I interviewed Imelda Marcos when I was 16 years old

by MLC | Feb 20, 2016 | Martial Law Stories

By: Marguerite de Leon

Source: Rappler.com

When I was 16, while I was no PhD in Dictatorships, I did know enough to be sure that what happened was very real and very wrong. What was missing was the conviction to speak up about and act on it.

I interviewed Imelda Marcos – the shoe hound, the Iron Butterfly, the disco-dancing detestation of the desaparecidos – in 2001, when I was 16 years old.

I’m 30 now, and as the 30^th anniversary of the EDSA Revolution draws near, I can’t help but look back at what amounts to one of the weirdest footnotes of my life and see if I can still take something from it.

How I ended up there

I was a creative writing major at the Philippine High School for the Arts (PHSA) in Mount Makiling, which was founded by Imelda along with the National Arts Center in 1977.

On the school’s 25^th anniversary, we tried, on a whim, to see if we could interview Imelda for Variations, the school paper of which I was editor-in-chief. When I was told that she had agreed, I literally had to lie flat on the floor in shock.

At 16, it was incredibly hard to process the gravity of the situation. I knew it was a very big deal; that was very sharp and clear.

Growing up, my family would tell me stories of the life I had only just managed to squeak past: the curfews, the carefully curated culture, the thin film of fear that had settled over everything. They told me about the Metrocom patrolling the streets. They taught me what the word “salvage” meant.

And they introduced me to the couple that started it all, and told me about how the woman, Imelda, was this beautiful, big bouffant-ed, butterfly-sleeved beast, who used the people’s money to live in jaw-dropping excess.

I remember my mom telling me about the Film Center’s construction, about how Imelda supposedly had workers’ bodies buried in the concrete after an accident threatened her already impossible deadline, and it was scarier than any ghost story I had ever heard.

But having never experienced life under the Marcoses – being, in fact, part of the very first generation to not have to – still made things more abstract and anecdotal, more removed and theoretical, and that bothered me.

I suppose it was a kind of guilt. Or maybe shame. I felt like a fraud coming into that interview. I mean, who was I, this random teenage nerd from a relatively comfortable upper middle-class life, to write a piece on the woman who had gone down in Philippine history as one of its most notorious villains?

The interview was set in her heavily-gilded penthouse apartment in Makati, and I came with a modest “crew”: Variations moderator and creative writing teacher Nancy Almonte as adult chaperone, and classmate (and now popular visual artist) Leeroy New as videographer. PHSA’s then-executive director, the late architect Honrado Fernandez, would also drop by to round up our group later in the interview.

The moment of truth with Madame

It’s true that Imelda is really something else. She emerged from the hallway looking every bit like she was supposed to: shiny, towering bouffant; an emerald green, butterfly-sleeved terno; a wacky pair of zebra-print high heels (and the clutch to match); ramrod-straight posture; and an impenetrable sense of grace and calm.

And she was disarming from the very beginning, calling me “maganda” (beautiful) – which, as a pimply, overweight adolescent, sounded outright ludicrous, though she was a pro at sounding authentic. These expert-level social graces I also expected.

But what I really didn’t expect was the emotional roller coaster ride the interview would become. Chalk it up to naiveté. I had in hand what I thought was a very safe set of questions, all of which were about the founding of the school and art in general.

I was told by my moderator not to ask anything political, and since I was freaked out and wanted everything to go as painlessly as possible, I had happily obliged.

No matter what kind of questions I had, however, it quickly became clear that Imelda was in charge. She hijacked that session and steered it from an innocent chat with a kid to a burning plea for mercy and justice.

It was weird from the beginning. If you’ve seen the 2003 documentary “Imelda” by Ramona Diaz, the way Imelda rambled aimlessly to the director about love and peace; and about the true, the good, and the beautiful, was nearly identical to how she started the conversation with me.

Stream of consciousness

To give you an idea of the kind of stream-of-consciousness litany she kicked off with, here is an excerpt from her self-help book “Circles of Life” (a copy of which she gave me from a small stack on her coffee table, and which was also featured in the documentary):

“To have love in your heart is to have peace. The energy of life is love. The energy of love is peace. Only evil complicates. A Mother’s Love comes from a heart of peace. It precedes birth and antecedes death, and throughout one’s life, it is the constant source of serenity and security.”

