank (Wikipedia). It maintained the aid to ensure the stay of the US military bases in the Philippines and the total obeisance by the Marcos government to US foreign policies.
That experience should instruct Filipinos that they should strengthen their country economically, socially and politically so they will not have to depend on foreign countries, and they will be able to pursue their national interests independently and vigorously.
Not way to prosperity
In brief, the bitter experience demonstrates that authoritarianism is not the way to national prosperity.
In the heyday of martial law, its adherents, beneficiaries and courtiers, including avowed technocrats, boasted that authoritarianism was the best political system because it allowed the government to move faster, more efficiently and more honestly.
Like a train out of control, the government did move faster but, blinded by the corruption and greed of the engineer at the controls, it ended in a tragic crash, killing tens of thousands and injuring millions of innocent passengers, the Filipinos.
Never again.

TAGS: Ferdinand Marcos, History, martial law

The Positive Effects of the Marcos Regime in the Philippines

Oct 4th, 2013

In the Philippines, the Marcos regime is considered as one of the darkest period of its history. This article will tackle the "goodness" brought about by the regime.

Ask an old Filipino citizen about Marcos regime and he may just start to talk about the negative effects of the regime and the horror of the memory it brought on the country. Filipinos consider his regime as a dark period in the Philippine History. Not only were thousands of people killed in the long protest, the Filipinos were also robbed of the freedom and will they deserved. However, despite the awful memory of the crooked administration of Marcos, Filipinos should still regard the positive effects of this period. The Marcos regime has made Philippines a disciplined country and has even placed the nation on the map. Aside from that, because of what the Filipinos experienced during that time, they actually learned how to fight and be zealous for freedom.
When the Martial Law was implemented, the whole country became extremely disciplined. One notable change that the Filipinos would never forget was the strict observation of curfew. Just walk along the sidewalk past the curfew time and the police would make some disciplinary actions. That is why once the curfew time starts, the streets are as quite as a mouse and everybody is stuck in their respective homes, safe and sound. With this strict policy, crime rates totally went down the brink. In fact, during the time of Marcos, cases of murders, theft and other similar offenses became so rare since the military was visibly present and on guard all the time. This kind of discipline, although bad in its nature, has given Filipinos the opportunity to compare what it was before and what it is now. If people compare the kind of discipline the Filipinos experienced during the Marcos regime to the present, the big difference might just make one think again. Truth be told: Filipinos of today have become extremely undisciplined.
During the Marcos regime, not only discipline was deeply propagated. The Philippines was also actually placed in the map of the world. During the first terms of Marcos, the economy was at its finest and Filipinos were living a so-called contented life. Prior to the change in the way of administration, our country was one of the most envied nations in Asia. Many companies invested in the country’s business sector and the country was considered an ideal one. Unemployment was substantially low and the peso-dollar rates were closely tied to each other. The country before wasn’t as poor as it is compared now and truth be told again: the Philippines has now been sidelined and overshadowed by other mightier countries.
However, it is still important to note that during this period, the Filipinos, once again—and this time, more bravely—wanted freedom. When the abuse of the military and the immoral handling of Marcos took its toll upon the people, the Filipinos knew what they wanted and needed: that sweet scent of democracy. Amidst the terror that the Marcos regime has implanted on the mind of each Filipino, the people learned how to be zealous for freedom. It made them realize how much they needed democracy. With no other people to depend on, they gripped onto one another and treaded their way towards EDSA. During that one historic day, the new generation of Rizals and Bonifacios went as one nation in ousting the famous dictator. Had that precious freedom not been taken away from the Filipinos, they would have never fought hard to get it back.
The Marcos has inflicted a lot of pain and trauma in the minds and hearts of Filipinos who experienced the regime first-hand. It is irrefutable that Marcos has brought great damage in the Philippines which the newer generations have continued to suffer from. However, Filipinos could not deny the fact that his administration was one of the most notable and distinguished regime among all. While it is common for people to say that his time was the worst, it is still truthful to say that his was the best. Filipinos now know the essence of democracy and what it really means for a country. Most of all, they have now started to become competitive to reestablish the order and prominence we once had before, only in a much civilized and more democratic way.

