MANILA – At the finish line of the Great Lean Run, organizer Susan Villanueva asked a “bloodied,” muddied, and sweaty participant, “What happened to you?” she replied, “Martial law!”
Participants raise their fist to vow to fight against future threats to democracy. JOJO VITUG
Yes, martial law happened to her. From the reactions of those who joined the fun run, the goals to simulate martial law and to get young people to “experience” its horrors have been achieved.
The Great Lean Run was not the regular fun run. It was a reminder to today’s young people that life was not better during martial law.
But how do you convey that message to those who have never felt the mortal fear and experience of arrest, detention, torture, and summary execution of friends under a dictatorship? What was it like to have no right to life, liberty, or property?
The Samasa Alumni Association, a group of student activists from the 1970s onwards, organized The Great Lean Run Saturday, September 19, the 28th death anniversary of Lean Alejandro, a hero for many of the organizers.
About 1,400 students and non-students joined the run organized to raise funds to build a Lean Alejandro memorial inside the UP campus in Diliman.
What was martial law like?
The Great Lean Run simulated life under martial law: Metropolitan Command (the police group at the time) chased demonstrators (the runners), grabbing their rights (to life, liberty, and property) ribbons; water cannons from fire trucks hosed down protesters because getting together with two other friends meant illegal assembly; and rally-goers avoided the barbed wires.
And to relive the experiences of those who escaped jail for fighting against the corruption and excesses of the Marcos dictatorship, the runners had to climb a wall, cross a creek, and crawl through mud.
Near the end of the course was a tarpaulin facade of Malacañang to commemorate the moment when the Marcos family hurriedly left the Palace, with flag-waving chanters egging them on, “Makibaka, huwag matakot (Struggle, be not afraid)” and other slogans from the era:
“Ang tao, ang bayan, ngayon ay lumalaban. Tibayan ang hanay, gapiin ang kaaway (The people, the nation, are now fighting. Strengthen our ranks, fight the enemy),”
“Iskolar ng bayan, tunay, palaban, makabayan (People’s scholar, true, fighting, and pro-people),”
Before running, the participants went through a warm-up exercise and recited a pledge to fight against a return to a dictatorship. And, near the end of the run, “ang mga anak ng bayan (people’s children)” had their red-blood palm prints taken to represent their “panata (vow)” to fight all forms of oppression.
What are the lessons of martial law?
There was no freedom of assembly during martial law and rallies were often dispersed violently. JOJO VITUG
‘A resounding success’
Middle-aged activists brought their children and ran with them. Dom Danao and Amor Datinguinoo took their teenage daughter Teresa, who gestured “mind-blowing” at the AS Steps, where Abdulmari “Toym” Imao set up his installation of the disappeared. The entire family ran in the dark and “suffered” the course around the University Oval. They all proudly showed off the marks of blood, sweat, and mud they suffered — surviving martial law with a lot of struggle.
A friend of Lean Alejandro, lawyer Roel Pulido, who ran with his wife and daughters, said in his Facebook page:
“To honor a friend, a mentor, and a great leader, my family joined The Great Lean Run. Despite the injury [my daughter] Cesky sustained, we enjoyed this obstacle run. And throughout the run, because my girls were asking how close the obstacles were to reality (the Metrocom chasers, the no man’s land, the barbed wires, the water cannons, and tear gas), we had an opportunity to discuss with them what martial law was really like. Hopefully, they now understand why we say NEVER AGAIN to Martial Law!”
The Great Lean Run participants included students who were not from UP. Pulido had asked his law students from Arellano University to take part in the event.
“These days, young people are far removed from those dark times — and that’s a good thing! But remembering what went on before is key to ensuring that it never happens again,” said Laarni Giron on her Facebook page.
Giron was born during martial law, but by the time she went to college, the Marcoses were already kicked out of the country and she “was already enjoying rights and freedom denied to the generation before me. But back then, the name Lean Alejandro still had meaning: A representation of those who fought and died to end tyranny.”
“The death anniversary of our student leader Lean Alejandro, murdered in broad daylight by forces of the state, is a time of remembering and reliving the evils of martial law, the brutality of authoritarian rule, but most of all, the steadfastness of those who rejected it,” said another activist, Cynthia Allanigue, on her Facebook page.
Who was Lean Alejandro?
Alejandro, who was killed in an ambush during the turbulent early post-Marcos years, was the UP Student Council chairman in 1983. He later left the university to become a leader initially of youth and student groups that flourished at the height of military rule; he later joined national people’s organizations that included workers, farmers, women, indigenous people, and other marginalized sectors of society.
Lean, as he is known, ran and lost to cheating in the first elections organized after the dictator was kicked out of the country in the historic EDSA People Power Revolt of 1986. Despite the overwhelming support from regular folk, he lost the election for congressional district representative of Malabon-Navotas; tricycle drivers organized a mass action at Mendiola to protest his defeat.
Lean was killed shortly after he returned to civil society to continue the fight against military elements who were bent on wresting control from the new government under the late President Corazon Aquino, mother of the current president. Labor leader Rolando “Ka Lando” Olalia was also killed during this time of power struggle.