Imelda also took out a pen and paper and drew a series of hearts and stars and circles to illustrate her philosophies, which at that point looked to me like script from another dimension. Suffice it to say that while I looked calm and busy taking notes on the outside, I was running around and screaming on the inside.

Soon enough, however, things got a little too lucid for my taste. She had managed to segue somehow from drawing me random shapes, to talking about renowned pianist Van Cliburn and all the other famous people she’s been with, to recounting the very last thing I had ever hoped she would: the Marcos regime.

A concrete topic if there ever was one. Specifically, she spoke about her husband, whom she referred to the whole time as “Marcos”, as if to acknowledge his historical heft. To paraphrase:

“Marcos saved this country. The only thing Marcos ever cared about was the people. For Marcos, it was all about love. I loved Marcos and Marcos loved every Filipino.”

And then, the clincher:

“But what did the Filipino people do? They persecuted Marcos and his family. They persecuted us. They said Marcos stole from the people. They drove us away from the land we loved, when all we ever did was take care of the Filipino people. Why would they do this to us? How did Marcos deserve to be treated this way? Did he do anything wrong? Did I do anything wrong? Did I? Did I?”

It took me a moment to realize that this was not a rhetorical question. Imelda, at that point, had begun to stare at me, calmly waiting for me to answer what is, to this day, one of the most frightening questions of my life.

“Did I do anything wrong?”

I can’t blame you if you find this (and another moment, which I will get to) hard to believe; it’s like it came from the mind of a sadistic scriptwriter. But I promise all of it’s true. They say truth is stranger than fiction, and what we often forget is that it can be a thousand times more terrifying.

In turn, though, maybe you’d expect my response to be like something out of a movie as well. Maybe I could have stared straight back at her and, with a single tear rolling down from my steely eye, whispered, “Yes.” Or maybe I could have flipped her coffee table over. Or maybe I could have grabbed the Picasso (yes, there was a Picasso – and a Miro, and a Gaugin), lifted it over my head, and screamed, “This belongs to the people!!!”

Instead, I forced a tight, vague little smile and shrugged, but barely. A non-answer at best, an act of cowardice at worst.

And whatever bodily spasm it was that I made, Imelda didn’t seem to care, and soon went on with her mishmash of New Age-isms and memories of a glorious yesteryear like she hadn’t just thrown me for a loop.

It was, in a sense, a missed opportunity. I understand this clearly. Now, at 30 years old, I’ve met quite a few people who probably would have given anything to have been in my place, to have gotten the chance to meet face to face with Imelda in private and tell her how she and her family had done them wrong – and then some.

Former Philippine first lady and current Congress Representative Imelda Marcos (C) is crowned with flowers during her 85th birthday celebration in the town of Batac, Ilocos Norte province, northern Philippines, 02 July 2014. Imelda Marcos celebrates her 85th birthday visiting her constituents in her district and her birthday wish is a hero’s burial for former President Ferdinand Marcos. EPA/FRANCIS R. MALASIG

The problem in our principles

But, like I said, I was essentially a kid, and while I did have a working knowledge of our recent sordid history, I definitely didn’t know what to do with what I knew.

Now, if I was dropped into the very same situation today, I probably would have told Imelda stories about people I knew: my friend from college who had never known her father; sisters who were raped and tortured (including having their breasts electrocuted); an old roommate whose earliest childhood memory was in prison with her parents.

I don’t know how Imelda would respond to this, but it’s probably the least I could do given that I am now a bit older, more informed, and more certain of my politics and values. It won’t bring anyone back from the dead, but it’s what I know I can do.

And it’s this sense of not being able to do enough that speaks volumes about our problem with the past. The generations succeeding the one that suffered under the Marcos regime have grown less and less perturbed over the fact that victims and their families have yet to really get their due, and that we continue to languish under gnarled power structures run by thieves.

It’s gotten to the point that whole droves of people who had never experienced martial law deny that anything bad ever happened, and even want to elect Ferdinand Marcos’ son to the second-highest position in the land.