Martial Law and its Aftermath, (1972-86)

Philippines Table of Contents The Philippines found itself in an economic crisis in early 1970, in large part the consequence of the profligate spending of government funds by President Marcos in his reelection bid. The government, unable to meet payments on its US$2.3 billion international debt, worked out a US$27.5 million standby credit arrangement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that involved renegotiating the country's external debt and devaluing the Philippine currency to P6.40 to the United States dollar. The government, unwilling and unable to take the necessary steps to deal with economic difficulties on its own, submitted to the external dictates of the IMF. It was a pattern that would be repeated with increasing frequency in the next twenty years.
In September 1972, Marcos declared martial law, claiming that the country was faced with revolutions from both the left and the right. He gathered around him a group of businessmen, used presidential decrees and letters of instruction to provide them with monopoly positions within the economy, and began channeling resources to himself and his associates, instituting what came to be called "crony capitalism." By the time Marcos fled the Philippines in February 1986, monopolization and corruption had severely crippled the economy.
In the beginning, this tendency was not so obvious. Marcos's efforts to create a "New Society" were supported widely by the business community, both Filipino and foreign, by Washington, and, de facto, by the multilateral institutions. Foreign investment was encouraged: an export-processing zone was opened; a range of additional investment incentives was created, and the Philippines projected itself onto the world economy as a country of low wages and industrial peace. The inflow of international capital increased dramatically.
A general rise in world raw material prices in the early 1970s helped boost the performance of the economy; real GNP grew at an average of almost 7 percent per year in the five years after the declaration of martial law, as compared with approximately 5 percent annually in the five preceding years. Agriculture performed better that it did in the 1960s. New rice technologies introduced in the late 1960s were widely adopted. Manufacturing was able to maintain the 6 percent growth rate it achieved in the late 1960s, a rate, however, that was below that of the economy as a whole. Manufactured exports, on the other hand, did quite well, growing at a rate twice that of the country's traditional agricultural exports. The public sector played a much larger role in the 1970s, with the extent of government expenditures in GNP rising by 40 percent in the decade after 1972. To finance the boom, the government extensively resorted to international debt, hence the characterization of the economy of the Marcos era as "debt driven."
In the latter half of the 1970s, heavy borrowing from transnational commercial banks, multilateral organizations, and the United States and other countries masked problems that had begun to appear on the economic horizon with the slowdown of the world economy. By 1976 the Philippines was among the top 100 recipients of loans from the World Bank and was considered a "country of concentration." Its balance of payments problem was solved and growth facilitated, at least temporarily, but at the cost of having to service an external debt that rose from US$2.3 billion in 1970 to more than US$17.2 billion in 1980.
There were internal problems as well, particularly in respect of the increasingly visible mismanagement of crony enterprises. A financial scandal in January 1981 in which a businessman fled the country with debts of an estimated P700 million required massive amounts of emergency loans from the Central Bank of the Philippines and other government-owned financial institutions to some eighty firms. The growth rate of GNP fell dramatically, and from then the economic ills of the Philippines proliferated. In 1980 there was an abrupt change in economic policy, related to the changing world economy and deteriorating internal conditions, with the Philippine government agreeing to reduce the average level and dispersion of tariff rates and to eliminate most quantitative restrictions on trade, in exchange for a US$200 million structural adjustment loan from the World Bank. Whatever the merits of the policy shift, the timing was miserable. Exports did not increase substantially, while imports increased dramatically. The result was growing debt-service payments; emergency loans were forthcoming, but the hemorrhaging did not cease.
It was in this environment in August 1983 that President Marcos's foremost critic, former Senator Benigno Aquino, returned from exile and was assassinated. The country was thrown into an economic and political crisis that resulted eventually, in February 1986, in the ending of Marcos's twenty-one-year rule and his flight from the Philippines. In the meantime, debt repayment had ceased. Real GNP fell more than 11 percent before turning back up in 1986, and real GNP per capita fell 17 percent from its high point in 1981. In 1990 per capita real GNP was still 7 percent below the 1981 level.

The truths about Marcos martial law

BREAKTHROUGH By Elfren S. Cruz (The Philippine Star) | Updated February 28, 2016 - 12:00am