The event was a “resounding success,” said lawyer Susan Villanueva, Samasa Alumni Association chairperson. And this was because of the three-and-a-half-month preparation, “the tireless organizers, the generous sponsors and donors, the Samasa members, here and abroad, and all the volunteers who went all-out to work for and support the run.”
Samasa members abroad organized their own versions of the run in Jakarta, Bangkok, Tokyo, Geneva, Siem Reap, California, Brooklyn in New York, Connecticut, and Texas. There was also a parallel run in Mindanao.
According to Samasa member lawyer Dennis Gorecho, UP Chancellor Michael Tan wants the event to be an annual “inter-generational” activity and dialogue.
MANILA, Philippines — Former Sen. Francisco “Kit” Tatad still insists that President Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law on September 21, 1972 because of the alarming “communist threat” in the country.
Ferdinand Marcos announcing the declaration of Martial Law on national TV
As he puts it, the communists, through armed struggle, were out to displace the democratic government. We were also in the midst of a “Cold War” and if we were to believe the “domino theory,” communists were out to take over Southeast Asia.
Kit, as he was popularly known even then, was also Mr. Marcos’ information minister during the martial law years. He says he learned that the President was serious in imposing martial law only a few days before Mr. Marcos indeed signed Proclamation 1081. The decision to proclaim martial law was then the sole authority of the commander-in-chief.
“It’s not that Marcos was planning (martial law). It’s the fact that the objective situation would require a solution and what was the solution available if you were studying the Constitution,” he says.
For one, Mr. Marcos had already suspended the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus after the August 1971 Plaza Miranda bombing, which the regime blamed on the communists, although the grenade blasts targeted the opposition Liberal Party’s political rally. Three months later, the opposition won a majority of the Senate seats. Only two Marcos candidates were elected.
In early June 1971, a Constitutional Convention, or “Con-con,” was convened to replace the 1935 charter, which would have barred Mr. Marcos from seeking another four-year term.
Tatad is quite candid in his recollection.
“I was in the Cabinet, and who would oppose martial law — unless you are on the other side,” says Tatad, a diplomatic reporter for the Manila Bulletin, who at 29, was asked by Mr. Marcos to be his press secretary in 1969, the year he won a second term.
Tatad eventually resigned in 1981, the year Mr. Marcos lifted martial law while retaining its extra-legal and arbitrary powers, including the unwarranted arrests and continued detention of persons suspected of subversion or rebellion.
Tatad confides that it was a decision made by the strongman shortly before the Pope visited the country. By that time, there was already international outrage against Mr. Marcos’ strongman rule.
At first, Tatad maintained that being a journalist by training, he believed then that “we see things coming, so we write. “ And that was his analysis of the situation then.
Yet when prodded on why he eventually resigned, despite being the face that announced the promulgation of martial law, he later conceded that he felt there was, indeed, an abuse of power, not only by Mr. Marcos but more so by his subalterns.
‘Dramatic and sweeping’ changes
If one were to believe Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, then Mr. Marcos’ defense chief, martial law “brought sweeping and dramatic changes.”
As he later wrote in his memoir, “as soon as it became clear to the general public that the country was under martial rule, law and order was restored to a great extent. People became more disciplined, peaceful and orderly. Their neighborhood and streets were safe. The citizenry worked together to clean their communities.”
He added in his book: “Political noises and wrangling were dissipated. Rallies and demonstrations disappeared from the street. Congress was closed. Schools, colleges and universities were also initially closed right after the declaration of martial law but after a month, classes resumed except in a number of colleges and universities. The radio airlines and television broadcasts were cleared of the incendiary and bombastic attacks of commentators. They were silenced.”
Not long after martial law was imposed, Enrile claimed that the economy had stabilized and flourished. The crime rate, he said, was almost zero. He even cited a US report — which obviously provided Mr. Marcos the much-needed backing from Washington — as Sen. Mike Mansfield submitted a report to the US Senate that despite media censorship, martial law was maintained “through the tradition of and training in civilian supremacy that the President maintains control over the military.”
Indeed, the defense chief was a civilian and martial law was maintained by the regular armed services standing in reserve. The military was reportedly “directly and heavily engaged only in the southern islands against the Moros. These tribal Moslems provide the principal resistance to the edict calling for a turn-in of weapons.”
‘Ambush staged’ version later denied
But it was also Enrile who would later claim that his ambush, which triggered the imposition of martial law, was a staged one. He made the confession to the nation when he defected along with Ramos on the night of Feb. 22, 1986, four days before the Marcoses fled the country and Corazon Aquino was swept to power.
However, Enrile, in his recent memoir, retracted this, saying this was the “ridiculous and preposterous” handiwork of his political enemies. “What would I have faked my ambush for? When it happened, the military operation to impose martial law was already going on,” he wrote.
According to Enrile, Mr. Marcos waited for Congress to adjourn sine die on Friday, September 22 before he actually acted on his proclamation. He wanted to avoid any resistance from lawmakers.
On that day, Enrile had already delivered Proclamation 1081 and all the General Orders and Letters of Instructions to military leaders when, he claimed, unidentified gunmen fired at his convoy while driving through the posh Wack-Wack subdivision.
He also pointed out, “I honestly did not know why Marcos suddenly decided to cite my ambush in justifying the declaration of martial law when he made his public statement on September 23. There was absolutely no need for it.”