It’s not just a problem of education. When I was 16, while I was no PhD in Dictatorships, I did know enough to be sure that what happened was very real and very wrong. What was missing was the conviction to speak up about and act on it.

And my 16-year-old self being questioned by Imelda was, in essence, what recent generations continue to be today with regards to our past: unable to properly process what they know, unsure of how to take a stand, and unaccustomed to acting on their beliefs.

How we dig ourselves out of this hole is not just about telling people what happened decades ago, but about giving people the right mindset to actually care about it. That’s what we’re missing.

The Marcos regime was one of the gravest, most consequential moments in our country’s history, but the fact that we haven’t gone out of our way to set things right, the fact that we pretty much pussyfooted the development of our democracy, and the fact that these facts don’t alarm a lot of people today, may turn out to be the far greater tragedy.

Making a mess

Now, there was one more moment during that meeting with Imelda that you might find hard to believe, and I suppose there is no better way to end this piece than to tell it.

The interview had finally ended, and we had barely begun our thank yous and goodbyes when Imelda said, “But where are you going? We’re having lunch at the Peninsula.” Minutes later, I found myself crammed into the back of Imelda’s luxury sedan (yes, there were 3 of us literally squished in next to her, FX-style – marunong si Madame makisiksik!), wondering if eating this lunch meant partaking of the stolen billions.

I was the last to step out of the car at the hotel driveway, and saw that Imelda had barely entered the place before a crowd of old women were tittering around her and asking for pictures. And then, just before I was about to close the car door, I noticed something on the backseat’s stark white upholstery, right on the spot where I’d been sitting.

It was a spot of blood. I checked my skirt and realized that I had gotten my period.

Tinagusan ako sa kotse ni Imelda Marcos. Blood was literally spilled.

Now, it has taken me over a decade to try and write this essay, because the events of that day, especially the one I’d just mentioned, had really needed time and maturity to process.

And one would think that life had handed me what appears to be a damning metaphor with that spot of blood, but over years of trying to write this piece, I had always found it too on-the-nose. Too trite. So I’d always had trouble figuring out what to do with it.

Think about it: what was I going to say? That staining Imelda’s car with the blood from my womb was my battlecry on behalf of all who have suffered?

Because it wasn’t. Because our issues with martial law and its aftermath have to stop being just this mess of symbolism and theory. And it has to stop revolving around a single day in February when we just bow our heads and sigh.

It is something tangible; it is something that continues to affect us – to hurt us – every single day. It is evident in our politics, our poverty. We step out of our homes each day and have to face the tragedy that is our status quo.

If you had lived under the regime, tell your stories to current generations not with relief, but with urgency. And maybe, on the 60^th anniversary of that time we decided, together, to get up and act on our principles, it would finally stop being the mark of an opportunity missed. – Rappler.com

PH gov’t: Declare Marcos, Romualdez estates in default in P5-B case

by MLC | Feb 18, 2016 | Martial Law Stories

Source: Rappler.com

Defaulting in a civil case bars a party from presenting its evidence, having waived its rights to contest the allegations

WEEPING IMELDA. Ilocos Norte Representative Imelda R. Marcos tears up during the one-year anniversary of Super Typhoon Yolanda in Leyte. EPA file photo

MANILA, Philippines – Lawyers from the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) are asking the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan to declare the estates of former President Ferdinand Marcos, his wife Ilocos Norte Representative Imelda Marcos, spouses Benjamin and Juliet Romualdez, and 17 others in default for failing to answer a complaint 16 to 28 years after Civil Case Number 0035 was filed against them.

The 15-page motion filed by the government’s team with the Sandiganbayan last February 15 cited Section 3, Rule 9, of the Rules of Court: that the failure of a defending party to answer allegations in a complaint within the time allowed is enough reason to declare it in default.

The original complaint in Civil Case Number 0035 was filed in July 1987. The PCGG, however, amended it at least 3 times: on August 20, 1987; on February 9, 1988; and on October 15, 2001.

Defaulting in a civil case bars a party from presenting its evidence, as the court considers the party to have waived its rights to contest the allegations in the complaint.