“How shall freedom be defended? By arms when it is attacked by arms, by truth when it is attacked by lies, by democratic faith when it is attacked by authoritarian dogma. Always, and in the final act, by determination and faith.”
When Bongbong Marcos said: “ I am ready to say sorry if I knew what I have to be sorry for,” he is telling us that he believes that his father – Ferdinand Marcos – was right when he declared martial law. He is telling us that there is no need to apologize for the 14 years of suppression of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. He is telling us that there is no need to apologize for the 14 years when persons were imprisoned without any chance to defend themselves and many others who simply disappeared. He is telling us there is no need to apologize for the rampant corruption and crony capitalism that turned the Philippines from the second richest nation in Asia to the acknowledged “sick man of Asia.”
Those who engage in the attempt to revise the truth about those 14 dark years are avoiding the use of terms that describe the Marcos regime – martial law, dictatorship, crony capitalism. Their real purpose is an attempt to revise the truth through clever deception and lies.
Those in media who are trying to convince us that the martial law years did not really happen should remember that prominent members of media were among the first victims of martial law. They were imprisoned simply because they were members of a free press – Chino Roces, Teodoro Locsin, Jose Mari Velez, Max Soliven, Nap Rama, Geny Lopez and many others.
In his EDSA 30 speech, President Aquino quoted a famous line from a movie: “The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist.” This is what the martial law apologists are trying to do to convince us – that martial law did not really happen. This is the same attempt by neo-Nazis who are trying to convince the world that the Holocaust – the murder of millions of Jews by the Nazis – did not really happen.
When the Marcos apologists tell us that it is “time to move on” and that remembering the Marcos martial law years is “politics of division,” their underlying theme is that they want the Filipino people to forget about those brutal years. But it is true that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Opinion ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

This is the reason that in Germany there are museums to remind the German people about the brutalities of their past history under Hitler and Nazi Germany. The leaders of modern Germany believe that it is important to keep reminding their people about the dark days of Nazism in order to ensure that it never happens again.
The Japanese royal family and its leaders have had the courage to apologize for the abuses committed by the Japanese military regime during the Second World War. These apologies are acts of courage which the perpetrators of the Marcos martial law years seem unable to emulate.
In the ongoing battle between the truths of the martial law regime and the attempts to revise history, the People Power Experiential Museum is a brilliant and emotion filled journey back to the martial law years.
It is like no other museum I have ever seen. It combines theater (with real live actors), cinema, photography and other forms of performing arts. It recreates stories of martial law and the bloodless revolution that finally restored democracy.
It reinforces the story that the four days at EDSA in February 1986 was just the culmination of a long journey that begun on the first day of martial law – Sept. 21, 1972. There are Nine Halls, each one representing a period of the Marcos dictatorship years and a specific theme
The Hall of the Restless Sleep features bound people with videos of Marcos declaring martial law. It represents a nation lulled to sleep and the suppression of all freedoms. The Hall of Hidden Truths is filled with photos of slums and beggars and peepholes showing a masquerade ball with Marcos cronies partying. The background music is Imelda’s favorite song “Dahil Sa ’yo.” The Hall of Orphans features child actors portraying children looking for parents abducted, tortured and disappeared during martial law. The Hall of the Lost shows photos of missing activists and sculptures of their families. The Hall of Maze shows videos about people who were abducted during the Marcos years.
The Hall of Pain shows various torture methods with actors pretending it is a carnival show. The hall of Forgotten Martyrs depicts the lives of four persons – Jopson, Macli-ing, Barros and Evelio Javier – and how they were assassinated by government forces. The Hall of Awakening shows the video featuring the arrival, arrest and assassination of Ninoy Aquino. Then it shows a Marine armored personnel carrier depicting the role of the military in the EDSA revolt. The Hall of Action displays memorabilia and scenes from the EDSA People Power revolt including the nuns standing firmly in front of the tanks.
P-Noy ended his EDSA 30 message to the millennial generation: “You will benefit the most if we are able to protect our freedom, and God willing, you understand the responsibility you bear. God willing, we will all do our part so that darkness will never consume the Philippines once more...the freedom we so long dreamed of will never ever be taken away from us once more.”

'Ambush staged' version later denied

But it was also Enrile who would later claim that his ambush, which triggered the imposition of martial law, was a staged one. He made the confession to the nation when he defected along with Ramos on the night of Feb. 22, 1986, four days before the Marcoses fled the country and Corazon Aquino was swept to power.
However, Enrile, in his recent memoir, retracted this, saying this was the “ridiculous and preposterous” handiwork of his political enemies. “What would I have faked my ambush for? When it happened, the military operation to impose martial law was already going on,” he wrote.
According to Enrile, Mr. Marcos waited for Congress to adjourn sine die on Friday, September 22 before he actually acted on his proclamation. He wanted to avoid any resistance from lawmakers.
On that day, Enrile had already delivered Proclamation 1081 and all the General Orders and Letters of Instructions to military leaders when, he claimed, unidentified gunmen fired at his convoy while driving through the posh Wack-Wack subdivision.
He also pointed out, "I honestly did not know why Marcos suddenly decided to cite my ambush in justifying the declaration of martial law when he made his public statement on September 23. There was absolutely no need for it.”

