by MLC | Feb 22, 2017 | Martial Law Stories
Source: ManilaMailDC.net
Finally, victims of the iron rule of Ferdinand Marcos have official proof that the dictator did violate citizens’ human rights and caused great anguish and suffering among the people.
Checks for $1,000 (equivalent to 43,200 pesos) have recently been distributed to a number of martial-law victims here. Eventually some 10,000 persons will receive the amount as evidence that their rights were violated during martial law. Marcos ruled the Philippines with an iron hand for 20 years (1966-1986), 14 of them under martial law.
The money came from a judgment of a US court in Honolulu on a case brought against Marcos by martial-law victims.
$1,000 is, of course, a piddling amount, almost an insult, but it’s value is in its being proof that Marcos disregarded citizens’ rights by killing, torturing or otherwise causing them harm and/or humiliation. To say that the amount is not enough to salve the wounds of those hurt by martial is a gross understatement. But it is, finally, official proof that martial law under Marcos did cause much harm, a lot of it fatal, on citizens whose only crime was to voice dissent against the dictator.
Nevertheless, some of the recipients of the judgment money have said that, even though it’s a meager amount, it would somehow help in, say, fixing a leaky roof, buy medicines for a couple of months, or pay some of the children’s school fees. Yes, many of the martial-law victims are of lowly personal circumstances so that any amount would go a long way in their personal needs.
But still, $1,000 is a pittance, especially for the families of those who died fighting martial law. $1,000 will never bring back the dead.
It is a pittance compared to the billions of pesos that Marcos and his wife Imelda plundered from the people’s treasury. What the small amount can buy are crumbs compared to the scandalously extravagant trinkets and baubles that Imelda gobbled up in her infamous buying sprees in the shopping capitals of the world. It is a pittance compared to the loss of unfulfilled lives.
So, forget the $1,000. The nominal amount is immaterial. It’s value, again, is in its symbolism that it is punishment against Marcos and his family.
And while it is just a symbol of the deadly abuses of the Marcoses, it is a powerful notice to the whole world that the strongman and his minions directly, willingly, and purposely caused many people suffering and loss in tragic proportions. This is especially important because up until this actual distribution of money to Marcos’s victims, his family had been boasting that they never did anything wrong because no judicial judgment had been meted on their patriarch or anyone of them in his family.
Indeed Marcos’s son, obscenely called Bongbong, had claimed on the 25th anniversary (last February 25) of his father’s ouster, that had Marcos the elder been able to stay in power, the Philippines would today be prosperous and be another Singapore. Marcos’s surviving family have been unremorseful over the plunder and pillage inflicted on the country by the patriarch and it’s this kind of hubris that sticks in people’s craw to this day. With still more hubris, Bongbong (who, inexplicably, was voted to the national Senate in the last elections — proof of the Filipinos’ flawed forgiving nature) has revived his family’s desire to have his father’s corpse interred in the Libingan ng mga Bayani or Heroes Cemetery.
So here is the proof — official, formal and in writing — that Marcos was guilty of grave abuses. Here is proof that Marcos had inflicted unspeakable mental and physical pain and hurt on his own countrymen. Here’s proof that he devastated his own country and set it back — contrary to his lightweight heir’s delusional claim — in unquantifiable economic terms.
But still, $1,000 is an insultingly petty amount. Much work, therefore, remains to be done for a full accounting of Marcos’s abuses and misdeeds. The wheels of justice have crawled at a painfully slow pace, typical of the country’s justice system. Those who are pushing the cases in behalf of the government and the Filipino people as a whole have their work cut out for them. It will probably take many more long years before a similar — hopefully more substantive and more definitive — judgment will be earned. Certainly, their contributions to fighting the heavy arm of Marcos’s martial rule are worth more, much more.
Incidentally, in the celebrations here of the anniversary of what we Filipinos call People Power — the toppling of Marcos in 1986 — not much mention has been made about the contributions of Filipino exiles and immigrants abroad. People in the Philippines don’t realize that the protest movements among Filipinos abroad contributed to persuading foreign governments, especially the United States, that Marcos was oppressing his own people and that he had to go. It took several years to convince the foreign governments that the fight against Marcos wasn’t waged on Philippine soil only but also on foreign shores. The contributions of many of us during those times should be recognized.
Marcos’s martial-law victims weren’t only the ones that were murdered, incarcerated, harrassed or otherwise intimidated. Marcos’s victims were all of the Filipino people of that generation.
While the recipients of the judgment money fully deserve their compensation, albeit insultingly small, all of the Filipinos who lived under martial law deserve sympathy and even commendation for surviving that era of terror and oppression. While those who were hurt directly by martial law deserve judicial redress, it should be made clear that we were all that reign’s victims.
by MLC | Feb 22, 2017 | Martial Law Stories
Source: InterAksyon.com
These were some of the most enduring and awe-inspiring images of the past generation: multitudes praying, singing and demonstrating peacefully stopping armed soldiers and battle tanks. The Philippine People Power Revolution of February 1986 became a worldwide symbol of regime change through peaceful means. It would be an inspiration for the People Power Revolutions in other countries. The EDSA sea of yellow would be transformed into the Color Revolution – Velvet for Czechoslovakia, Orange for Ukraine, and Rose in the case of Georgia.