Because of this, the opposing party in this case (the Republic of the Philippines) would hold a notable advantage as it has the opportunity to present its case and submit evidence unopposed. The evidence submitted would become the basis for the court to resolve the dispute.

The PCGG said in a summary of pending cases from 2011 that Civil Case Number 0035 involved government claim over shares of stocks in mining, media, and financial firms – valued at P164.405 million – as well as real properties worth P10.34 billion. The state is also seeking damages of P50 billion, and P1 billion in reimbursement of legal expenses.

The PCGG and OSG said all 21 defendants were furnished copies of the complaint and summonses by the Sandiganbayan, directing them to file their answers. Goverment lawyers pointed out, “Perusal of the records at hand shows that no Answers were filed by above-named defendants either within the reglementary period or despite the resolution of the issues they raised about the complaint and the period to file an Answer thereafter having long lapsed.”.

The heirs of Benjamin and Juliet Romualdez, meanwhile, were granted the right to review the bulk of government evidence in 2007 but waived the opportunity. Their motion to dismiss the case was denied by the graft court in a resolution on August 31, 2014.

The Estate of Ferdinand Marcos and the former First Lady were already declared in default in 1989. Mrs Marcos, however, got the court to lift the default order against her in 1992, receiving the the same ruling affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1994. The OSG said she she has yet to file an answer to date.

The government’s lawyers added, “Premises considered, plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable Court declare in default the defendants listed…and set the case for ex parte presentation of evidence against them.”

Marcos central bank governor to testify on ill-gotten paintings

by MLC | Feb 10, 2016 | Martial Law Stories

Source: Rappler.com

Nearly 3 decades after, the government is still looking for more than 100 paintings bought by Imelda Marcos using ill-gotten wealth

ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH. The government has yet to fully recover the Marcoses’ ill-gotten wealth.

MANILA, Philippines – Jaime C. Laya, the Central Bank governor under the Marcos regime, has been ordered to testify in an ill-gotten wealth case against the Marcos family, as the government tries to locate more than 100 expensive paintings bought by Ilocos Norte Representative Imelda Marcos.

In a resolution released on Wednesday, February 10, the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan ordered the clerk of court, on the basis of a subpoena, to supervise the taking of Laya’s deposition at his office in Philtrust Bank Building in Manila.

This will take place at 2 pm on February 12.

In their Amended Notice to Take Deposition, the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) said Laya can provide key information that could provide additional leads on Marcos assets that have been ordered forfeited in a civil case.

Filed in nearly 3 decades ago, in July 1987, the case has so far resulted in the forfeiture in favor of the government of P35 billion cash previously held in 5 Swiss foundations of the Marcoses, 3 jewelry collections belonging Mrs Marcos, and $42 million from the Arema account of the late former President Ferdinand Marcos.

SEIZED COLLECTION. This file photo taken on September 15, 2005 shows a Presidential Commission on Good Goverment (PCGG) official showing at the Central bank headquarter in Manila, a tiara inlaid with diamonds and South Sea pearls from a collection seized by the government from former first lady Imelda Marcos in the late 1980s. The Philippines said on September 6, 2012 it planned to put on public display soon fabulous jewels seized 26 years ago from former first lady Imelda Marcos, to help draw more tourists. Joel Nito/AFP/Files

On September 29, 2014, the Sandiganbayan also issued a writ authorizing court officers to seize 15 paintings by European masters found at the old Marcos home on Don Mariano Marcos Street corner P. Guevarra Street in San Juan City. These were initially taken to the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas for safekeeping but were later turned over to the National Museum for needed restorative works and proper maintenance.

Nine more artworks were later found by Sandiganbayan sheriff Romulo Barrozo at Rep. Marcos’ office in the Batasan Pambansa, but the court officers were prevented by Congress security from seizing the paintings.

The sheriffs however served the copy of the writ and placed the paintings under custodial legis, which bars their sale or transfer to a new location without prior clearance from the court.