The ‘New Society’

While Enrile painted a rosy picture of the “New Society” in his memoir, retired Navy Captain Dan Vizmanos wrote in his “Martial Law Diary" that when he heard that the defense chief was ambushed, “it was already ominous and made me feel uneasy.”
Before this incident, he said he had "already arrived at the conclusion that the rash of bombings and ‘discovered bombs and explosives’ in Greater Manila Area were all stage-managed by the Marcos regime as a prelude to martial law.”
Vizmanos, one of the few military officers who later figured in mass anti-dictatorship rallies, noted how the police and military troops rounded up thousands of people -- lawmakers, student activists, journalists and church personalities -- “and just about anybody who had a mind of his own whose face was not particularly attractive to the martial law authorities.”
By January of 1973, he said that the New Year had already brought about a new way of life for the people and Mr. Marcos’ “New Society.”
Never in the country’s history, he recalled, "have there been so many decent Filipinos in confinement and behind bars." Likewise, "never in our history" have fugitives been hunted by the PC and AFP intelligence and special units all over the country. "They have become fugitives because they dared express their conviction (a crime under the New Society!) at the risk of their lives.”
Vizmanos said he decided to publish his diary because today’s generation hardly knows anything about the Marcos dictatorship and what really happened during the martial law years.
“While many of them are now active in people’s organizations, the majority remains apolitical and concerned with an alarming revival of excesses and abuses of the ‘New Society’ that was supposed to have disappeared with the downfall of the ‘conjugal dictatorship’,” he said.
He also lamented how “acute amnesia” applied to former activists who had become active collaborators of a “decadent” system and establishment they struggled against once upon a time.
What communist threat?
Now looking back, veteran political activist Linggoy Alcuaz says he had doubted from the start that the communist threat was the reason behind Mr. Marcos’ move.
True, in 1968 Jose Maria Sison, the founding chairman of the Kabataang Makabayan, a militant student group, organized the Communist Party of the Philippines or CPP, as a breakaway group from the old Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP), whose leaders were already mostly in prison.
A year later, the CPP forged an alliance with remnants of the old Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (HMB), the military arm of the PKP and renamed it the New People’s Army (NPA).
Mr. Marcos' 1969 victory was by then also already tainted with alleged fraud, and his administration was being branded as corrupt.
By January 1970, radical and moderate student groups began a series of mass actions protesting the inclusion of politicians in the forthcoming Constitutional Convention; and more telling, a constitutional provision that was then being considered that would allow the incumbent President to run a third term. The so-called “Battle of Mendiola” was fought when students overran a military blockade and rammed a commandeered fire truck against the gates of the Malacanang Palace. The bloody episode triggered a wave of student protests known as the “first Quarter Storm.”
Alcuaz, who then belonged to the so-called “moderates,” says the communist rebels were small in number then, and putting order in the country wasn’t really the agenda of a President who was becoming unpopular to his people. Even if the Charter were amended to allow Mr. Marcos to seek another term, there was a strong possibility that he would lose.
In January 1972, Constitutional Convention delegate Eduardo Quintero exposed Mr. Marcos’ alleged bribery attempt of delegates. He alleged that the President had been giving other “Con-con” delegates money to vote against a resolution which would bar him from running for a third term and his relatives from seeking the presidency.
In fact, Alcuaz recalls that shortly before martial law was declared, he resigned as chair of the Kapisanan ng mga Sandigan ng Pilipinas (Kasapi) to focus on his work with the Kapisanan ng mga Anakpawis ng Pilipinas, which was actually a political party and a possible “third force” that would field -- or support -- a presidential candidate.
According to Alcuaz, they believed then that even Mr. Marcos was convinced that it would be difficult to field his wife Imelda Marcos as his possible successor if elections were held in 1973. Mr. Marcos’ arch nemesis then was the popular, but outspoken opposition Sen. Benigno Aquino, the one man who would remain a thorn in his side for years, even hounding him out of power three years after his assassination would unleash nonstop protests.
But while Mr. Marcos’ martial law plot was already topping the headlines, Alcuaz says he was one of those activists who never really took it seriously. The President used the communist bogey for his political offensive and no one was persuaded by this argument.
Weeks before imposing martial law, Mr. Marcos had begun chiding Aquino for his alleged unholy alliance with communist leaders and he used this to justify the opposition leader’s arrest during a crackdown on political dissenters.