The ‘New Society’
While Enrile painted a rosy picture of the “New Society” in his memoir, retired Navy Captain Dan Vizmanos wrote in his “Martial Law Diary” that when he heard that the defense chief was ambushed, “it was already ominous and made me feel uneasy.”
Before this incident, he said he had “already arrived at the conclusion that the rash of bombings and ‘discovered bombs and explosives’ in Greater Manila Area were all stage-managed by the Marcos regime as a prelude to martial law.”
Vizmanos, one of the few military officers who later figured in mass anti-dictatorship rallies, noted how the police and military troops rounded up thousands of people — lawmakers, student activists, journalists and church personalities — “and just about anybody who had a mind of his own whose face was not particularly attractive to the martial law authorities.”
By January of 1973, he said that the New Year had already brought about a new way of life for the people and Mr. Marcos’ “New Society.”
Never in the country’s history, he recalled, “have there been so many decent Filipinos in confinement and behind bars.” Likewise, “never in our history” have fugitives been hunted by the PC and AFP intelligence and special units all over the country. “They have become fugitives because they dared express their conviction (a crime under the New Society!) at the risk of their lives.”
Vizmanos said he decided to publish his diary because today’s generation hardly knows anything about the Marcos dictatorship and what really happened during the martial law years.
“While many of them are now active in people’s organizations, the majority remains apolitical and concerned with an alarming revival of excesses and abuses of the ‘New Society’ that was supposed to have disappeared with the downfall of the ‘conjugal dictatorship’,” he said.
He also lamented how “acute amnesia” applied to former activists who had become active collaborators of a “decadent” system and establishment they struggled against once upon a time.
What communist threat?
Now looking back, veteran political activist Linggoy Alcuaz says he had doubted from the start that the communist threat was the reason behind Mr. Marcos’ move.
True, in 1968 Jose Maria Sison, the founding chairman of the Kabataang Makabayan, a militant student group, organized the Communist Party of the Philippines or CPP, as a breakaway group from the old Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP), whose leaders were already mostly in prison.
A year later, the CPP forged an alliance with remnants of the old Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (HMB), the military arm of the PKP and renamed it the New People’s Army (NPA).
Mr. Marcos’ 1969 victory was by then also already tainted with alleged fraud, and his administration was being branded as corrupt.
By January 1970, radical and moderate student groups began a series of mass actions protesting the inclusion of politicians in the forthcoming Constitutional Convention; and more telling, a constitutional provision that was then being considered that would allow the incumbent President to run a third term. The so-called “Battle of Mendiola” was fought when students overran a military blockade and rammed a commandeered fire truck against the gates of the Malacanang Palace. The bloody episode triggered a wave of student protests known as the “first Quarter Storm.”
Alcuaz, who then belonged to the so-called “moderates,” says the communist rebels were small in number then, and putting order in the country wasn’t really the agenda of a President who was becoming unpopular to his people. Even if the Charter were amended to allow Mr. Marcos to seek another term, there was a strong possibility that he would lose.
In January 1972, Constitutional Convention delegate Eduardo Quintero exposed Mr. Marcos’ alleged bribery attempt of delegates. He alleged that the President had been giving other “Con-con” delegates money to vote against a resolution which would bar him from running for a third term and his relatives from seeking the presidency.
In fact, Alcuaz recalls that shortly before martial law was declared, he resigned as chair of the Kapisanan ng mga Sandigan ng Pilipinas (Kasapi) to focus on his work with the Kapisanan ng mga Anakpawis ng Pilipinas, which was actually a political party and a possible “third force” that would field — or support — a presidential candidate.
According to Alcuaz, they believed then that even Mr. Marcos was convinced that it would be difficult to field his wife Imelda Marcos as his possible successor if elections were held in 1973. Mr. Marcos’ arch nemesis then was the popular, but outspoken opposition Sen. Benigno Aquino, the one man who would remain a thorn in his side for years, even hounding him out of power three years after his assassination would unleash nonstop protests.
But while Mr. Marcos’ martial law plot was already topping the headlines, Alcuaz says he was one of those activists who never really took it seriously. The President used the communist bogey for his political offensive and no one was persuaded by this argument.
Weeks before imposing martial law, Mr. Marcos had begun chiding Aquino for his alleged unholy alliance with communist leaders and he used this to justify the opposition leader’s arrest during a crackdown on political dissenters.
‘Marcos had lied from the start’
For veteran journalist-lawyer Manuel F. Almario, Marcos had lied to the people since the day he became president. As he puts it, “He was very ambitious, wanting to be president forever. That’s how he went wrong. He had no idea on how to run this country and where he was going.”
When Marcos defeated then President Diosdado Macapagal in the 1965 election, the country’s foreign debt was merely US7 billion. But when he fled the country after 21 years in power, including 14 year of strongman rule, on widespread allegations of plundering the national coffers, the country’s foreign debt had ballooned to US$25 billion.
“The economy appeared to have improved because he was borrowing from the World Bank so he had money to show, “says Almario, editor of the independent Philippine News Service when the strongman clamped down on all media networks in 1972. He was arrested after military authorities sequestered the PNS, which was later renamed Philippine News Agency to become part of the government information network.