The paintings were the “Madonna and Child” by Michelangelo Buonarotti; “Vase of Red Chrysanthemums” by Bernard Buffet; “Still Life with Idol” by Paul Gaugin; “L’ Aube” by Joan Miro; “Femme Cauchee VI” by Pablo Picasso; “Jardin de Kew Prés de la Serre, 1892” by Camille Pissarro; “La Baignade au Grand Lemps” by Pierre Bonnard; “Picnic (Grandma Moses) 1959” by Anne Mary Robertson; and “Moon Madness 1982” by Andrew Wyeth.

Based on the earlier testimony of PCGG Commissioner Ma. Ngina Teresa Chan-Gonzaga, the most valuable among the artworks was Michelangelo’s Madonna and Child, reportedly acquired in July 1983 for US$3.5 million and was paid in 3 installments of $1 million each on July 25, October 15 and December 22, 1983 and a final payment of $500,000 on December 27, 1983.

Gaugin’s Still Life with Idol was reported to have been acquired by the former first lady at $1,000,500 while Pissarro’s work was acquired at $420,000.

The PCGG is still trying to trace the whereabouts of 156 paintings by different artists that were reported to have been acquired by the Marcos family while they were in power. Of these, 144 have left no trace whatsoever.

In taking the deposition of Laya, government lawyers are hoping to acquire more leads to bolster recovery efforts for the paintings.

“By reason of his position as [former Central Bank] governor, he was sometimes invited by Mrs. Imelda Marcos to the property located in New York particularly at 13-15 East 66th Street in Manhattan. During these visits, he was able to see and identify several valuable paintings held in possession by the Marcoses on display in the Philippine Townhouse,” the PCGG and OSG lawyers said.

Declaration of Martial Law

by MLC | Jan 26, 2016 | Martial Law Stories

Source: Gov.ph

The anniversary of the declaration of martial law is on September 23 (not September 21)

“FM Declares Martial Law”—the headline of the September 24, 1972 issue of the Sunday Express, which was the Sunday edition of Philippines Daily Express. The Daily Express was the only newspaper allowed to circulate upon the declaration of Martial Law

President Ferdinand E. Marcos signed Proclamation No. 1081 on September 21, 1972, placing the Philippines under Martial Law. Some sources say that Marcos signed the proclamation on September 17 or on September 22—but, in either case, the document itself was dated September 21.

Throughout the Martial Law period, Marcos built up the cult of September 21, proclaiming it as National Thanksgiving Day by virtue of Proclamation No. 1180 s. 1973 to memorialize the date as the foundation day of his New Society. The propaganda effort was so successful that up to the present, many Filipinos—particularly those who did not live through the events of September 23, 1972—labor under the misapprehension that martial law was proclaimed on September 21, 1972. It was not.

The culmination of a long period of preparation

The facts are clear. A week before the actual declaration of Martial Law, a number of people had already received information that Marcos had drawn up a plan to completely take over the government and gain absolute rule. Senator Benigno S. Aquino Jr., during a September 13, 1972 privilege speech, exposed what was known as “Oplan Sagittarius.” The Senator said he had received a top-secret military plan given by Marcos himself to place Metro Manila and outlying areas under the control of the Philippine Constabulary as a prelude to Martial Law. Marcos was going to use a series of bombings in Metro Manila, including the 1971 Plaza Miranda bombing, as a justification for his takeover and subsequent authoritarian rule.

In his own diary, Marcos wrote on September 14, 1972 that he informed the military that he would proceed with proclaiming Martial Law. Even the U.S. Embassy in Manila knew as early as September 17, 1972 about Marcos’ plan.^[1]

This was indeed the culmination of a long period of preparation: As early as May 17, 1969, Marcos hinted the declaration of Martial Law, when he addressed the Philippine Military Academy Alumni Association:

One of my favorite mental exercises, which others may find useful, is to foresee possible problems one may have to face in the future and to determine what solutions can possibly be made to meet these problems.

For instance, if I were suddenly asked, to pose a given situation, to decide in five minutes when and where to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, I have decided that there should be at least five questions that I would ask, and depending on the answers to these five questions, I would know when and where to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

The same thing is true with the declaration of martial law […] It is a useful mental exercise to meet a problem before it happens.