'Marcos had lied from the start'

For veteran journalist-lawyer Manuel F. Almario, Marcos had lied to the people since the day he became president. As he puts it, “He was very ambitious, wanting to be president forever. That’s how he went wrong. He had no idea on how to run this country and where he was going.”
When Marcos defeated then President Diosdado Macapagal in the 1965 election, the country’s foreign debt was merely US7 billion. But when he fled the country after 21 years in power, including 14 year of strongman rule, on widespread allegations of plundering the national coffers, the country’s foreign debt had ballooned to US$25 billion.
“The economy appeared to have improved because he was borrowing from the World Bank so he had money to show, “says Almario, editor of the independent Philippine News Service when the strongman clamped down on all media networks in 1972. He was arrested after military authorities sequestered the PNS, which was later renamed Philippine News Agency to become part of the government information network.
In 1969, Mr. Marcos was the first Philippine president to win with a great majority of votes for a second term, but amid charges by the opposition that he was reelected because he spent government money for his campaign.
His inauguration in January the next year was marred by the first massive student demonstration in front of the old Congress building. As an emerging fiscal crisis cast a shadow on the country, Mr. Marcos was accused of having bankrupted the government. Prices were soaring and there was trouble in the streets.
Two months before the declaration of martial law in 1972, Almario wrote the cover story for the special edition of Weekly Graphic, a hard-hitting magazine, warning that if Marcos declared martial law he would be going against the Constitution.
The 1935 Constitution states that the President can declare martial law only in cases of rebellion, insurrection or invasion or imminent danger thereof.
But as early as February 1972, Manila Chronicle editor Amante Paredes had already come out with a front-page story quoting high-level sources on Marcos’ plan to impose martial rule to perpetuate himself in power.
That was also the time when Marcos heightened his anti-communist propaganda, accusing his opponents of conniving with the underground rebels to oust his government.
“But he (Mr. Marcos) was a smart lawyer and he said the country is facing a communist rebellion and a Muslim armed secession in the south,” says Almario. “When you want to impose dictatorship, you’re going to lie to the people and tell them that they are going to get peace and order, justice, economic progress.”
Marcos arrested alleged warlords, and Almario recalled having joined in his cell at Camp Crame, the strongman’s influential provincemate Roque Ablan and Moises Espinosa of Masbate.
“But that’s [arrest of warlords and strong local leaders] only for show, and he freed them afterwards when people believed that he was sincere,” he says. The two men, Roque and Espinosa, became his trusted political allies in the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan, the monolithic party that he organized after the Charter was amended, allowing him to run in a new parliamentary system of government.
Martial law is gone, long live its legacy
What puzzles -- and bothers -- Almario is the way his successors continued to enforce Mr. Marcos’ repressive decrees and order despite his “totally destructive” legacy to the country, and all the while denouncing martial law with vows of "Never again." How, indeed, can a proclamation be disowned yet its legacy and trappings embraced?
For instance, Almario notes that it was Mr. Marcos who organized the barangays so that he could launch a fake plebiscite to approve the new Constitution. “There was no more freedom at the [constitutional] convention to do what they wanted because Marcos had already declared martial law,” says Almario.
Ironically, the convention was headed by Macapagal, the former president he defeated. Macapagal would later submit the newly approved charter to Mr. Marcos, who then called for the mandated plebiscite for its ratification in January 1973.
There was no secret balloting held. Instead Mr. Marcos organized assemblies that he called “barangays” to ratify the new charter.
Only 3 percent of the barangays reportedly opposed the new charter, which also contained a provision allowing Mr. Marcos to rule by decrees. It was a transitory provision Mr. Marcos enforced until 1981, the year he supposedly lifted martial law.
Apart from The barangay system, Almario notes how Mr. Marcos’ Presidential Decree 1877 -- or the Budget Reform Act of 1977, continues to hound the bureaucratic system.
From being mere line item budgeting under the old Commonwealth Act, PD 1877 included “lump sum allocation in the budget for the different branches of government. His successors maintained such system, which now justified the controversial practice of the “pork barrel” scheme in the national budget.
“It is already included there what would be given lump sum to each lawmaker. But if you are not doing what he wants you to do, he will withhold the lump sum,” says Almario. In that way, the President held control over the country’s lawmakers. It's a legacy continued, and refined by predecessors up until the present.
Besides controlling Congress by impounding budgets, Mr. Marcos could arrest anybody without any warrant.