How would history judge the People Power Revolution of 1986? Are Filipinos better off economically because of that momentous undertaking? Historical validation is critical in the light of efforts at revisionism to recast the Marcos Regime as a golden era of prosperity for Philippine society signifying that the People Power Revolution was unjustified and likely, the machinations of sinister “yellow” forces.
One variation of this historical revisionism being shamelessly peddled was that President Marcos though authoritarian was not an iron fisted ruler which thus prevented him from engineering the economy to reach its full potential. If the Truth is liberating then the lies and illusions perpetrated about the economic record of the Martial Law era becomes the chains of bondage for the Filipino and it is imperative to expose them.
An effective and encompassing framework to analyze the economic performance of countries is simply to interrogate two major issues that impacts on poverty and underdevelopment: Did the economy achieve respectable and sustainable growth? How were the fruits of economic growth distributed among the population? Other aspects of economic policymaking simply follow from those two major issues.
Promoting economic growth enhances employment and livelihood opportunities. In turn, sound economic policies that keep inflation at bay and achieve a viable BOP position sustains economic growth. Good governance, transparency, providing equal access to resources and economic opportunities addresses inequality and promotes an egalitarian society.
An overall framework of analysis also avoids the “cherry picking” that advocates of the Martial Law regime disingenuously use to defend the accomplishments of that era and place the present Administration in an unfavorable light. While individual narratives are not to be devalued just citing “lighter traffic” etc. in the Martial law years will be easily countered and the back and forth can degenerate into an unending and convoluted argumentation. To reiterate, what was the overall performance of the economy and who became the beneficiaries?
So how did the Martial Law economy of 1972 to 1986 perform? How does this compare with the economic record of the current Administration?
Economic Growth, Employment and Inflation. In the Martial Law Regime of the 1970s, economic growth of the country initially averaged a strong 6% (actually similar to the present Administration) but this would soon sputter into just +1% in the first half of the 1980s. The growth strategy of the Martial Law era economy was based on excessive borrowings. As is the case with households and companies, the growth of economies built on a foundation of excessive debt aggravated by behest loans, corruption and mismanagement would not be sustainable. Foreign debt jumped from $2.66 billion in 1972 to $17.3 billion in 1980 and about $26 billion by 1984 (Celoza, A. Ferdinand Marcos and the Philippines). There was capital flight associated with a Marcos crony and U.P. Prof Joseph Lim noted that important sectors became more monopolized by the cronies of Marcos. A full blown debt crisis by the early 1980s ravaged the economy and forced the government to declare a debt moratorium. The debt became an onerous burden on the new government after 1986 and the Aquino government’s decision to honor all obligations remains highly controversial. Marcos and his cronies were holding the levers of power when these loans were contracted which eventually became an albatross on the neck of the Philippine economy.
Current Philippine economic growth is likely to be more sustainable due to prudent economic management- the debt burden has steadily declined. In fact, in the recent European economic crisis the Philippines became a lender to troubled European countries coursed through IMF- a complete reversal of its crisis wracked debtor status in the early 1980s! External debt to GDP ratio has considerably improved from 68.6% in 2003 to only 27.3% in 2014 (BSP). Similarly, Fiscal deficit has moderated to -0.6 in 2014 from an average of -2.3% in 2010 – 2013.
Inflation management of the Martial Law technocrats had been an abject failure. During the period 1972 to 1976 the inflation rate (CPI) was an uncomfortably high 14.9%. Granted that the major global oil shock occurred during this period there was only a marginal improvement to an average of 13.2% during 1977 to 1981. To illustrate that this was structural in nature average annual prices further spiked to 18.9% during 1982 to 1986. Thus, the entire Martial Law period was marked by average inflation rates that were in the teens- a clear cause of concern for economists for that would require slowing down economic growth to rein in inflationary pressures.
On the other hand, average inflation rate for 2010 – 2015 was a negligible 3.1%. Even discounting the recent dive in oil prices, Philippine inflation rate has stabilized at an average of 3.7% during 2010 – 2013. In fact; a gradually decelerating inflation rate has characterized the Philippine economy since the 1990s. This is vital as lower inflation rates mean strong purchasing power for the Filipino consumer but also in terms of macroeconomic management this signifies that higher economic growth can be accommodated and sustained over the medium term.
Because of the mediocre growth rates that hounded the economy by the late 1970s, the unemployment rate rose from 5.2% to 5.9% from 1978 to 1983 while underemployment tripled to 29%. (E. De Dios). Unemployment rate was 5.7% in October 2015 and though representing a significant improvement from the high of 13.9% in the 1st quarter of 2000 illustrates the challenges to policy makers.
The Philippine economy was already in ICU in the early 1980s with the repressive and corrupt government needing excision like a malignant tumor if the patient is to live. The economic case is compelling that If the EDSA Revolution did not happen it’s likely that the Philippine economy was headed to complete collapse triggering large scale anarchy and turmoil in its wake. One journalist noted that unlike other regional authoritarian leaders, Marcos was not in power for a long time- just imagine the even greater damage if he did!