In 1969, Mr. Marcos was the first Philippine president to win with a great majority of votes for a second term, but amid charges by the opposition that he was reelected because he spent government money for his campaign.
His inauguration in January the next year was marred by the first massive student demonstration in front of the old Congress building. As an emerging fiscal crisis cast a shadow on the country, Mr. Marcos was accused of having bankrupted the government. Prices were soaring and there was trouble in the streets.
Two months before the declaration of martial law in 1972, Almario wrote the cover story for the special edition of Weekly Graphic, a hard-hitting magazine, warning that if Marcos declared martial law he would be going against the Constitution.
The 1935 Constitution states that the President can declare martial law only in cases of rebellion, insurrection or invasion or imminent danger thereof.
But as early as February 1972, Manila Chronicle editor Amante Paredes had already come out with a front-page story quoting high-level sources on Marcos’ plan to impose martial rule to perpetuate himself in power.
That was also the time when Marcos heightened his anti-communist propaganda, accusing his opponents of conniving with the underground rebels to oust his government.
“But he (Mr. Marcos) was a smart lawyer and he said the country is facing a communist rebellion and a Muslim armed secession in the south,” says Almario. “When you want to impose dictatorship, you’re going to lie to the people and tell them that they are going to get peace and order, justice, economic progress.”
Marcos arrested alleged warlords, and Almario recalled having joined in his cell at Camp Crame, the strongman’s influential provincemate Roque Ablan and Moises Espinosa of Masbate.
“But that’s [arrest of warlords and strong local leaders] only for show, and he freed them afterwards when people believed that he was sincere,” he says. The two men, Roque and Espinosa, became his trusted political allies in the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan, the monolithic party that he organized after the Charter was amended, allowing him to run in a new parliamentary system of government.
Martial law is gone, long live its legacy
What puzzles — and bothers — Almario is the way his successors continued to enforce Mr. Marcos’ repressive decrees and order despite his “totally destructive” legacy to the country, and all the while denouncing martial law with vows of “Never again.” How, indeed, can a proclamation be disowned yet its legacy and trappings embraced?
For instance, Almario notes that it was Mr. Marcos who organized the barangays so that he could launch a fake plebiscite to approve the new Constitution. “There was no more freedom at the [constitutional] convention to do what they wanted because Marcos had already declared martial law,” says Almario.
Ironically, the convention was headed by Macapagal, the former president he defeated. Macapagal would later submit the newly approved charter to Mr. Marcos, who then called for the mandated plebiscite for its ratification in January 1973.
There was no secret balloting held. Instead Mr. Marcos organized assemblies that he called “barangays” to ratify the new charter.
Only 3 percent of the barangays reportedly opposed the new charter, which also contained a provision allowing Mr. Marcos to rule by decrees. It was a transitory provision Mr. Marcos enforced until 1981, the year he supposedly lifted martial law.
Apart from The barangay system, Almario notes how Mr. Marcos’ Presidential Decree 1877 — or the Budget Reform Act of 1977, continues to hound the bureaucratic system.
From being mere line item budgeting under the old Commonwealth Act, PD 1877 included “lump sum allocation in the budget for the different branches of government. His successors maintained such system, which now justified the controversial practice of the “pork barrel” scheme in the national budget.
“It is already included there what would be given lump sum to each lawmaker. But if you are not doing what he wants you to do, he will withhold the lump sum,” says Almario. In that way, the President held control over the country’s lawmakers. It’s a legacy continued, and refined by predecessors up until the present.
Besides controlling Congress by impounding budgets, Mr. Marcos could arrest anybody without any warrant.
‘Oplan Sagittarius’
Ninoy Aquino exposed Oplan Sagittarius, the alleged master plan of a “multi-faceted” operation for the declaration of martial law. It allegedly provided the legal basis for Proclamation 1081 by enumerating the conditions and situations that made martial law necessary. That expose, which made the cover story of the Philippines Free Press, put Ninoy even more surely in the crosshairs of the dictator’s minions.
Using the information leaked to him by friends in the senate, Aquino disclosed in a privilege speech on September 13, 1972 that he received a top-secret military plan given by Mr. Marcos himself to place Metro Manila and outlying areas under control of the Philippine Constabulary as a prelude to martial law.
Mr. Marcos was going to use the bombings, including the Plaza Miranda incident, as a justification for this takeover and eventual authoritarian rule.
Primitivo Mijares, a journalist and one-time trusted Marcos aide, later wrote in his book “The Conjugal Dictatorship” that when the plan to impose martial law was finalized he distributed copies to high ranking military officials and heads of the intelligence community in sealed envelopes. As a security precaution, he assigned different zodiac code-names to the copies he handed to each of the would-be martial law enforcers.
The copy code-named “Sagittarius” reportedly went to Gen. Marcos Soliman, the chief of the National Intelligence Agency. It turned out that the military officers were not aware of the zodiac codes so it was “easy and convenient” then to pinpoint Soliman as Aquino’s source, he said.