In his memoir, then Justice Secretary Juan Ponce Enrile recalled that on a late afternoon in December 1969, Marcos instructed him to study the powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief under the provisions of the 1935 Constitution. Marcos made this instruction as he “[foresaw] an escalation of violence and disorder in the country and [wanted] to know the extent of his powers as commander-in-chief.”^[2] The President also stressed that “the study must be done discreetly and confidentially.”^[3]

At about the same time, Marcos also instructed Executive Secretary Alejandro Melchor and Jose Almonte to study how Martial Law was implemented in different parts of the world. Marcos also wanted to know the consequences of declaring Martial Law. The result of their study stated that, “while Martial Law may accelerate development, in the end the Philippines would become a political archipelago, with debilitating, factionalized politics.” Almonte recalled that their findings led to the conclusion that “the nation would be destroyed because, apart from the divisiveness it would cause, Martial Law would offer Marcos absolute power which would corrupt absolutely.”^[4]

By the end of January 1970, Enrile, with the help of Efren Plana and Minerva Gonzaga Reyes, submitted the only copy of the confidential report on the legal nature and extent of Martial Law to Marcos. A week later, Marcos summoned Enrile and instructed him to prepare the documents to implement Martial Law in the Philippines.^[5]

In his January 1971 diary entries, Marcos discussed how he met with business leaders, intellectuals from the University of the Philippines, and the military to lay the groundwork that extreme measures would be needed in the future. On May 8, 1972, Marcos confided in his diary that he had instructed the military to update its plans, including the list of personalities to be arrested, and had met with Enrile to finalize the legal paperwork required.

On August 1, 1972, Marcos met with Enrile and a few of his most trusted military commanders to discuss tentative dates for the declaration of Martial Law—to fall within the next two months. All of the dates they considered either ended in seven or were divisible by seven, as Marcos considered seven his lucky number.^[6]

The last days of democracy

A mass rally organized by the Movement of Concerned Citizens for Civil Liberties (MCCCL) was held at Plaza Miranda in Quiapo. (Photo courtesy of Philippines Free Press Magazine)

On September 21, 1972, democracy was still functioning in the Philippines. Senator Benigno S. Aquino Jr. was still able to deliver a privilege speech—what would be his final one—in the Senate. Primitivo Mijares, among others, recounted the functioning of the House of Representatives and the Senate, with committee meetings scheduled for that night. Senate and House leaders agreed not to adjourn on this day, as earlier scheduled. They decided to extend their special session to a sine die adjournment on September 23.^[7]

That afternoon, a protest march in Plaza Miranda was sponsored by the Concerned Christians for Civil Liberties. The rally was attended by more than 30 “civic, religious, labor, student, and activist groups […] [and] a crowd of 30,000,” and received coverage from newspapers, radio, and television.^[9]

In his diary, Marcos wrote that he, together with members of his Cabinet and staff, finished the preparation of Proclamation 1081 at 8 PM, September 21.

On September 22, 1972, a day after the final speech of Ninoy Aquino, newspapers still came out: they featured the rally held the previous day in Plaza Miranda. Mijares recounted that Marcos was agitated by a statement reported in the Daily Express that if Martial Law were declared, Aquino said he would have to be arrested soon after or he would escape to join the resistance.

The Enrile ambush as pretext for Martial Law

The pretext for Martial Law was provided later in the evening of Friday, September 22, 1972, the convoy of Secretary of Defense Juan Ponce Enrile was ambushed in Wack-Wack as he was on his way home to Dasmariñas Village in Makati before 9 p.m. Enrile recalled his convoy was driving out of Camp Aguinaldo when a car opened fire at his convoy and sped away.

A contrasting account came from Oscar Lopez, who lived along Notre Dame Street, Wack Wack Village, stated that he heard a lot of shooting and that when he went out to see what was happening, he saw an empty car riddled with bullets. Lopez’s driver, who happened to see the incident, narrated that “there was a car that came and stopped beside a Meralco post. Some people got out of the car, and then there was another car that came by beside it and started riddling it with bullets to make it look like it was ambushed.”^[10]

This ambush, as Enrile later revealed in 1986, was staged by Marcos to justify Martial Law.