The Great Recession of 2007-08 roiled the Philippine economy but the country proved resilient from a strong domestic base and sound economic policies. GDP growth decelerated to 1.15% in 2009 but bounced back to an average of 6.2% until 2015. Subsequently, the country received investment status upgrades from major international credit rating agencies Moody’s, Fitch, and Standard & Poor’s.
Poverty, Corruption and Inequality. So who benefitted from economic growth in the Martial Law economy? The World Bank reported in 1980 that 42% of the population lived below the poverty level. Even when there was growth, the growth in the Philippines tended to reinforce uneven income distribution. It was reported by the Asia Yearbook that in the early 1970s 2.6% of Filipino families earned P10,000 or more a year and the overwhelming majority of 77% earned far below 3,000 and even 12% had incomes below 500 pesos per annum.
UP Prof de Dios noted that income inequality grew during the Martial Law era as the poorest 60% of the nation contributed only 22.5% of the income in 1980, down from 25% in 1970. The richest 10% had a larger share of income at 41.7% from 37.1% in the same period.
Favored associates, friends, and relatives guaranteed unequal access to the country’s resources and perpetuated a distorted unequal distribution of income. As author Celoza observed “The government granted monopolies of key industries and products to selected business people and increased its involvement in the private sector by granting tax exemptions, loan guarantee, and other privileges…By the end of the 1970s, most businesses in the Philippines were controlled by eighty one families with close ties to the Marcos regime.” (page 76, Ferdinand Marcos and the Philippines).
At present, the World Bank reported some tentative progress made in achieving inclusive growth with poverty incidence decreasing from27.9% in 2012 to 25.8% in 2014- an improvement but still alarmingly high. It’s a world of difference from the crippling penury and misery of the early 1980s but at the same time it shows that a generation after EDSA there’s still a lot of work to be done and this will be the great task in the years ahead.
As Acemoglu and Robinson explained in their influential book “Why Nations Fail” (2012) countries with extractive political and economic institutions may grow but it will be unsustainable. In short, institutions need to be inclusive to usher in long term and wide spread development. Misallocation of resources from corruption make it harder to achieve and sustain growth. Philippine economic growth has disproportionately benefited the country’s elite- this is endemic in the Philippines and continues to the present but especially so during the Martial Law years.
Regional Ranking. Finally, if the Martial Law economy was growing at a respectable and sustainable rate it would have kept pace with its regional peers in income levels and economic ranking. During the 1950s and 1960s the Philippines was usually regarded as only second to Japan in Asia in terms of economic development as measured in per capita incomes. Then, in the course of the next two decades South Korea and Malaysia overtook the Philippines. Indeed, Thailand caught up with the Philippines by 1982 in per capita income (around US$750) at the eve of the governance crisis. The country has by then cemented its reputation as the “sick man” of Asia. Rebuilding the economy that was in utter ruins by 1986 would take time that included muddling through policy issues e.g. crippling brownouts and consolidating to ward off destabilization plots. Thus, Indonesia also surpassed the Philippines and Thailand widened its income gap over the latter in that period. If not for the robust growth of the Philippines since 2010, Vietnam would have also overtaken the country by this time. Estimated 2015 GDP per capita (PPP) of the Philippines amounts to US$7,500 compared to US$6,100 of Vietnam (CIA World Factbook).
The 1960s to 1980s marked the take off stage for the major Asian economies and the emergence of the NICs (Newly Industrialized Countries). It was an exhilarating time for East and Southeast Asian economies. The 21st century as the “Pacific Century” became a beguiling vision. So why was the Philippines left eating the dust of its neighbors? Part 2 will discuss this topic particularly relevant to the country’s Hispanic heritage and the role of the developmental state.
Why would the Philippine Martial Law economy from 1972 to 1986 be the “golden era of prosperity” if it was precisely in that period that the economies of the neighboring countries surpassed it?
The once proud cosmopolitan Filipino looked up to by fellow Asians in the heyday of the 1950s and 1960s had departed by the 1980s. The Filipino by the 1980s was regarded as coming from an impoverished country relegated to the role of hewers of wood and drawers of water. The Martial Law era for the Philippines was in fact a period of disastrous national decline.
Again, there is a remarkable contrast to the present where the Philippine economy is recognized as one of the most vibrant economies of Asia. Since 2010, Philippine GDP has grown at a robust annual average rate of 6.2% which is in fact the highest in 40 years (What are the Prospects of the Philippine Economy in 2016, InterAksyon, Jan. 11, 2016) reversing its status as an economic laggard in the past decades. The country now outperforms most of the traditional economic achievers of Asia but make no mistake about it – the country is just trying to make up for lost ground that dated back to the Martial Law era. The country remains as one of the underdeveloped countries in the region and it will take several years of robust growth before significant income gains are made and progress achieved through a more equal income distribution.
Nation-building is generational: The Legacy of the EDSA Revolution
The EDSA Revolution certainly did not set out to be a revolution. As is well known, some military officers tried to pre-empt their arrest by the regime by occupying Camp Aguinaldo and then Camp Crame and appealed for public support. It became revolutionary in its execution through a mustering of the people by the hundreds of thousands in a popular and peaceful protest.