‘Oplan Sagittarius’

Ninoy Aquino exposed Oplan Sagittarius, the alleged master plan of a “multi-faceted” operation for the declaration of martial law. It allegedly provided the legal basis for Proclamation 1081 by enumerating the conditions and situations that made martial law necessary. That expose, which made the cover story of the Philippines Free Press, put Ninoy even more surely in the crosshairs of the dictator's minions.
Using the information leaked to him by friends in the senate, Aquino disclosed in a privilege speech on September 13, 1972 that he received a top-secret military plan given by Mr. Marcos himself to place Metro Manila and outlying areas under control of the Philippine Constabulary as a prelude to martial law.
Mr. Marcos was going to use the bombings, including the Plaza Miranda incident, as a justification for this takeover and eventual authoritarian rule.
Primitivo Mijares, a journalist and one-time trusted Marcos aide, later wrote in his book “The Conjugal Dictatorship” that when the plan to impose martial law was finalized he distributed copies to high ranking military officials and heads of the intelligence community in sealed envelopes. As a security precaution, he assigned different zodiac code-names to the copies he handed to each of the would-be martial law enforcers.
The copy code-named “Sagittarius” reportedly went to Gen. Marcos Soliman, the chief of the National Intelligence Agency. It turned out that the military officers were not aware of the zodiac codes so it was “easy and convenient” then to pinpoint Soliman as Aquino’s source, he said.
Mijares also cited a tragic postscript to the leakage of Soliman’s copy to the opposition senator. A few days after the declaration of martial law, Soliman was reported to the media as having died of a heart attack. But according to Mijares, “the truth is that he was shot dead by Metrocom troopers personally dispatched by President Marcos to arrest and detain him at Camp Crame for ‘tactical interrogation’ for the leakage of ‘Oplan Sagittarius.’”
He said that Mr. Marcos never issued a message of condolence to the family of General Soliman, who was denied military honors.
Mijares himself later fled the country and sought political asylum in the United States after a falling out with the strongman. After writing his book, he disappeared and was believed killed by military agents, with one version saying he was thrown out from an airplane.

A logical conclusion

Today, it is not surprising that many political leaders continue to capitalize on or hype the political stigma of Mr. Marcos, even if they were never involved in the political struggle during the martial law years.
For instance, Senate President Franklin Drilon says that after he passed the Bar in 1970, he concentrated on his law practice all through the years the country was under martial law. He also never thought of entering politics under an authoritarian regime.
But after seeing the ills of martial law, he agrees that “never again” should political leaders impose it.
Tatad, on the other hand, doubts if martial law can still be imposed by a president, given that the 1987 Constitution, with its strong Bill of Rights, allows Congress to stop any authoritarian attempt at government by declaring martial law.
Satur Ocampo, a business journalist who went underground during martial law, was arrested and tortured, then became lawmaker post-EDSA, stresses that with its repressive character, martial law cannot be used as excuse for political changes.
He decries Marcos's failure to carry out long-term reforms, whether in economic policies or governance, as he had promised in his “New Society.”
“[The] net effect [of this is that he gave] authority over life and death [to the] military and the police. They could pick up people, detain them, torture them and nobody was made to account for it,” he says. Ocampo laments that military and police impunity exists until now that the government has restored our basic rights.
Like Alcuaz and Almario, Ocampo is certain the communist threat could not have been an excuse for declaring martial law, since the communist movement was still in the organizing stages in some areas in the country when martial law was declared.
Ocampo admits that he was already “semi-underground” after he quit his job as business editor of the Manila Bulletin and joined the underground movement with his wife, journalist Carolina Malay, right after Marcos suspended the Writ.
He says like most militant activists, they feared that Marcos would use the suspension of the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus to start cracking down on political dissenters. They were not mistaken.
He says that while there was a seeming political lull during the martial law years, it was the underground movement’s network and the countryside resistance that sustained the anti-dictatorship struggle.
Ocampo asserts that it was the political Left that played a key role in the political resistance against Marcos’s strongman rule even before the 1983 Benigno Aquino assassination which triggered public outrage that led to the strongman’s downfall three years later.
Nevertheless, Ocampo says it remains on record that over 70,000 people experienced being arrested and the strongman regime was marked by unabated human rights abuses during the dark days of martial law. “So for those who have experienced martial law, I don’t think they can forget what had happened,” he says.
The brutal heel and the iron fist of martial law may indeed never be forgotten, but its other legacies, and its crucial lessons of governance are obviously very much around, seamlessly woven into the national fabric like some plague. One only has to recall how every branch of government can be easily corrupted, as seen in the pork barrel imbroglio, to know this to be true. Martial law as a proclamation is dead, but after 41 years, its legacy lives.

