HISTORICAL REVISIONISM
What matters in Martial Law under Ferdinand Marcos
The dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos was driven by corruption and cronyism. It was filled with violations against human rights and it ultimately threatened our freedom. This is the dominant narrative that most of us have become accustomed to from our history classes in high school. Despite overwhelming evidence and facts that have been proven time and time again, however, many challenge this with the intent of revising our history books, hoping to bring “glory” back to the late dictator’s name. This, therefore, begs the question: who is right? In this era of mis-and-disinformation, how would I know which side is right, especially when different narratives are being brought to light?
Back when I learned about Marcos’ authoritarian regime, I was overwhelmed by the sheer amount of crimes committed against our people. Learning about widespread torture and suppression was not exactly a nice walk in the park for a thirteen year-old girl at the time. From there, I learned and saw it fit to despise the late dictator and condemn his rule. That changed, however, after a few years.
Around the time I was fifteen, a few Youtube videos had piqued the interest of my peers. These videos claim that the narrative we know about Martial Law is false and incomplete. They highlight the achievements of Marcos’ dictatorship and praise him as a hero. As for the many atrocities committed during his rule, they divert blame to other individuals such as former Defense Minister (later Senate President) Juan Ponce Enrile and former AFP Vice Chair (later President) Fidel Ramos. In fact, I remember these videos claiming that Marcos could not have been behind the assassination of Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino, Jr. because both were actually close friends — fraternity brethren to be exact.
Those videos were quite convincing, thus paving the way for confusion. I did not really care for the buildings built or institutions made during his dictatorship, but what really got me thinking was the claim of how “incomplete” our history is. This uncertainty was further strengthened when some of those around me started openly supporting the Marcoses, with few having done so at the beginning. Heck, even the former principal of my high school is a Marcos apologist.
Skepticism was brewing within me over the years, but I never really found the answer to my question. It was only recently that I was able to sign up for a class that conducted heavy discourse on Martial Law — whether it was good or bad. Part of it was watching an interview that turned into a debate between educator-priest Ranhillo Aquino and journalist John Nery. The former expounded on the idea that we need to know all sides of the story and judge the entire thing from there. This made total sense to me as we are, in fact, living in “postmodernism,” where we question what is known and verify its authenticity. The latter, however, focused on the fact that we were unable to establish the dominant narrative as the true narrative, which is why many have been able to revise history. He gave the greatest emphasis on what we already know — the fact that thousands of people suffered and died under the rule of Ferdinand Marcos. In a sense, the republic post-EDSA was hijacked by the very same forces that had kept the Marcoses in power. Whether it be Danding Cojuangco, Enrile, the Marcoses themselves, their business cronies, or all others, it was evident that history was vulnerable to revision, as the true narrative would have threatened the interests of these exact forces.
The last statement, however, was what opened my eyes. I realized that I was trying to involve myself too much with the details that we have yet to uncover. I gave the benefit of the doubt to the late dictator, thinking that there might be a hidden face to the story — a face where he did everything that he did for the benefit of our country. “Why did he do this? There must be a reason, right?” In the end though, I have come to believe that the blank spaces do not even matter anymore.
Getting down to the nitty-gritty of the situation, over 3,200 people were killed, around 34,000 were tortured, and about 70,000 were incarcerated. Human rights were trampled upon and, as a matter of fact, many were never able to see their “restoration” in 1986. This is when I realized the irrelevance of Marcos’ concrete achievements or political reasons. Regardless of the buildings, the roads, the hospitals, the bridges, the trains, or the institutions built during his reign, none of them would ever justify the suffering, torture, and murder of thousands of our own. Even a single death due to political persecution should be enough reason for revolt.
What happened back then was wrong. No reason can ever justify the suffering of human beings, and I think that everyone should keep this in mind.