Mijares also cited a tragic postscript to the leakage of Soliman’s copy to the opposition senator. A few days after the declaration of martial law, Soliman was reported to the media as having died of a heart attack. But according to Mijares, “the truth is that he was shot dead by Metrocom troopers personally dispatched by President Marcos to arrest and detain him at Camp Crame for ‘tactical interrogation’ for the leakage of ‘Oplan Sagittarius.’”
He said that Mr. Marcos never issued a message of condolence to the family of General Soliman, who was denied military honors.
Mijares himself later fled the country and sought political asylum in the United States after a falling out with the strongman. After writing his book, he disappeared and was believed killed by military agents, with one version saying he was thrown out from an airplane.
A logical conclusion
Today, it is not surprising that many political leaders continue to capitalize on or hype the political stigma of Mr. Marcos, even if they were never involved in the political struggle during the martial law years.
For instance, Senate President Franklin Drilon says that after he passed the Bar in 1970, he concentrated on his law practice all through the years the country was under martial law. He also never thought of entering politics under an authoritarian regime.
But after seeing the ills of martial law, he agrees that “never again” should political leaders impose it.
Tatad, on the other hand, doubts if martial law can still be imposed by a president, given that the 1987 Constitution, with its strong Bill of Rights, allows Congress to stop any authoritarian attempt at government by declaring martial law.
Satur Ocampo, a business journalist who went underground during martial law, was arrested and tortured, then became lawmaker post-EDSA, stresses that with its repressive character, martial law cannot be used as excuse for political changes.
He decries Marcos’s failure to carry out long-term reforms, whether in economic policies or governance, as he had promised in his “New Society.”
“[The] net effect [of this is that he gave] authority over life and death [to the] military and the police. They could pick up people, detain them, torture them and nobody was made to account for it,” he says. Ocampo laments that military and police impunity exists until now that the government has restored our basic rights.
Like Alcuaz and Almario, Ocampo is certain the communist threat could not have been an excuse for declaring martial law, since the communist movement was still in the organizing stages in some areas in the country when martial law was declared.
Ocampo admits that he was already “semi-underground” after he quit his job as business editor of the Manila Bulletin and joined the underground movement with his wife, journalist Carolina Malay, right after Marcos suspended the Writ.
He says like most militant activists, they feared that Marcos would use the suspension of the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus to start cracking down on political dissenters. They were not mistaken.
He says that while there was a seeming political lull during the martial law years, it was the underground movement’s network and the countryside resistance that sustained the anti-dictatorship struggle.
Ocampo asserts that it was the political Left that played a key role in the political resistance against Marcos’s strongman rule even before the 1983 Benigno Aquino assassination which triggered public outrage that led to the strongman’s downfall three years later.
Nevertheless, Ocampo says it remains on record that over 70,000 people experienced being arrested and the strongman regime was marked by unabated human rights abuses during the dark days of martial law. “So for those who have experienced martial law, I don’t think they can forget what had happened,” he says.
The brutal heel and the iron fist of martial law may indeed never be forgotten, but its other legacies, and its crucial lessons of governance are obviously very much around, seamlessly woven into the national fabric like some plague. One only has to recall how every branch of government can be easily corrupted, as seen in the pork barrel imbroglio, to know this to be true. Martial law as a proclamation is dead, but after 41 years, its legacy lives.
MANILA – Vice-presidential aspirant and Senator Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos Jr. on Thursday said bringing closure to the injustices committed during the reign of his father, the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos, is out of his hands.
Asked if he is willing to apologize on behalf of his father and family, the younger Marcos said: ”Wala sa kamay ko na magbigay ng closure na sinasabi ko. It is not within my power, it is not within my means to do that. That’s why I cannot…”
Marcos said he would apologize if he did something wrong.
”Naiintindihan ko na people are looking for closure, but to provide that closure is not within my hands. Wala sa akin yun eh, hindi ko kayang ibigay sa iyo yun eh,” he said.
”Kung meron akong ginawang pagkakamali, halimbawa meron tayong inimplementa na bagay, polisiya na inilagay na mali, eh ‘di syempre, basta’t ako ay nagkamali, meron akong sinaktan o may nahirapan sa aking ginawa, eh siyempre ako ay mag-aapologize.”
Asked if there is anyone in his family who should apologize, he said: “Ang sabi nila, ang aking ama. E sino pa ang mag-aano? Mayroon silang sinasabi sa aking ina, I don’t know kung yan ang hinahabol…”
The younger Marcos has been criticized for not apologizing on behalf of his father.
Asked whether he should apologize just like how the German and Japanese governments have apologized for the atrocities committed during the Second World War, Marcos said:
”The examples you gave, these are government officials apologizing for state policies. The things that my father is being accused of, wala namang state policy na ganoon. If people were hurt, that was never the intention. If there were people who were left behind, that was not the intention. For example, the killing of the Jews was precisely the [state’s] intention. That’s the difference with what we’re talking about.”
Marcos acknowledged that human rights violations were indeed committed during his father’s time, but he said whether his father made it a policy to commit atrocities is a different matter.
He noted that during his father’s time, the Philippine government was fighting the secessionist movement in the south and the communist uprising in the countryside. Thus, humans rights abuses could not have been avoided, he said.
”Iyung mga napagkatiwalaan na di dapat pagkatiwalaan, di nila ipinatupad ang mga bagay na gagawin nila…Mayroon talagang nag-abuso, iyung mga sundalong may ginulpi, nangyayari iyon,” he said.