The online news portal of TV5

MANILA, Philippines -- Former Sen. Francisco “Kit” Tatad still insists that President Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law on September 21, 1972 because of the alarming “communist threat” in the country.
As he puts it, the communists, through armed struggle, were out to displace the democratic government. We were also in the midst of a “Cold War” and if we were to believe the “domino theory,” communists were out to take over Southeast Asia.
Kit, as he was popularly known even then, was also Mr. Marcos’ information minister during the martial law years. He says he learned that the President was serious in imposing martial law only a few days before Mr. Marcos indeed signed Proclamation 1081. The decision to proclaim martial law was then the sole authority of the commander-in-chief.
“It’s not that Marcos was planning (martial law). It’s the fact that the objective situation would require a solution and what was the solution available if you were studying the Constitution,” he says.
For one, Mr. Marcos had already suspended the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus after the August 1971 Plaza Miranda bombing, which the regime blamed on the communists, although the grenade blasts targeted the opposition Liberal Party’s political rally. Three months later, the opposition won a majority of the Senate seats. Only two Marcos candidates were elected.
In early June 1971, a Constitutional Convention, or “Con-con,” was convened to replace the 1935 charter, which would have barred Mr. Marcos from seeking another four-year term.
Tatad is quite candid in his recollection.
“I was in the Cabinet, and who would oppose martial law -- unless you are on the other side,” says Tatad, a diplomatic reporter for the Manila Bulletin, who at 29, was asked by Mr. Marcos to be his press secretary in 1969, the year he won a second term.
Tatad eventually resigned in 1981, the year Mr. Marcos lifted martial law while retaining its extra-legal and arbitrary powers, including the unwarranted arrests and continued detention of persons suspected of subversion or rebellion.
Tatad confides that it was a decision made by the strongman shortly before the Pope visited the country. By that time, there was already international outrage against Mr. Marcos’ strongman rule.
At first, Tatad maintained that being a journalist by training, he believed then that “we see things coming, so we write. “ And that was his analysis of the situation then.
Yet when prodded on why he eventually resigned, despite being the face that announced the promulgation of martial law, he later conceded that he felt there was, indeed, an abuse of power, not only by Mr. Marcos but more so by his subalterns.
‘Dramatic and sweeping’ changes
If one were to believe Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, then Mr. Marcos’ defense chief, martial law “brought sweeping and dramatic changes.”
As he later wrote in his memoir, "as soon as it became clear to the general public that the country was under martial rule, law and order was restored to a great extent. People became more disciplined, peaceful and orderly. Their neighborhood and streets were safe. The citizenry worked together to clean their communities.”
He added in his book: “Political noises and wrangling were dissipated. Rallies and demonstrations disappeared from the street. Congress was closed. Schools, colleges and universities were also initially closed right after the declaration of martial law but after a month, classes resumed except in a number of colleges and universities. The radio airlines and television broadcasts were cleared of the incendiary and bombastic attacks of commentators. They were silenced.”
Not long after martial law was imposed, Enrile claimed that the economy had stabilized and flourished. The crime rate, he said, was almost zero. He even cited a US report -- which obviously provided Mr. Marcos the much-needed backing from Washington -- as Sen. Mike Mansfield submitted a report to the US Senate that despite media censorship, martial law was maintained “through the tradition of and training in civilian supremacy that the President maintains control over the military.”
Indeed, the defense chief was a civilian and martial law was maintained by the regular armed services standing in reserve. The military was reportedly “directly and heavily engaged only in the southern islands against the Moros. These tribal Moslems provide the principal resistance to the edict calling for a turn-in of weapons.”

Martial Law 101: Things you should know

Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, a declaration of Martial Law can be revoked or extended by Congress and reviewed by the Supreme Court

WHAT THE LAW SAYS. Does the 1987 Philippine Constitution allow martial law? Graphic by Nico Villarete

MANILA, Philippines – Perhaps put off by the letter of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno which he saw as criticism of his war on drugs, President Rodrigo Duterte asked if she would like him to declare martial law.

"If this continues, pigilan mo ako eh 'di sige 'pag nagwala na, or would you rather I declare martial law? Pinapatay ang Pilipino. I grieve for so many women raped, men killed, infants raped tapos ipitin mo ako," Duterte said on Tuesday, August 9.