Marcos, in his diary entry for September 22, 1972 (time-stamped 9:55 p.m.) wrote, “Sec. Juan Ponce Enrile was ambushed near Wack-Wack at about 8:00 pm tonight. It was a good thing he was riding in his security car as a protective measure… This makes the martial law proclamation a necessity.” His diary entry for September 25, 1972 mentions conditions after two days of Martial Law, also indicating martial law in reality is dated to September 23, 1972.

Primitivo Mijares—a former journalist for Marcos who would later write against Marcos and disappear without a trace in 1973—claimed that the Enrile ambush was fake as it was made as the final excuse for Marcos to declare Martial Law.^[11] Mijares also claimed that the ammunition planted by the Presidential Guard Battalion in Digoyo Point, Isabela—which was later confiscated by the Philippine Constabulary on July 5, 1972—was used to connect the ambush with alleged Communist terror attacks.

In the biography of Chino Roces, Vergel Santos questioned the elements of the Enrile ambush: “Why inside a village and not on a public street, and why in that particular village? Possibly for easier stage-managing: the family of Enrile’s sister Irma and her husband, Dr. Victor Potenciano, lived there, in Fordham, the next street in the Potenciano home and got the story straight from him, as officially scripted.”^[12]

September 21 or September 23?

When Marcos appeared on television at 7:15 p.m. on September 23, 1972 to announce that he had placed the “entire Philippines under Martial Law” by virtue of Proclamation No. 1081, he framed his announcement in legalistic terms that were untrue. This helped camouflage the true nature of his act to this day: it was nothing less than a self-coup.

Marcos announced that he had placed the entire country under Martial Law as of 9 p.m. on September 22, 1972 via a proclamation which, he claimed, he’d signed on September 21, 1972.

Yet accounts differ. David Rosenberg, writing in the Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars (“The End of the Freest Press in the World,” Vol. 5, 1973) chronicled that about six hours after the ambush, Marcos signed Proclamation No. 1081, placing the entire country under Martial Law, placing the signing at around 3 a.m. on September 23. Raymond Bonner, in his book Waltzing with the Dictator, narrated his interview with Enrile, during which the former Defense Secretary recalled that he and Acting Executive Secretary Roberto Reyes witnessed Marcos sign Proclamation No. 1081 in the morning of September 23, 1972. The Bangkok Post asserted in a series of articles called “The Aquino Papers,” published from February 20 to 22 of 1973, that Proclamation No. 1081 had been signed even earlier, on September 17, 1972, postdated to September 21. Mijares also mentioned in his book that Marcos said as much in an address to a conference of historians, in January 1973.

Two things emerge: first, whether they conflict or not, all accounts indicate that Marcos’ obsession with numerology (particularly the number seven) necessitated that Proclamation No. 1081 be officially signed on a date that was divisible by seven. Thus, September 21, 1972 became the official date that Martial Law was established and the day that the Marcos dictatorship began. This also allowed Marcos to control history on his own terms.

Day one of the Marcos dictatorship

The second is that the arbitrary date emphasizes that the actual date for Martial Law was not the numerologically-auspicious (for Marcos) 21st, but rather, the moment that Martial Law was put into full effect, which was after the nationwide address of Ferdinand Marcos as far as the nation was concerned: September 23, 1972. By then, personalities considered threats to Marcos (Senators Benigno S. Aquino Jr., Jose Diokno, Francisco Rodrigo and Ramon Mitra Jr., and members of the media such as Joaquin Roces, Teodoro Locsin Sr., Maximo Soliven and Amando Doronila) had already been rounded up, starting with the arrest of Senator Aquino at midnight on September 22, and going into the early morning hours of September 23, when 100 of the 400 personalities targeted for arrest were already detained in Camp Crame by 4 a.m.

In the meantime, the military had shut down mass media, flights were canceled, and incoming overseas calls were prohibited. Press Secretary Francisco Tatad went on air at 3 p.m. of September 23 to read the text of Proclamation No. 1081. The reading of the proclamation was followed by Marcos going on air at 7:15 p.m. to justify the massive clampdown of democratic institutions in the country.