”Hindi naman national policy ang pinag-uusapan. Hindi naman sinasabi gingawa ito para manakit ng tao. Hindi inasahang pangyayari iyan. Nobody wants that, wala namang may gusto niyan eh.”
The Marcos family has long been dogged by accusations the dictator oversaw massive human rights abuses and plundered billions of dollars from state coffers until a famous “people power” revolt toppled him from power in 1986.
But after the Marcos patriarch died in exile in Hawaii in 1989, the family returned to the country in 1991 and began a successful political comeback, culminating in Bongbong Marcos getting elected to the Senate in 2010.
‘HINDI AKO ANG AKING NAKARAAN’
During the interview, Marcos again emphasized his message that the Filipino people should “move on from the past” so that the country can move forward.
This is the message in his series of campaign ads with the slogan: “Hindi ako ang aking nakaraan (I am not my past).”
he TV ad shows different people, including a swimmer with one leg, and a fisherman who lost his boat, rising above their limitations or hardship.
“Tayong lahat, kahit nahirapan tayo sa nakaraan, kahit tayo ay minalas sa nakaraan, huwag nating pababayaan na hanggang doon na lang tayo. Ipagpatuloy pa rin natin ang pagsisikap,” Marcos explained.
Asked if the ad is meant to tell people to forget martial law atrocities, he said: “Not specifically.”
“Ang sinasabi ko, lahat ng tao may pinagdaanan na kahirapan. May kasabihan nga: ‘Into every life a little rain must fall.’ Pero huwag nating pababayaan na yun na ang, hanggang doon na lang tayo,” he said.
Progresibong Bukas… Isalubong!Like and Share www.facebook.com/bongbongmarcosHindi ikaw ang nakaraan. Tayo ang bukas! #ProgresibongBukas #BongbongMarcos #BBM2016
Bongbong’s past has not stopped his rise in pre-election surveys.
In the latest Social Weather Stations (SWS) January 2016 survey, Marcos was statistically tied with consistent front runner, Senator Francis Escudero.
Escudero got 28% voter support in the latest survey, down from 30% in December. On the other hand, Marcos’ numbers improved from 19% in December 2015 to 25% in January, or an uptick of six percentage points.
Liberal Party vice-presidential bet Leni Robredo is third in the race with 17%, down from 19% in December.
She is followed by Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano (14%), Sen. Gringo Honasan (14%), and Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV (3%). With Agence France-Presse
‘Mission creep is usually considered undesirable due to the dangerous path of each success breeding more ambitious attempts, only stopping when a final, often catastrophic, failure occurs’
Dear Senators Marcos and Enrile:
Please help me? I cannot decide whether what you said about martial law is part of mission creep or merely predictable self-serving claptrap.
Wikipedia defines mission creep as “the expansion of a project or mission beyond its original goals, often after initial successes.” Mission creep is usually considered undesirable due to the dangerous path of each success breeding more ambitious attempts, only stopping when a final, often catastrophic, failure occurs.
The term was originally applied exclusively to military operations, but has recently been applied to many different fields. An example of a non-military mission creep is rehabilitating your father’s or your own reputations to such an extent so that former President Marcos and Sen Juan Ponce Enrile actually end up the good guys where Martial Law is concerned.
And what might the “final, often catastrophic failure” mean at this point?
Sen Marcos, the symbolic one would be your father’s being buried at the Libingan ng Mga Bayani. Alas for us, Sen Enrile, your having been voted senator and misrepresented as the hero of the Corona trial have already happened.
The actual tragedy, however, is yet to come and only should your mission creep be completely successful: convincing younger Filipinos that the so-called brutality during Martial Law was a gross exaggeration, perhaps even concocted by their elders to appear more heroic.
For Marcos
I think I understand why you posted what you did on your Facebook page on Sept 21, 2012. Among other things, I considered it an appeal to not taint you with the same brush as we did/do your father.
You are right in the sense that you were only 15 years old at the time Martial law was proclaimed. However, at the time your family and hangers on fled to Hawaii, you were already 29, certainly old enough (by at least 11 years) to take responsibility for your own actions.
You have a wonderful way of expressing yourself, Sen Marcos, which together with your use of irony, actually makes your post an engaging read.
However, 3 parts of your posting were particularly distasteful.
The first was your saying, “Martial law…was neither ‘a bed of roses nor a bed of nails.'” Talk about understatement; the most glaring being that it was not the same people that smelled the roses and suffered through the nails.
For your father, mother, siblings and your family’s cronies, life was a bed of roses. For the rest of the country, life was a bed of nails, not to mention unremitting rape, electric wires attached to one’s genitals and worse. Take the late Monico Atienza, an exceptional UP professor and nationalist, who was never the same after the torture he suffered from Sen Enrile’s soldiers.
The second was the part about moving on. The thing is, Sen Marcos, it is difficult to move on when we can see you, Congresswoman Imelda Marcos, Governor Imee Marcos, and Senator Enrile still enjoying the same privileges (and possibly abuses) that you all did, while others have memories of their children, parents, and comrades still battered, bruised, if not buried six feet under, for no other reason than that they fought against Martial Law.
