BACKBENCHER
Rod P. Kapunan
10/13-14/2012
Martial law cannot be judged on its face value because any extraordinary use of power by the State would always induce a negative reaction from the people. The Pareto Principle is at work because an increase in the power of the State always and residually would result in the diminution of individual rights. Individual rights and state power cannot go hand in hand or altogether expand on the assumption they compliment each other.
Those who opposed martial law could never comprehend that individual rights can only operate in a civil society where the rights of all are synchronized to blend in harmony, and not when they tend to override on the rights of others. It is in the overlapping of rights that result in their dysfunctional operability, thus forcing the State to enter the picture. The motive is not really to curtail individual freedom, but to regulate freedom so that the freedom of others could function. No individual has the power or the capacity to do this; only the State by the use of its omnipotent power.
Even the opposition could not deny that in the first five years of martial law, the country experienced tremendous economic progress. Most important, peace and order, and faith in government were restored. Marcos himself was overwhelmed by the sudden surge in his popularity.
While it would be self-serving to cite the statistical economic gains achieved during the martial law period, the best and undeniable proof to this is the continued longing by people who experienced the peace and serenity in their community and the strides in economic development. Time has given them the opportunity to compare history with the present, which now tends to validate that martial law slogan which says, "Sa ikauunlad ng bayan, disiplina ang kailangan."
Sixth, martial law was bound to affect people who premeditatedly sought to have it declared by their participation in that violent enterprise. This was evident by the re-establishment of the Communist Party of the Philippines under the leadership of a romanticist ideologue. Jose Ma. Sison exhibited himself as ruthlessly cunning. He and his young firebrands taunted Marcos to declare martial law by systematically orchestrating violence, often sacrificing the lives of innocent people.
As utterly ruthless, they refused to admit that it was their adventurism that blinded them into complete subjectivism. For that, they entertained the notion that by combining violence and propaganda, they could force Marcos to impose martial law. In fact, they believed it could lead to his political isolation, and in no time will be defeated by their concept of "people's war." But contrary to what they expected, martial law resulted in them being routed, and no sooner the people began to have faith in their government. The reckless revolution cooked up by an ideological megalomania duped many young and idealistic people to believe that victory was at hand. Many were incarcerated; some died or were killed fighting a lost cause.
Finally, when they realized their revolution was fading beyond redemption, they began to cannibalize their own followers accusing them of betrayal and methodically executing them. The genocide earned them the distinction as the only revolutionary movement in the world to wage war against their own people, instead waging a war against their sworn enemy.
While the opposition, disguised as civil libertarians, refused to agree with the decision of the Supreme Court affirming the validity of martial law, as decided in the Josue Javellana vs. the Executive Secretary, et al., G. R. No. L-36142, March 31, 1973, the fact remains that there were valid and factual bases for the declaration of martial law, which have been verified as true by objective history itself.
That interregnum necessitated that, in the absence of Congress to carry out the task of legislation, the President, by virtue of the powers vested in him as martial law administrator, could validly issue decrees that would have the same force and effect as legislated laws. Yet, when Mrs. Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 3 on March 25, 1986, scrapping the 1973 Constitution, not one from the opposition, the elite, the ultra conservative Church, and the radical Left questioned her act.
Looking at the "Whereas" clauses in Proclamation No. 3 issued by Mrs. Aquino, or Adopting A Provisional Constitution, the only factual basis stated therein was her unbridled hatred, contempt, and lust for vengeance. Other than its self-serving arrogance of having been installed with the support of renegades from the Armed Forces, the Cory Aquino government stated that her decision to declare a revolutionary government was "in defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution."
There was much hubris in her that could only be matched by her unfathomable hypocrisy. It was an open declaration that she was above the law, equivocally telling the people she has the power to erase Marcos from all the pages in our history of which no civilized government is supposed to state in its own laws.
Maybe we cannot compare, but the truth remains painful that this nation accepted gracefully the rehabilitation of the President who served the Japanese occupation as they transform the country into a killing field. Yet, the man who saved the Republic and dedicated his entire life uplifting our people from the morass of poverty and exploitation continues to be maligned. This is telling of us as a people and as a nation.
