The Internet explosion of the 21st century is a serious challenge. There are many historical accounts that can be learned from electronic resources, but there is much more useless, misleading, and fake information. For example, one of the darkest chapters of Philippine history is trying to be changed in this century and has advanced somehow in the number of people who were deceived and are being deceived: the Marcos dictatorship. Some quarters are trying to change its history but are blocked by evidence-based social science and communication.
It is important to grasp the truth in the Marcos dictatorship. When it is forgotten or changed, not only a stain on justice appears, but injustice. The law is not just being pierced, but the law is being abolished. Not only is the widespread blood wiped away, but the guilty are cleansed even if they have no regrets. Not only is it not allowed to steal from the government, we even idolize the thieves.
Official Gazette’s special feature titled “The Fall of the Dictatorship” reads in part: “President Ferdinand E. Marcos assumed power on December 30, 1965, and became the second president reelected to office in 1969. There were efforts to maneuver the 1971 Constitutional Convention to permit his continuing in office. With the swell of student radicalization and increasing number of violent demonstrations, Marcos played up middle-class fears and used these to justify the imposition of Martial Law on September 23, 1972 by virtue of Proclamation No. 1081.
“Martial Law was not just an invocation of the President’s emergency powers under the 1935 Constitution—Marcos went further to assume all governing powers, excluded civilian courts, and systematically replaced the 1935 Constitution with the 1973 Constitution for his own ends. The replacement of the Constitution was done under dubious circumstances.”
That Marcos rose to become the country’s dictator can be read from various primary and secondary sources here and abroad, including Reuben Canoy’s book “Counterfeit Revolution” (Philippine Editions Pub., 1980) which had an account of the years from martial law in 1972 to the assassination of former Sen. Benigno Aquino Jr. in 1983.
Official Gazette continues: “Popular anti-Marcos sentiment existed for the duration of Martial Law. According to David Wurfel, there were three paramount types of opposition to martial law during the 1970s: reformist opposition, revolutionary opposition, and religious opposition.”
In 1986 the two-decade rule of a president – modern constitutions in the world do not allow that – ultimately ended due to the opposition factor and the power of the people. 30 years thereafter, losing vice presidential candidate Marcos Jr. and supporters asked, “So what?” And he has re-occupied Malacanang since 2022.
Gaslighting is at work when we are asked the same, but all it takes is to face it head-on and retort, “So what makes you decide to dictate my feelings using your dictator model? If the “so what” people do not care, there is no need to worry because you stand your ground and they are missing the chance for you to be gaslighted. They are just out to vitiate your history and the lessons that go with it and, at the same time, make you feel like you are foolish. Watch out for their gas or “kahanginan/kayabangan” that makes you question the rationale of your thoughts and memories.
But as mentioned above, autocrats and their troll armies know how to revolutionize the way they connect with people, with online fake news peddlers greatly contributing to their evil designs. This means that Filipinos must use the internet wisely, avoiding the spread of lies, telling the truth, checking facts, and maintaining these as facts. In other words, with the established facts, no falsehood can easily permeate public minds.
“Diktadurang Marcos” or simply “diktadura”? Again, we should not allow any gaslighting statement; otherwise, our memories are being questioned even if they are based on established facts. In today’s anniversary of the declaration of martial law, we let the survivors recount its horrors. For all we know, they are still haunted by the abuses 51 years ago.
There are those who say that the restoration of martial law is the solution because the promises of EDSA in 1986 were unfulfilled. Such thinking is the effect of propaganda for EDSA symbolizes the Filipino people’s decision to unite and end the dictatorship. Isn’t the promise to fix society attached to martial law? What ensued were 14 years of corruption, deaths, and human rights violations. More than 3,000 were killed, 35,000 tortured and 70,000 incarcerated, according to Amnesty International. When dictator Marcos fled the Philippines, it was burdened with a $28-billion debt. Lessons learned? One is that we should serve the country and not rely on the promises of our leaders. Those who defend martial law are the same people who think the Philippines needs iron-fisted leadership. But what former President Rodrigo Duterte did was a bloody but failed war on drugs.
To help us learn our lessons, the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) supplies the following (kudos to this government agency):
Video episodes 1: Sa Kapit ng Kamao; 2: Ang Hugis ng Kapangyarihan; 3: Tinig Ng Pakikipaglaban; 4: Parusa’t Kasalanan; 5: Lipunang Papel; 6: Ang Totoong Kuwento ng OFW; 7: Kahariang Bato; 8: Ang Paglaban ay Pagkilos; 9: Kayo ang Hihirap Kami Ang Yayaman; and 10: Kami na di Malilimutan.
The NHCP uploaded the videos of the “Martial Law Series” on its YouTube account only 5-6 years ago and they are still there. They are considered “mga materyales sa pag-aaral” by the Martial Law Museum, a community of educators and citizens who are committed, among others, to integrating the lessons of martial law in any subject they teach.