The outcome was less revolutionary. The dictator was overthrown and his regime met its ignominious end. However, the same extractive and suppressive institutions were maintained. The powers-that-be simply ensured that their class interests prevailed. A rare historical opportunity was squandered in transforming the existing social order toward a more equitable society.
When the heady afterglow of EDSA faded many of the corrupt officials of the previous regime were rehabilitated and oligopolies restored and the oligarchic structure was maintained. There would also be a new group of favored businessmen and politicians that essentially maintained the system of vested political interests, dynasties, and powerful clans. There had been no structural transformation of the Philippine economy to empower ordinary citizens to participate actively and benefit equitably from the fruits of development.
National progress does not follow a linear path. Development is sustained or setbacks endured on the basis of choices that people make as impinged upon by institutions over decades. The 1986 EDSA Revolution would be a rare historical moment but EDSA II would be a pathetic necessity and EDSA III a farce. EDSA I was a singular historical moment for Filipinos to get rid of a repressive regime through the Parliament of the Streets.
But EDSA II was a stark admission that Philippine democratic institutions had been perverted and that a wrong choice was once again made in the choice of national leader. In the succeeding years one Supreme Court Justice would be impeached and another President would be detained to face charges that are still unresolved. As I have argued before (Philippines the Next Tiger Economy, Interaksyon, March 31, 2014) that historically, the People Power Revolution may represent only the initial crucial step to establish good governance in the country. Nation-building is a generational process.
In just about a decade and a half after kicking out an authoritarian leader the Parliament of the Streets need to be mobilized once more to oust a corrupt and inept leader. The Philippines has the dubious record of being the only country with more than one leader in the Forbes list of “World’s All Time Most Corrupt Leaders“(originally obtained from Transparency International.). Marcos is #2 in the list, estimated to have embezzled up to US$10 billion. Is this indicative of a benign dictator? It had been argued that some East Asian strong men may be more repressive than Marcos- but do these iron fisted rulers ever make the list of world class plunderers? Estrada is #10 in the list with estimated embezzlement of $80 million. As Savoyad diplomat and lawyer Joseph de Maistre stated, “Every nation has the government it deserves.”
Economist and Nobel Laureate Douglass North observed that formal institutions which consist of laws and regulations are likely easier to change. However, informal institutions such as the mindset, norms, ethics, and culture will take a much longer time to change and these have development implications. There is for example strong association between political dynasties and economic stagnation. Yet, there is acceptance of the dynasties as articulated through voting preferences of Filipinos which thus amplify the vicious cycle of underdevelopment. Achieving development spans generations.
For all its challenges, the Philippines is well past the major governance upheavals of the past decades that hobbled economic growth then. Stability and good governance are vital in fostering conditions conducive to respectable and sustainable economic growth of the country. The nation though needs to be vigilant in voting wisely as retrogression in good governance can easily plunge again the country in a renewed crisis – just look at Thailand. Memories are frail while a new generation has no memory at all of the Martial Law years. It is vital to remind people of the gains that had been made- but also to be critically aware of the arduous tasks that still lay ahead especially in resolving poverty and unequal income distribution.
by MLC | Feb 22, 2017 | Martial Law Stories
Source: Remate.ph
BAYAN Muna Reps. Teddy Casiño and Neri Colmenares yesterday filed a bill that aims to keep alive the memory of those who stood up to the martial law regime, which lasted from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986.
“The declaration of martial law 38 years ago on September 21, 1972 by former President Ferdinand Marcos ushered in a period unparalleled in post-war Philippine history,” the lawmakers wrote in the explanatory note of the bill. “The suppression of democratic rights and civil liberties, the unbroken pattern of gross human rights violations and the systematic plunder of the nation’s treasury were its terrible legacy, the effects of which our nation still has to recover from until today.”
Casiño said: “Under the authoritarian rule of Marcos, human rights violations were the apex of a pyramid of terror – 3,257 killed, 35,000 tortured and 70,000 incarcerated. In striking contrast to Argentina, only 737 Filipinos ‘disappeared’ between 1975 and 1985.”
“However, nearly four times that number – 2,250 – or 77 percent of all victims were salvaged. Many were tortured, mutilated and dumped on a roadside for public display to create widespread fear,” he added.
“In establishing a national day of remembrance and celebration, we hope to impart the lessons of martial law so the present and future generations shall never forget what should never be repeated. The underlying objective is to teach the youth about the difference between dictatorship and democracy, between oppression and freedom, between right and wrong.”
Colmenares said the bill seeks to put into focus the “continuing struggle for justice of the victims of human rights violations of the Marcos era.”
“We hope that by taking the necessary steps toward redressing these gross violations, the long-overdue process for remembering, for recording and for atoning can be established so that the nation can come to terms with the past,” he said.
The bill mandates the Commission on Human Rights, Department of Education, National Historical Institute, Philippine Information Agency, the premier state schools and universities, and the other appropriate agencies of the government, to take the lead in activities that aims to remember the martial law.
by MLC | Feb 20, 2017 | Martial Law Stories
Source: CountryStudies.us
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.
by MLC | Feb 20, 2017 | Martial Law Stories
Source: FactsAndDetails.com
Marcos declared martial law in the form of Proclamation 1081 over the entire country on September 21, 1972, using the activity of leftist student groups and insurgent groups such as the New People’s Army (NPA), anti-Vietnam-War demonstrations and a series of bomb explosions in downtown Manila as an excuse.