If only we have learned to evolve beyond the pedestal of recrimination, the basic question should not be about martial law. It should be about the man who used that means that should be judged by history. Yes, he was ousted, but it does not detract us from the truth that he achieved much for the Republic he presided during those turbulent times.
rpkapunan@gmail.com
Those who opposed martial law could never comprehend that individual rights can only operate in a civil society where the rights of all are synchronized to blend in harmony, and not when they tend to override on the rights of others. It is in the overlapping of rights that result in their dysfunctional operability, thus forcing the State to enter the picture. The motive is not really to curtail individual freedom, but to regulate freedom so that the freedom of others could function. No individual has the power or the capacity to do this; only the State by the use of its omnipotent power.
Even the opposition could not deny that in the first five years of martial law, the country experienced tremendous economic progress. Most important, peace and order, and faith in government were restored. Marcos himself was overwhelmed by the sudden surge in his popularity.
While it would be self-serving to cite the statistical economic gains achieved during the martial law period, the best and undeniable proof to this is the continued longing by people who experienced the peace and serenity in their community and the strides in economic development. Time has given them the opportunity to compare history with the present, which now tends to validate that martial law slogan which says, "Sa ikauunlad ng bayan, disiplina ang kailangan."
Sixth, martial law was bound to affect people who premeditatedly sought to have it declared by their participation in that violent enterprise. This was evident by the re-establishment of the Communist Party of the Philippines under the leadership of a romanticist ideologue. Jose Ma. Sison exhibited himself as ruthlessly cunning. He and his young firebrands taunted Marcos to declare martial law by systematically orchestrating violence, often sacrificing the lives of innocent people.
As utterly ruthless, they refused to admit that it was their adventurism that blinded them into complete subjectivism. For that, they entertained the notion that by combining violence and propaganda, they could force Marcos to impose martial law. In fact, they believed it could lead to his political isolation, and in no time will be defeated by their concept of "people's war." But contrary to what they expected, martial law resulted in them being routed, and no sooner the people began to have faith in their government. The reckless revolution cooked up by an ideological megalomania duped many young and idealistic people to believe that victory was at hand. Many were incarcerated; some died or were killed fighting a lost cause.
Finally, when they realized their revolution was fading beyond redemption, they began to cannibalize their own followers accusing them of betrayal and methodically executing them. The genocide earned them the distinction as the only revolutionary movement in the world to wage war against their own people, instead waging a war against their sworn enemy.
While the opposition, disguised as civil libertarians, refused to agree with the decision of the Supreme Court affirming the validity of martial law, as decided in the Josue Javellana vs. the Executive Secretary, et al., G. R. No. L-36142, March 31, 1973, the fact remains that there were valid and factual bases for the declaration of martial law, which have been verified as true by objective history itself.
That interregnum necessitated that, in the absence of Congress to carry out the task of legislation, the President, by virtue of the powers vested in him as martial law administrator, could validly issue decrees that would have the same force and effect as legislated laws. Yet, when Mrs. Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 3 on March 25, 1986, scrapping the 1973 Constitution, not one from the opposition, the elite, the ultra conservative Church, and the radical Left questioned her act.
Looking at the "Whereas" clauses in Proclamation No. 3 issued by Mrs. Aquino, or Adopting A Provisional Constitution, the only factual basis stated therein was her unbridled hatred, contempt, and lust for vengeance. Other than its self-serving arrogance of having been installed with the support of renegades from the Armed Forces, the Cory Aquino government stated that her decision to declare a revolutionary government was "in defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution."
There was much hubris in her that could only be matched by her unfathomable hypocrisy. It was an open declaration that she was above the law, equivocally telling the people she has the power to erase Marcos from all the pages in our history of which no civilized government is supposed to state in its own laws.
Maybe we cannot compare, but the truth remains painful that this nation accepted gracefully the rehabilitation of the President who served the Japanese occupation as they transform the country into a killing field. Yet, the man who saved the Republic and dedicated his entire life uplifting our people from the morass of poverty and exploitation continues to be maligned. This is telling of us as a people and as a nation.
If only we have learned to evolve beyond the pedestal of recrimination, the basic question should not be about martial law. It should be about the man who used that means that should be judged by history. Yes, he was ousted, but it does not detract us from the truth that he achieved much for the Republic he presided during those turbulent times.
rpkapunan@gmail.com
