As expected, the 45th anniversary of Proclamation No. 1081, by which President Ferdinand Marcos placed the Philippines under martial law, was met by anti-Marcos groups, the Liberal Party-Yellow Army in particular, with self-serving recollections of that day in September 1972 when the lives of many Filipinos changed abruptly.
Many so-called personal recollections of the day Marcos inaugurated “the New Society” were published in several newspapers. While they were supposed to be “eyewitness” recollections, many essays contained sweeping generalizations, and even false information passed off as facts.
A human rights lawyer during the martial law era who later served as senator allied with then President Corazon Cojuangco Aquino from 1987 to 1992 recalled in his essay published last month in another newspaper, that in early December 1972, a Bolivian madman tried to stab then First Lady Imelda Romualdez Marcos but was subdued. The senator even recalled a joke made by a trial court judge to the effect that if Mrs. Marcos had been killed by the madman, the latter would have been the first hero of martial law.
That account may seem vivid and even humorous to the senator, but it is inaccurate and borders on outright falsehood.
It was not a Bolivian madman but a Filipino named Carlito Dimailig (many misspell his surname as Dimahilig) who attempted to kill Mrs. Marcos. The incident happened at an afternoon open-air ceremony at the Nayong Pilipino, the present site of the new airport terminal. The Bolivian madman probably contemplated by the senator was Benjamin Mendoza y Amor, a Bolivian painter who tried to kill Pope Paul VI with a knife at the airport during the latter’s papal visit to the Philippines in November 1970.
Moreover, any attempt at murder, no matter who is attacked, is deplorable and is not a laughing matter. The senator’s account suggests that murder is laudable if committed against a Marcos. Perhaps, that is how the senator feels because of the senator’s long association with Mrs. Aquino.
There is another supposed recollection of the events of martial law written by an “eyewitness” and published in another newspaper. According to this supposed “eyewitness,” President Marcos deceived the people when he announced the proclamation of martial law only on Sept. 23, 1972, when martial law was already in force and effect two days earlier, on Sept. 21, 1972.
The truth is while Proclamation No. 1081 was dated Sept. 21, 1972, it was made public and enforced two days later, on Sept. 23, 1972. On Sept. 21 and 22, 1972, martial law was not even felt in the country.
Somebody published an essay in another newspaper where it is inaccurately claimed that the nationalist song Bayan Ko was banned during martial law. That song was a staple during anti-government rallies after the assassination of ex-Senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino, Jr. in August 1983. Supporters of the government may not have liked the song, but there is no record of any official ban against singing it in public.
Anyway, it is disappointing to note that those who brand the martial law era as a period of falsehood and deception are themselves engaged in inaccurate information dissemination.
On the other side of the divide are, of course, the pro-Corazon Aquino publicists.
Last August, an essay published in another newspaper sweepingly claimed that the 1987 Constitution was ratified by an overwhelming majority of the people at a plebiscite called for that purpose, primarily because they were awed by Aquino’s leadership.
The cited figure may be true, but the alleged reason is not.
It must be emphasized that if the voters rejected the 1987 Constitution, rejection would have meant allowing the unelected Corazon Aquino to continue running the country both as president and as the individual legislature of the nation, and at a time when every justice in the Supreme Court was her appointee. There would hardly have been any checks and balances in the government.
Rejecting the 1987 Constitution would have also meant that the people would have had to wait indefinitely, or at least another year under an Aquino dictatorship, before a new draft constitution is submitted to the people anew.
Many staunch anti-Aquino personalities even opted to ratify the 1987 Constitution than to reject it. At least, under the 1987 Constitution, the legislative power of the government will no longer be exercised by Aquino alone but by an elected Congress.
Ratify the 1987 Constitution or reject it? That wasn’t much of a choice for the people. It was more of a dilemma.
The same propagandist also lauded Aquino for not seeking re-election in 1992 even if the single-term limit under the 1987 Constitution did not apply to her, considering that she assumed power under the 1935 Constitution.
Again, that conclusion is unfounded.
The prohibition against reelection found in the 1987 Constitution explicitly refers to the president “elected” in the February 1986 special election. Since Aquino was not officially elected (Congress did not proclaim her the winner) but seized power as president, Aquino’s supporters argued that she is not disqualified from running for reelection in 1992. If Aquino chose to run for reelection, however, it will be an acknowledgment on her part that Marcos, and not Aquino, was the genuinely elected president in February 1986. Surely, Aquino would never make such a concession, even if it meant her not running for reelection in 1992. There goes the self-sacrifice façade.
That essay also assumes that Aquino would have succeeded in getting herself reelected if she ran in 1992. After Aquino abolished the Department of Energy and transformed the country into the power outage capital of the world; after her refusal to allow land reform in Hacienda Luisita; and after the infamous Mendiola Massacre in January 1987, it is doubtful whether Aquino would have won re-election. From a practical perspective, Aquino may have decided against re-election to avoid possible, perhaps even inevitable, defeat at the ballot box.