He dissolved Congress; suspended rights of habeas corpus, freedom of speech, press and assembly; and imprisoned the opposition Liberal Party leaders. Normally a constitutional last resort designed to protect the masses, martial law was declared by Marcos to keep himself in power and to protect his cronies. Asia’s most vibrant democracy was no more.
Under the president’s command, the military arrested opposition figures, including Benigno Aquino, journalists, student and labor activists, and criminal elements. A total of about 30,000 detainees were kept at military compounds run by the army and the Philippine Constabulary.
Weapons were confiscated, and “private armies” connected with prominent politicians and other figures were broken up. Newspapers were shut down, and the mass media were brought under tight control. With the stroke of a pen, Marcos closed the Philippine Congress and assumed its legislative responsibilities. During the 1972-81 martial law period, Marcos, invested with dictatorial powers, issued hundreds of presidential decrees, many of which were never published. *
Like much else connected with Marcos, the declaration of martial law had a theatrical, smoke-and-mirrors quality. The incident that precipitated Proclamation 1081 was an attempt, allegedly by communists, to assassinate Minister of National Defense Enrile. As Enrile himself admitted after Marcos’s downfall in 1986, his unoccupied car had been riddled by machinegun bullets fired by his own men on the night that Proclamation 1081 was signed. *
Many people believe that Marcos ordered the planting of the bomb that gave him the excuse to declare marital law. After wards he held a series of meeting and plebiscites which drew up new constitution declaring the that Marcos would remain the President and Prime Minster indefinitely, ruling over a rubber-stamp parliament.
Marcos: Martial Law Prelude to a “New Society”
Marcos claimed that martial law was the prelude to creating a “New Society” based on new social and political values. He argued that certain aspects of personal behavior, attributed to a colonial mentality, were obstacles to effective modernization. These included the primacy of personal connections, as reflected in the ethic of utang na loob, and the importance of maintaining in-group harmony and coherence, even at the cost to the national community.
A new spirit of self-sacrifice for the national welfare was necessary if the country were to equal the accomplishments of its Asian neighbors, such as Taiwan and the Republic of Korea (South Korea). Despite Marcos’s often perceptive criticisms of the old society, Marcos, his wife, and a small circle of close associates, the crony group, now felt free to practice corruption on an awe-inspiring scale. [Source: Library of Congress *]
Political, economic, and social policies were designed to neutralize Marcos’s rivals within the elite. The old political system, with its parties, rough-and-tumble election campaigns, and a press so uninhibited in its vituperative and libelous nature that it was called “the freest in the world,” had been boss-ridden and dominated by the elite since early American colonial days, if not before. The elite, however, composed of local political dynasties, had never been a homogeneous group. Its feuds and tensions, fueled as often by assaults on amor proprio (self-esteem) as by disagreement on ideology or issues, made for a pluralistic system. *
Marcos’s self-proclaimed “revolution from the top” deprived significant portions of the old elite of power and patronage. For example, the powerful Lopez family, who had fallen out of Marcos’s favor (Fernando Lopez had served as Marcos’s first vice president), was stripped of most of its political and economic assets. Although always influential, during the martial law years, Imelda Marcos built her own power base, with her husband’s support. Concurrently the governor of Metro Manila and minister of human settlements (a post created for her), she exercised significant powers. *
Land Reform Under Marcos
Land reform has been a concern since independence. Spanish and American rule left arable land concentrated in the hands of 2 percent of the population and those owners will not give up their land without compensation. Attempts made to provide land, such as the resettlement of Christian farmers in Mindanao in the 1950s, have not provided enough land to resolve the problem. Until land reform takes place, poverty will be the nation’s primary social problem. [Source: everyculture.com]
In September 1972, the second presidential decree that Marcos issued under martial law declared the entire Philippines a land reform area. A month later, he issued Presidential Decree No. 27, which contained the specifics of his land reform program. On paper, the program was the most comprehensive ever attempted in the Philippines, notwithstanding the fact that only rice and corn land were included.
Holdings of more than seven hectares were to be purchased and parceled out to individual tenants (up to three hectares of irrigated, or five hectares of unirrigated, land), who would then pay off the value of the land over a fifteen-year period. Sharecroppers on holdings of less than seven hectares were to be converted to leaseholders, paying fixed rents. [Source: Library of Congress *]
The Marcos land reform program succeeded in breaking down many of the large haciendas in Central Luzon, a traditional center of agrarian unrest where landed elite and Marcos allies were not as numerous as in other parts of the country. In the country as a whole, however, the program was generally considered a failure. Only 20 percent of rice and corn land, or 10 percent of total farm land, was covered by the program, and in 1985, thirteen years after Marcos’s proclamation, 75 percent of the expected beneficiaries had not become owner-cultivators.