Marcos would subsequently issue General Order No. 1, s. 1972, transferring all powers to the President who was to rule by decree.

[View our infographic: The Day Marcos Declared Martial Law]

The New York Times reported about these events in an article titled “Mass Arrests and Curfew Announced in Philippines; Mass Arrests Ordered in Philippines” in their September 24, 1972 issue. The Daily Express itself announced in its September 24 issue that Marcos had proclaimed martial law the day before, September 23, 1972.

“Never again”

After the declaration and imposition of Martial Law, citizens would still go on to challenge the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 1081. Those arrested filed petitions for habeas corpus with the Supreme Court. But Marcos, who had originally announced that Martial Law would not supersede the 1935 Constitution, engineered the replacement of the constitution with a new one. On March 31, 1973, the Supreme Court issued its final decision in Javellana v. Executive Secretary, which essentially validated the 1973 Constitution. This would be the final legitimizing decision with on the constitutionality of Martial Law: in G.R. No. L-35546 September 17, 1974, the Supreme Court dismissed petitions for habeas corpus by ruling that Martial Law was a political question beyond the jurisdiction of the court; and that, furthermore, the court had already deemed the 1973 Constitution in full force and effect, replacing the 1935 Constitution.

Martial Law would officially end on January 17, 1981 with Proclamation No. 2045. Marcos, however, would reserve decree-making powers for himself.

Today, the 1987 Constitution safeguards our institutions from a repeat of Marcos’ Martial Law regime. The Supreme Court is empowered to review all official acts to determine if there has been grave abuse of discretion. Congress cannot be padlocked. Martial Law is limited in duration and effects, even if contemplated by a president. Section 18 of Article VII of the current Constitution provides:

Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.

The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without any need of a call.

The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.

A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor 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.

‘Martial law victims can still be compensated by other Marcos assets’

by MLC | Jan 25, 2016 | Martial Law Stories

Source: InterAksyon.com

Filipino martial law victims can still be compensated using funds from other ill-gotten assets of the Marcoses after a New York Court of Appeals rejected their claim over a $35 million account with an investment firm.

This was the assertion of lawyer Rodrigo Domingo Jr., who, together with American lawyer Robert Swift represented human rights victims in their class suits against the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos.

Domingo was prompted to make this clarification after the New York Court of Appeals said it would not adjudicate a lawsuit filed by the Marcos human rights victims, as the case remains within the “province of Philippine national sovereignty.”

Human rights victims can still get hold of other Marcos assets, Domingo pointed out. He pointed to $25 million which is still the subject of litigation in a Singapore court, and the pending enforcement of the judgment of Hawaii Judge Manuel Real before the Makati City Regional Trial Court.

The human rights victims had earlier demanded that $35 million from the Marcos estate be turned over to them in accordance with the ruling of Judge Real in 1995. Real said that part of the amount should be taken from Arelma S.A., a Panamanian entity created by the late President Ferdinand Marcos in 1972 with the assistance of businessmen Jose Yao-Campos and Swiss banker Jean Luis Sunier, and which invested $2 million with Merrill Lynch in New York.

Although Domingo also expressed his disappointment over the New York Cour of Appeals ruling, he said that this is just a temporary setback. The dismissal by a US court does not mean that their case is finished, he insisted.

“Other legal remedies are also available,” Domingo said. “The Arelma case is not over, meaning to say, it can be re-filed at the opportune time.”

But he added that the latest ruling leaves the victims and the Philippine government in a stalemate.

“The victims cannot proceed even though they have established their priority to the Marcos funds under New York law, and the Republic cannot recover the Marcos funds without litigating in New York. If the Republic litigates in New York, its claim is likely barred by the statute of limitations, and if the Republic does nothing, the New York Court voiced that it would allow a lawsuit by the victims to proceed,” Domingo said.

For his part, Swift lambasted the Aquino administration for continuing the stance of the previous administration against his clients.

“This administration shares with the Arroyo administration a vindictiveness against the victims of Marcos cruelty. It has never compensated the victims and spends millions of dollars to prevent the victims from receiving compensation. Many of these victims are now old and in poor health. One is left to wonder whether this administration has a moral compass,” Swift’s statement read.