The astute actress Angelina Kanapi said it best: “Move on? What am I, a vehicle?” We have hearts and mind, and memories, Sen Marcos, and while it might even be our preference to be able to “move on” in the way you want us to, never ever will we be able to — unless you and the others who colluded with your dad, admit what really happened. Returning the money your family squirreled away during that time might also make it easier for us.
The third is your characterization of claims of human rights abuses during martial law as “self-serving statements by politicians, self-aggrandizement narratives, pompous declarations, and political posturing and propaganda.”
I agree 100% with former party-list Congressman Satur Ocampo that in doing so, you are “insulting the victims.” In your own small way, you are joining the ranks of David Irving and others, denying the great crimes of the 20th Century like the Holocaust.
For Enrile
Sen Enrile: you, on the other hand, are an entirely different kettle of fish.
The Manila Times reports: “ Recalling the declaration of martial law 40 years ago, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile said on Friday that it was a time the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos brought positive physical developments for the Philippines.
Enrile cited electrification and massive infrastructure programs that saw the development of major road networks, the north and south expressways, bridges, airports, and harbor facilities as among the positive undertakings of the Marcos administration.
It beggars belief that one so intelligent (as your memoir points out again, and again…and again) should even try such a rationalization.
Adlai Stevenson gave you the perfect answer to your hollow rationalization: “In the tragic days of Mussolini, the trains in Italy ran on time as never before and I am told in their way, their horrible way, that the Nazi concentration-camp system in Germany was a model of horrible efficiency. The really basic thing in government is policy. Bad administration, to be sure, can destroy good policy, but good administration can never save bad policy.”
Or, put more eloquently and much closer to home and thus the bone, here is “consti192” commenting after reading “The ghosts of martial law” by author, professor, and nationalist Nathan Gilbert Quimpo:
“Amazing how people consider Marcos a great president because ‘the country was better off. That’s the kind of ignorance that stemmed from:
1. Ignoring that we were only better off in relation to the third Republic and the laws that made us overly dependent on US assistance.
2. Without realizing that the number of infrastructure built was mainly from borrowed money, which eventually hit us back when the US demanded the money back, only to realize we can’t pay them because Marcos and his cronies stole them.
3. ‘Progress’ is good, even if it means the sacrifice of thousands of people’s lives and the suppression of every Filipino’s dignity and right to freedom……if you want to believe the propaganda, the statements of loyalists like Bongbong, then go ahead, live in your fantasy world that spits and insults those that have fought and died for the sake of the very right that we can use our computers to express our opinion.”
Fiction writing
Phil Cruz, who commented in a rappler.com article, says: “So there he goes again trying to rewrite history just as the Marcoses are trying to do. This is Enrile’s last train.”
“But how can people not be skeptical about his truth? He has been known to twist and turn with every whiff of the political wind. A man so desperate to leave a proper legacy in the country’s history books…but is obviously afraid to leave it to historians to write about.
“But the Enrile history is not yet finished. He still has several more years as a senator. But already his recent verbal joust with Senator Trillanes on the CamSur and China issues has left him scarred again. Maybe after he is finally through with his Senate duties, there will be a Book 2 of his memoirs to update and again ‘correct’ history from his perspective.”
And why not? Especially since Filipino readers often complain we don’t publish enough fiction.
Loretta Rosales: ‘It is their obligation to uphold the law as they are in Congress. Why would they not comply with the court’s decision when the State has already recognized its responsibility to the victims?
UPHOLD THE LAW. Martial law victims to file class suit vs Senator Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos and Representative Imelda Marcos, in an attempt to enforce the Hawaii court ruling citing them in contempt.
MANILA, Philippines – A group of Martial Law victims is set to file on Wednesday, July 1, a class suit against Senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. and his mother Ilocos Norte 2nd district Representative Imelda Marcos before the Makati City Regional Trial Court.
The organization Claimants 1081 said the lawsuit would help enforce the Hawaii court ruling that cited the two Marcoses in contempt for refusing to pay compensatory damages amounting to US$353.6 million, after they ignored the original US judgment of US$2 billion for 9,539 human rights victims.
“The lawsuit against Rep. Imelda R. Marcos and Senator Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. is singularly significant because it magnifies in perspective the total arrogance of the Marcos family in its historical denial of the gross violations of human rights committed by Ferdinand Marcos under martial law,” Claimants 1081 said in a statement.
The group also cited Republic Act 10368 or the Recognition and Reparation of Martial Law Victims Act, which was passed in 2013, saying both Marcoses, as members of Congress during the time, should follow the law.
RA 10368 recognizes the government’s culpability in committing gross violations of human rights under martial law and the responsibility to provide monetary and non-monetary compensation to victims.
“It is their obligation to uphold the law as they are in Congress when RA 10368 was approved. Why would they not comply with the Court’s decision when the State has already recognized its responsibility to the victims?” Loretta Rosales, chairperson of the group, said.
The Marcos dictatorship is accused of massive human rights violations and corruption. The late president Ferdinand Marcos was ousted in a peaceful revolt in February 1986.