By 1988 less than 6 percent of all agricultural households had received a certificate of land transfer, indicating that the land they were cultivating had been registered as a land transfer holding. About half of this group, 2.4 percent, had received titles, referred to as emancipation patents. Political commitment on the part of the government waned rather quickly, after Marcos succeeded in undermining the strength of land elites who had opposed him. Even where efforts were made, implementation was selective, mismanaged, and subject to considerable graft and corruption. *
Life Under Martial Law in the Philippines in the 1970s
Under the provisions of martial law, Marcos shut down Congress and most newspapers, jailed his major political opponents, assumed dictatorial powers, and ruled by presidential decree. During the early years of martial law, the economy improved, benefiting from increased business confidence and Marcos’s appointment of talented technocrats to economic planning posts. But over the next few years, major segments of the economy gradually were brought under the control of the Marcos crony group. Monopolies controlled by Marcos cronies were subsidized heavily, seriously depleting the national treasury.
The previously apolitical, professional armed forces were used by Marcos to enforce martial law and ensure his political survival. Even after Marcos rescinded martial law in January 1981, he continued to rule with virtual dictatorial powers. Thus, it came as no surprise that Marcos won an overwhelming victory in the June 1981 presidential election, an election that was boycotted by most opposition forces. [Source: Library of Congress *]
Most Filipinos–or at least those well positioned within the economic and social elites–initially supported the imposition of martial law. The rising tide of violence and lawlessness was apparent to everyone. Although still modest in comparison with the Huk insurgency of the early 1950s, the New People’s Army was expanding, and the Muslim secessionist movement continued in the south with foreign support. Well-worn themes of communist conspiracy–Marcos claimed that a network of “front organizations” was operating “among our peasants, laborers, professionals, intellectuals, students, and mass media personnel”–found a ready audience in the United States, which did not protest the demise of Philippine democracy.
But as the years wore Filipinos found little if anything positive to say about martial law or Marcos. During the Marcos era, the Philippines had one of Asia’s worst human rights records. The army and police were notorious for their use of torture. Victims—which included political dissidents and suspected drug dealers— were beaten, flogged, given electric shocks. Victims. Marcos also muzzled the press, and banned strikes. Marcos claimed that demonstrations against him were staged by “subversives and people under the influence of drugs.” An estimated 50,000 people were detained for alleged political crimes under Marcos in the first five years after martial law was declared.
According to Lonely Planet: “With martial law imposed, the Philippines was plunged into a darkness reminiscent of the Japanese occupation – only this time it was at the hands of a fellow Filipino. A curfew was imposed, the media was silenced or taken over by the military, international travel was banned and thousands of anti-government suspects were rounded up and thrown into military camps. An estimated 50, 000 of Marcos’ opponents were jailed, exiled or killed. Marcos then set about raising revenue by handing over great tracts of prime land to foreign investors and imposing heavy taxes on those who could least afford them.”
Martial Law a Lost Opportunity to Improve the Philippine Economy?
Amando Doronila wrote in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, “Martial law was an epochal event, a turning point in the history of the country. It marked the dismantling of a political system, a democratic polity, albeit a seriously flawed one. Remembrance has been refocused to some of the more appalling aspects of the martial law years, for example, the atrocities of the regime, human rights violations, the disappearances of targets of repression, the economic plunder perpetrated by the dictatorship, the economic disaster stemming from economic policies determined by crony capitalism, and the unprecedented scale of corruption. These are the more obvious landmarks and legacies of dictatorship, which basically is a system that fosters abuse of power leading to other disastrous consequences. [Source: Amando Doronila, Philippine Daily Inquirer, September 22, 2004 \=\]
“It is lost to us that Ferdinand Marcos demolished democracy in 1972 to make way for the introduction of authoritarianism that was riding a wave sweeping most of Asia in that decade-to mention the more outstanding models, the People’s Republic of China under the Communist Party, Lee Kuan Yew’s soft authoritarianism in Singapore, Suharto’s dictatorship in Indonesia, and the authoritarian regime in Malaysia. We were a latecomer to Southeast Asia’s authoritarian club. \=\
“In most of these Asian countries with authoritarian regimes, authoritarianism was not just a weapon for stifling democratic impulses but even more so it was a tool for economic expansion and development. When Marcos declared martial law, he was not just concerned with crushing the communist insurgency and destroying the political infrastructure of democracy, which allows the political opposition to obstruct government initiatives and to check its corruption and abuses. Marcos had a larger purpose than these. The larger purpose was to use martial law as the facility and stage for economic takeoff and development, emulating the models of economic success of our neighbors. Park Chung-hee’s South Korea and Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore were shining examples of economic growth taking place under a climate of political stability and unhindered by political opposition in a democratic ambience. \=\
“The point to remember is that martial law was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity given to a Filipino leader to build the economy and make it march with the pace taken by other authoritarian regimes in Asia. Because of his excesses, abuses and corruption, Marcos squandered that opportunity. Martial law in the Philippines was a failed political experiment as an engine to drive radical change and economic growth and development. The 14 years from Sept. 21, 1972 to the restoration of democracy in February 1986 were years of squandered opportunities and wasted national resources.” \=\