(If this continues, you try to stop me and all hell breaks loose, would you rather I declare martial law? Filipinos are being killed. I grieve for so many women raped, men killed, infants raped, then you put me in a corner.)

His allies were quick to defend him. For example, Presidential Chief Legal Counsel Salvador Panelo said that the imminent danger brought about by the proliferation of illegal drugs is enough basis for Duterte to place the Philippines under martial law.

Can Duterte really declare martial law in the country which got out of it only 35 years ago? Are there safeguards in the 1987 Constitution against abuse of presidential power through martial law?

Why was the whole Philippines placed under Martial Law in 1972?

Proclamation 1081 which placed the entire Philippines under Martial Law was signed by former president Ferdinand Marcos on September 21, 1972. On September 23, at exactly 7:15 pm, he appeared on television to formally announce it.

Marcos cited the increasing threat of communism to justify the declaration.

Meanwhile, according to Marcos’ diary entry for September 22, 1972, the alleged ambush of then defense secretary Juan Ponce Enrile made the “martial law proclamation a necessity.”

There were reports that the ambush was staged, as claimed by Oscar Lopez and his family who lived near the area where it happened. Enrile, in his 2014 memoir and documentary, insisted that it was all real. Yet the Official Gazette says that in 1986, Enrile himself disclosed that the supposed ambush was staged to justify Martial Law. (READ: Enrile's tale: Hypocrisy and contradictions)

It was the start of almost 10 years of martial rule in the country.

What were Marcos’ general orders under Martial Law?

Aside from Proclamation 1081, Marcos also released general orders (GO) that guided his martial rule. (READ: Marcos’ Martial Law orders)

Included were orders to transfer all powers to the president, authorizing the military to arrest individuals conspiring to take over the government, the enforcement of curfew hours, and the banning of group assemblies.

Letters of instruction were also released in the following days, ordering the closure and seizure of private media and public utilities, among others.

Marcos formally ended Martial Law through Proclamation No. 2045 on January 17, 1981.

What changed under the 1987 Philippine Constitution pertinent to Martial Law?

Five years after ending Martial Law, Marcos was toppled from power through the 1986 People Power Revolution. Corazon Aquino, the widow of Marcos critic Benigno Aquino Jr, ascended to the presidency.

In April 1986, through Proclamation No. 9, Aquino created the 1986 Constitutional Commission (Con-Com) which was responsible for drafting a replacement for the 1973 constitution. (FAST FACTS: The 1987 Philippine Constitution)

The new constitution, she said, should be “truly reflective of the aspirations and ideals of the Filipino people.”

Unlike the 1935 Constitution which Marcos based his proclamation on, the 1987 Philippine Constitution was more explicit on when Martial Law can be declared.

Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution says that the President, as commander-in-chief, may “in case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it” suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the country under martial law.

The martial law period or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus should, however, not exceed 60 days. The writ safeguards individual freedom against arbitrary state action.

Unlike the previous constitutions, the 1987 Philippine Constitution specifies that a state of martial law cannot override the function of both the judiciary and legislative branches of the government.

The latest constitution also does not “authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.”

What’s the process that should be followed after declaring martial law under 1987 Constitution?

Under the latest constitution, other branches of government have a say in the declaration of martial law to prevent grave abuse of discretion on the part of the chief executive.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution says that the declaration shall be affirmed by the Congress via a vote and even reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Within 48 hours after its declaration, the president shall submit a report “in person or in writing” to Congress.

Congress then has the power to revoke the proclamation by a vote of at least a majority of all members of both the Senate and the House. Congress can also – if requested by the President and if public safety requires it – extend the period of Martial Law beyond the mandated 60 days.

The Supreme Court, meanwhile, may review the “sufficiency of the factual basis” of the proclamation of Martial Law in an “appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen.”

Dangers of Martial Law

There are people who laud the Martial Law period in the Philippines, claiming that it was the “best years” of the country.

However, the supposed discipline that existed then was accompanied by the numerous abuses people suffered through. (READ: #NeverAgain: Martial Law stories young people need to hear)

According to Amnesty International, about 70,000 people were imprisoned while 34,000 were tortured, and 3,240 were killed during Martial Law from 1972 to 1981.

People deemed to be subversive were tortured by various means, including electrocution, water cure, and strangulation. (READ: Worse than death: Torture methods during martial law)