Senator Bongbong Marcos says widespread allegations of corruption and human rights abuse during his father’s regime are not election issues
MANILA, Philippines – “We are here to serve. That has always been the culture in my family.”
Senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr said his vice presidential bid is in line with his family’s “culture of service” as he again dismissed the atrocities committed under the dictatorship of his father, former president Ferdinand Marcos.
In his first public appearance since announcing his 2016 campaign, Marcos attended a press forum on Wednesday, October 7, where he said his family name will help him vie for the Philippines’ second highest position. He said widespread allegations of corruption and human rights abuse during his father’s regime are not election issues.
“Many cases have been brought to court here and in the US. But if you talk to people, they are not concerned about that. Filipinos are concerned about their lives today. They want answers: ‘Why are there drugs in our streets? Why is the crime rate going up at an alarming rate? Why is the educational sector miserable? Why is distribution of wealth not happening? Why is the government not doing anything?’”
He added: “This is what people are worried about, and that’s what I will address.”
Marcos, 58, announced his independent candidacy through a statement on Monday.
He is one of 5 vice presidential bets so far in the May 2016 polls, an unpredictable, crowded election he described as the “strangest” he has seen in his 26 years in government.
His vice presidential bid signals the increasing political stock of the Marcos family after the late strongman was ousted in a peaceful uprising in 1986. The family went into exile in Hawaii but have since reclaimed power. Former First Lady Imelda Marcos is a representative of Ilocos Norte, while daughter Imee is governor of the province.
The lawmaker admitted that his mother was eyeing another post for him.
“My mother is disappointed. She wanted me to be president since I was 3.”
Marcos though said that he decided to seek the vice presidency because the Aquino administration was against his family.
“Anything we do will be opposed as policy by this administration. The time is just not right to run for president this time. The presidency and even the vice presidency are a question of destiny. We do all we can to hopefully gain some advantage when it comes to the elections but destiny will tell you. It is that that is the voice of wisdom I hear,” Marcos said.
Asked about his family’s ill-gotten wealth and crimes, Marcos said his focus is public service.
“What happened in 1986 happened already. These things have already been decided. To analyze it belongs to those historical scholars. But I am not a historical analyst. I am a public servant. All I look at is what people want from their public servants. It’s very simple: leadership, a plan, a program, policies to improve their lives.”
Marcos decided to forego another Senate term to risk running for higher office. “I won’t run if I thought I had no chance of winning.”
He said family and friends will help finance his campaign.
VICE PRESIDENTIAL BID. Senator Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos Jr says Filipinos are more concerned about current problems and these are what he would address, in a forum on October 7, 2015. Photo by Jansen Romero/Rappler
‘Government has no vision’
Marcos said his leadership will aim to address the shortcomings of the Aquino administration while bringing back the programs of his father, and his own initiatives as former governor of Ilocos Norte.
He blasted the partisan politics of the administration.
“We have suffered from a lack of leadership and vision. No one says what is his or her view of the next 5 years. In 10 years, this sector should have this achievement. The merits of a program do not count for anything. It’s all about if this person is my party mate, I will get him or her. If he or she is not an ally, even if the idea is good, nevermind,” he said.
“Politics has its place but the duty to the country should overshadow other concerns,” he added.
Marcos said if he wins as vice president, he will focus on agriculture, as he and his father have done.
“I quote the simple statistic that irrigable areas in the Philippines in 2015 are smaller than in 1986. Since 1986, there was no additional area for irrigation. Those that were destroyed were not fixed. That’s why we cannot attain self-sufficiency in rice. Agriculture, to me, is very important,” he said.
The senator said he will also boost tourism in the same way he promoted his province.
“Tourism is an industry we can do very well in but the infrastructure that will help has not been available. We are stuck at 4.3 million tourists every year, not 10 million because our airports, ports cannot take more and we have not done anything to encourage tourism,” Marcos said.
He also plans to harness wind power and renewable energy to help address the shortage in Mindanao and Visayas.
Marcos said the Aquino government failed to address basic issues like the drug problem, and the notorious traffic in Metro Manila, proclaimed in recent surveys as the worst in the world.
“There is an estimate we are losing P2.4 billion ($51.74 million) every day because of the bad traffic. Not any country can afford throwing away that money for no good reason. That’s because there is no clear plan for the mass transit system. The answer there is the mass transit system,” he said.
‘Lower tax rates’
Marcos also clashed with the Aquino administration’s position on lowering tax rates.
Unlike administration standard-bearer Manuel “Mar” Roxas II, Marcos joined opposition leader Vice President Jejomar Binay and independent Senator Grace Poe in supporting tax cuts.
Marcos said the government’s tax policy was focused on collection instead of crafting a coherent program incorporating investments.
“The tax policy as we have it now has no central principle, rationale behind it except to collect, collect, collect. It’s like it’s in blinders. They do not consider the effect on the economy, the future, different sectors. All we’re left with is to push a lowering of the tax rates. I hope the government comes to its senses,” he said.
“Being a Marcos gave me an advantage I would not have if I were not a Marcos. People are kind to me. I grew up into a privileged childhood because I was able to go to the best schools and now I have been able to enter politics. I enjoy the support of many people as a Marcos,” he said.
“All of this is clear to me it was a lucky thing for me to be born a Marcos.”