Impact of Marcos on the Philippine Democracy
Democratic institutions were introduced to the Philippines by the United States at the beginning of the twentieth century. The apparent success of these imported practices gave the Philippines its reputation as “the showcase of democracy in Asia.” Before 1972 the constitutional separation of powers was generally maintained. Political power was centralized in Manila, but it was shared by two equally influential institutions, the presidency and Congress. The checks and balances between them, coupled with the openness of bipartisan competition between the Nacionalista and Liberal parties, precluded the emergence of one-person or one-party rule. Power was transferred peacefully from one party to another through elections. The mass media, sensational at times, fiercely criticized public officials and checked government excess. [Source: Library of Congress *]
Marcos inflicted immeasurable damage on democratic values. He offered the Filipino people economic progress and national dignity, but the results were dictatorship, poverty, militarized olitics and a politicized military, and greatly increased dependence on foreign governments and banks. His New Society was supposed to eliminate corruption, but when Marcos fled the country in 1986, his suitcases contained, according to a United States customs agent, jewels, luxury items, and twenty-four gold bricks. Estimates of Marcos’s wealth ran from a low of US$3 billion to a high of US$30 billion, and even after his death in 1989, no one knew the true value of his estate, perhaps not even his widow. *
If Marcos had been merely corrupt, his legacy would have been bad enough, but he broke the spell of democracy. The long evolution of democratic institutions, unsatisfactory though it may have been in some ways, was interrupted. The political culture of democracy was violated. Ordinary Filipinos knew fear in the night. An entire generation came of age never once witnessing a genuine election or reading a free newspaper. Classes that graduated from the Philippine Military Academy were contemptuous of civilians and anticipated opportunities for influence and perhaps even wealth. Marcos’s worst nightmare came true when Corazon Aquino used the power of popular opinion to bring him down. *
Economy Under Marcos After Martial Law was Imposed
During the first years of martial law, the economy benefited from increased stability, and business confidence was bolstered by Marcos’s appointment of talented technocrats to economic planning posts. Despite the 1973 oil price rise shock, the growth of the gross national product (GNP) was respectable, and the oil-pushed inflation rate, reaching 40 percent in 1974, was trimmed back to 10 percent the following year. Between 1973 and the early 1980s, dependence on imported oil was reduced by domestic finds and successful energy substitution measures, including one of the world’s most ambitious geothermal energy programs. Claiming that “if land reform fails, there is no New Society,” Marcos launched highly publicized new initiatives that resulted in the formal transfer of land to some 184,000 farming families by late 1975. The law was filled with loopholes, however, and had little impact on local landowning elites or landless peasants, who remained desperately poor. *
After Marcos was ousted the Philippines owed about US$28 billion to foreign creditors. Borrowed money had not promoted development, and most of it had been wasted on showcase projects along Manila Bay, or had disappeared into the pockets and offshore accounts of the Marcos and Romualdez families and their friends and partners. Many Filipinos believed that they would be morally justified in renouncing the foreign debt on grounds that the banks should have known what the Marcoses were doing with the money.
Even Cardinal Jaime Sin declared it “morally wrong” to pay foreign creditors when Filipino children were hungry. Aquino, however, resolutely pledged to pay the debt. Otherwise, the nation would be cut off from the credit it needed. Although the Philippines could pay the interest on the debt every year, it could not pay the principal. This never-ending debt naturally inflamed Filipino nationalism. A Freedom From Debt Coalition advocated using the money to help the unemployed instead of sending the hard currency abroad. *
Corruption and Crony Capitalism Under Marcos
Eric Pace wrote in the New York Times, “Mr. Marcos’s aura was also tarnished by accusations and problems concerning his country’s business and economic life. Under his rule, the Philippines was afflicted with widespread corruption and vast unemployment. There was widespread poverty, along with a few sectors of great wealth.” [Source: Eric Pace, New York Times, September 29, 1989]
The largest, most productive, and technically most advanced manufacturing enterprises were gradually brought under the control of Marcos’s cronies. For example, the huge business conglomerate owned by the Lopez family, which included major newspapers, a broadcast network, and the country’s largest electric power company, was broken up and distributed to Marcos loyalists including Imelda Marcos’s brother, Benjamin “Kokoy” Romualdez, and another loyal crony, Roberto Benedicto.
Huge monopolies and semimonopolies were established in manufacturing, construction, and financial services. When these giants proved unprofitable, the government subsidized them with allocations amounting to hundreds of millions of pesos. Philippine Airlines, the nation’s international and domestic air carrier, was nationalized and turned into what one author has called a “virtual private commuter line” for Imelda Marcos and her friends on shopping excursions to New York and Europe. [Source: Library of Congress *]
Probably the most negative impact of crony capitalism, however, was felt in the traditional cash-crop sector, which employed millions of ordinary Filipinos in the rural areas. (The coconut industry alone brought income to an estimated 15 million to 18 million people.) Under Benedicto and Eduardo Cojuangco, distribution and marketing monopolies for sugar and coconuts were established.
