MARTIAL Law left such a tremendous mark on the Philippines and Filipinos of the late 20th century that 42 years to the time it was formally declared by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos in September 1972, activities are organized annually to facilitate remembrance of that long and dark period in our history.
I think though that if we are to ensure that martial rule will never again darken our souls, soils and shores, we have to become more effective in transforming remembrance into vigilance that burns in the hearts of this generation and even those that will come after them.
Now don’t get me wrong. It makes all sense to remember the Martial Law years. For me, our critical review should not just be confined to from 1972 to 1981, the year Martial Law “ended”, but should include the whole 20 years that Marcos stayed in power -- from his first term as 10th President of the Philippine Republic which started on December 30, 1965 up to the time his family was ousted and had to flee the country straight into the welcoming
arms of the American Government on February 25, 1986.
Martial Law is not just about how a nefarious law came into being and was implemented for nine years to the detriment of the Filipino people.
Martial Law is about how a dictator used laws, military might, the sponsorship and support of governments like the United States, thought control, and other means to perpetuate authoritarianism; and how that authoritarianism can rear its ugly head again.
It seems to me that the way we (and by that term I mean those who lived through and experienced the Marcos years) remember that period does not necessarily make it a compelling threat to the youth of today. The slogan “Martial Law: Never Again”—although powerful in its simplicity and directness—would not make as much impact to people who had not directly experienced it.
It is not just about rattling off the figures that show repression—around 3,300 killed, 35,000 tortured and 70,000 going by figures put together by Akbayan—and rapaciousness (in the estimates of the Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative: Marcos “is estimated to have siphoned off between US$5 and $10 billion… accumulated through six channels: outright takeover of large private enterprises; creation of state-owned monopolies in vital sectors of the economy; awarding government loans to private individuals acting as fronts for Marcos or his cronies; direct raiding of the public treasury and government financial institutions; kickbacks and commissions from firms working in the Philippines; and skimming off foreign aid and other forms of international assistance”) although these help demonstrate the ill effects of dictatorial rule.
I think it is more about articulating the realities and implications of Martial Law in ways that make sense to and capture the imagination of the young today. I certainly do not suggest trivializing details, or any approach akin to “dumbing it down”.
It means that a) we have to acknowledge that we had brushes with Martial Law-like situations in more recent times, that b) we have to look into and understand the situations and factors that made Martial Law happen so that we can head them off when they rear their ugly heads, and that c) we direct attention to the many faces of courageous response against Martial Law. All these were tackled during the September 29 Pakighinabi conversation series themed “Ateneo and Davao during the Martial Law Years” convened by the AdDU Office of the President and moderated by Atty. Faye Bello-Risonar.
Martial Law is not just a past event. If we truly think about it, the rule of the Ampatuans—directly and significantly over Maguindanao Province, and to a certain extent the entire Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) during the early 2000s was imitative of martial rule albeit undeclared and on a more localized scale.
The patriarch Datu Andal Ampatuan and his family wielded nearly absolute political power over their areas—not only were they the local chief executives of the local and regional governments; but they also controlled votes to the point that the elections results from Maguindanao were part of that which gave then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her slate a winning margin in 2004.
The Ampatuan’s military strength extended beyond supervision over the security forces in their localities (police, military and para-military); they had their own firepower that would merit the description “a warlord’s wet dream”. Generally discussed in hushed tones, narratives about the “chainsaw and backhoe” brands of justice and governance abound and point to the Ampatuan’s disregard of the rule of law. Indeed, Maguindanao and ARMM under the Ampatuans would make for a good case study of authoritarianism and de facto martial rule--and I have not even gone into a discussion of their economic power.
Marcos’s predilection for absolute power covered details big and small—from his banning of the animation series Voltes V, which he perceived to be promoting subversion, to the harassment of the popular The Beatles band for refusing Imelda’s invitation to party. I think it would hit home more strongly if it gets pointed out to the youth that the above Martial Law experiences if applied today would be somewhere along the lines of the Rurouni Kenshin series getting filtered for encouraging resistance.
Had there been Internet access during the time of Marcos, the relative freedom enjoyed by netizens today over what to post and what to access would come under heavy censorship. There is also an Internet meme jesting that the group dates of today would have come under fire from Marcos for violating the ban on mass assemblies under the general provisions of PD 1081.
Pakighinabi panelists Bro. Karl Gaspar and Dr. Mac Tiu described the internal and external conditions that attended the build up to and declaration of Martial Law. These included the desire of the American Government to gain allies and establish strategic political, military and economic presence in Southeast Asia at a time that Vietnam had come under Communist control, and left-wing liberation movements were threatening governments in different regions all over the world. The world needed to be made safe for the forces of free enterprise, after all.
Marcos was nearly at the end of his second term and was obviously desirous of extending it. These conditions are not in the absolute past, they can still happen today and in the coming days—and it is not a case of an overactive and conspiracy-oriented imagination to say that the conditions can be aligned and manipulated to suit a power-hungry political and economic force.
The personal narratives of Bro. Karl Gaspar and Dr. Mac Tiu as well as of the other attendees attested to the wide reserves of resistance in the face of Martial Law brutality, and some from unlikely sources. Many of those who stood up to Marcosian forces did so because of their spiritual and other ideals, not necessarily political.
There were those who came from affluent backgrounds and thought unlikely to
challenge the status quo. The Ateneo de Davao community contributed its share of martyrs: Eduardo “Taking” Lanzona, Nicolas M. Solana, Jr. Magtanggol S. Roque, and Maria Teresa “Babeth” Prudencio-Cajoles were but a few of those who paid the ultimate price for resisting the Marcos dictatorship. The diversity of the faces of the resistance to Marcos can be a message to the youth today that standing up to authoritarian rule is everyone’s and every generation’s business.
We who swear that we will never let Martial Law happen again have to make it and its excesses current, real and gripping for the Filipinos of today and the coming days so that they would find it in themselves to say “Martial Law: Not on Our Watch”.
Email feedback to magszmaglana@gmail.com