BACKBENCHER
Rod P. Kapunan
9/22-23/2012
(An excerpt from the author's forthcoming book)
Had it not for our misplaced values and oblique perceptions of things, Mrs. Marcos would be right in saying that the declaration of martial law by her late husband, Ferdinand E. Marcos, was his greatest political act as President. It could have been his greatest heroism, for then he acted to save the republic from being violently fragmented by an ideology determined to overthrow the constitutionally established government. Positively looking at that fateful decision, maybe in that sense Mrs. Marcos was right. It was an ultimate act of self-defense, for often the painful process connotes a degree of suppression to those who purposely sought to realize their objective outside the parameter of a peaceful process.
Many historians judged martial law not on the basis how it was successfully enforced to restore order, but often misjudged it on the basis that it exacted a price on the liberties of the people. Those who opposed Marcos judged him not for why he imposed it, but for the drastic measures to precisely deal with the national emergency. From that angle, Marcos is viewed negatively. The ratio decidendi why in the first place martial law was conceived as a constitutional and a valid defense is short-circuited by the cry of suppression without reexamining the nobility it sought to achieve. Having succeeded in negatively depicting martial law, Marcos, for all his heroism in wanting to preserve the Republic he presided, was demonized.
From a philosophical standpoint, the declaration of martial law deserves to be given a priori and apriori reexamination. It is only by understanding what led to its imposition could we, as a nation, judge that (un)historic action whether Marcos stands to be glorified or to be condemned permanently by history. It is most excruciating for one who was affected to detach himself from the person or to judge history with the end view of giving premium to the commonweal. by standing on higher ground could we visualize the events beyond the vistas of recrimination, detached from that dilemma of either to praise or condemn him. In that sense, we also liberate ourselves from the encapsulated bias of what happened.
First, we condemn Marcos for his decision to declare martial law without us knowing the circumstances that led him to impose it. For that, we tend to judge martial law as arbitrary and capricious, and not a necessary and defensive legal mechanism of the State.
Second, we tend to judge the effects of martial law on a personal basis, like how it affected us individually, and not from a collective point of view that it will do good to restore tranquility in our society.
Third, we tend to equate his decision as personally motivated, and not as an exacting duty reposed upon him as commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces.
Fourth, we tend to ignore that martial law constitutionally mandated the President to exercise that emergency power.
Fifth, being an extreme exercise of power for the defense of the State, we often fail to balance between its positive and negative effects to our people and to our society.
Sixth, since martial law was bound to affect people who sought to have it declared, paradoxically, they should have anticipated the high price for their participation.
On the first issue, many of us condemned Marcos for imposing martial law on September 21, 1972, than in asking whether there were valid grounds that compelled him to impose it. Such question is crucial because the circumstances that led to its declaration remain irrefutable; that martial law was used to save the republic. It was rebellion and subversion that they conceived, and "not a tea party or a picnic" as Mao Zedong would succinctly put it. For the State or for the Marcoses to accede to their demand for compensation is to admit that martial law was, at the outset, wrong and unconstitutional.
Martial law is an emergency political instrument used to surgically remove the abscess that is causing the social and political unrest. The circumstances of rebellion, secessionism, subversion, murder, kidnapping, arson, ambuscades, violent demonstrations, sporadic bombings, assassinations, and arson were carried out in broad day light and with impunity. Only a foolhardy President would ignore them. The reasons were enumerated in the "Whereas" clauses of Proclamation No. 1081 or Proclaiming A State of Martial Law.
It must be recalled that on October 22, 1950 President Quirino issued Proclamation No. 210 suspending the writ of habeas corpus. Fear gripped the people that the communists were at the outskirts of the city. The difference however is that, when President Quirino suspended the writ, the communist HUKBALAHAP was operating outside Metro Manila, while during the time of Marcos, the communists and their newly organized armed group New People's Army were operating almost freely inside Metro Manila. They managed to immerse themselves with the radical students and with labor organizations.
Those irrefutable facts stated in the "whereas" clauses were all verified to have taken place. The orchestrated violence waged against the civilians and the duly constituted authority proved beyond doubt that his suspension of the writ and the imposition of martial law were not fancy alibis to justify his desire to hold on to power.
Even the members of the opposition who sought to distance themselves from that doctrine seeking to overthrow the government admitted of the need to declare martial law. The Supreme Court, acting on the several petitions to nullify the declaration of martial law, including the early decision upholding the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in the aftermath of the August 21, 1971 Plaza Miranda bombing, held that it would be the height of irresponsibility for the President to stand idly as violent chaos engulfed the nation.