Farmers on the local level were obliged to sell only to the monopolies and received less than world prices for their crops; they also were the first to suffer when world commodity prices dropped. Millions of dollars in profits from these monopolies were diverted overseas into Swiss bank accounts, real estate deals, and purchases of art, jewelry, and antiques. On the island of Negros in the Visayas, the region developed by Nicholas Loney for the sugar industry in the nineteenth century, sugar barons continued to live lives of luxury, but the farming community suffered from degrees of malnutrition rare in other parts of Southeast Asia. *
Impact of Marcos on the Philippines Military
Ferdinand Marcos was responsible for making the previously nonpolitical, professional Armed Forces of the Philippines, which since American colonial times had been modeled on the United States military, a major actor in the political process. This subversion occurred done in two ways. First, Marcos appointed officers from the Ilocos region, his home province, to its highest ranks. Regional background and loyalty to Marcos rather than talent or a distinguished service record were the major factors in promotion.
Fabian Ver, for example, had been a childhood friend of Marcos and later his chauffeur, rose to become chief of staff of the armed forces and head of the internal security network. Secondly, both officers and the rank and file became beneficiaries of generous budget allocations. Officers and enlisted personnel received generous salary increases. Armed forces personnel increased from about 58,000 in 1971 to 142,000 in 1983. Top-ranking military officers, including Ver, played an important policy-making role. On the local level, commanders had opportunities to exploit the economy and establish personal patronage networks, as Marcos and the military establishment evolved a symbiotic relationship under martial law. *
A military whose commanders, with some exceptions, were rewarded for loyalty rather than competence proved both brutal and ineffective in dealing with the rapidly growing communist insurgency and Muslim separatist movement. Treatment of civilians in rural areas was often harsh, causing rural people, as a measure of self-protection rather than ideological commitment, to cooperate with the insurgents.
The communist insurgency, after some reverses in the 1970s, grew quickly in the early 1980s, particularly in some of the poorest regions of the country. The Muslim separatist movement reached a violent peak in the mid1970s and then declined greatly, because of divisions in the leadership of the movement and reduced external support brought about by the diplomatic activity of the Marcos government. *
Relations with the United States After Marcos Imposed Martial Law
Relations with the United States remained most important for the Philippines in the 1970s, although the special relationship between the former and its ex-colony was greatly modified as trade, investment, and defense ties were redefined. The Laurel-Langley Agreement defining preferential United States tariffs for Philippine exports and parity privileges for United States investors expired on July 4, 1974, and trade relations were governed thereafter by the international General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
During the martial law period, foreign investment terms were substantially liberalized, despite official rhetoric about foreign “exploitation” of the economy. A policy promoting “nontraditional” exports such as textiles, footwear, electronic components, and fresh and processed foods was initiated with some success. Japan increasingly challenged the United States as a major foreign participant in the Philippine economy. [Source: Library of Congress *]
The status of United States military bases was redefined when a major amendment to the Military Bases Agreement of 1947 was signed on January 6, 1979, reaffirming Philippine sovereignty over the bases and reducing their total area. At the same time, the United States administration promised to make its “best effort” to obtain congressional appropriations for military and economic aid amounting to US$400 million between 1979 to 1983.
The amendment called for future reviews of the bases agreement every fifth year. Although the administration of President Jimmy Carter emphasized promoting human rights worldwide, only limited pressure was exerted on Marcos to improve the behavior of the military in rural areas and to end the death-squad murder of opponents. (Pressure from the United States, however, did play a role in gaining the release of Benigno Aquino in May 1980, and he was allowed to go to the United States for medical treatment after spending almost eight years in prison, including long stretches of time in solitary confinement.)
by MLC | Feb 13, 2017 | Martial Law Stories
By: Mara Cepeda
Source: Rappler.com
A smiling deputy speaker asks from the podium, ‘Madam Speaker…. I just want to know who put the ‘I love you’ on all our tables…’
LOVE, IMELDA. Ilocos Norte 2nd District Representative Imelda Marcos gives a Valentine’s Day gift to all her colleagues at the House of Representatives. Photo by Mara Cepeda/Rappler
Not even the House of Representatives can escape the mushiness that usually comes with love month.
When the plenary session began on Monday, February 13, congressmen and congresswomen were surprised to find a small, red-colored teddy bear on each of their tables.
The teddy bear comes with a heart bearing the words, “I love you.”
It turns out, Ilocos Norte 2nd District Representative Imelda Marcos wanted to give her colleagues a token in celebration of Valentine’s Day on February 14.
On Monday, a smiling Deputy Speaker Raneo Abu approached the podium and asked Deputy Speaker Sharon Garin, who was presiding the session, if the House could find out who gave them the teddy bears.
“Madam Speaker, I would like to rise on a matter of personal and collective privilege. Madali lang ito, Madam Speaker. Tingin ko ito ay tanong din ng lahat dito. Gusto ko lang ho malaman kung sino ang naglagay ho ng mga ‘I love you’ dito sa aming mga la mesa para naman po magpasalamat, Madam Speaker,” said Abu.
(Madam Speaker, I would like to rise on a matter of personal and collective privilege. This will be quick, Madam Speaker. I think everyone here wants to ask this, too. I just want to know who put the “I love you” on all our tables so we can thank him or her, Madam Speaker.)
Garin said she was informed that the teddy bears came from Marcos.
Abu then thanked her: “Thank you to Madam Imelda Marcos. Napakaganda pong pa-Valentine sa amin (This is such a beautiful Valentine’s gift to us).”
The House then proceeded to call the roll of its members and continued reading the bills that were originally included in the agenda for the day. – Rappler.com
