It brings to mind the “smiling martial law” as a term used to loosely describe the last years of Proclamation 1081 which the late “strong man” Ferdinand Marcos declared in September 21, 1972 to place the entire archipelago under military rule.
It was a term used by both by personages and institutions – government and public — who profited best from its implementation. Martial law and its bloody fangs loomed less dreadful in the late 1970’s up to its eventual “lifting” in 1983.
We owe it not to the “benevolence” of the despot and all he is in cahoots with who flourished more through it. We owe it to the courage of those who dared challenged it that made possible the continuous ebb of whatever ounce of acceptability it had from the masses of the country and from international opinion.
“Smiling martial law?” Smirking maybe more like it. Toothless martial law, but as against what? A martial law with bloody fangs?
There is no doubt that the Ampatuan carnage strikes at the very foundations of the democracy as the November 23 Movement, a coalition of media organizations and groups shouts so in their December 5, 2009 statement. They call for accountability and swift justice to the slain journalists and other victims of the ‘wholesale slaughter’ to borrow the description made by an international newspapers publication of the butchery.
The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines’ email address is still being flooded today by statements, inquiries and pledges for contributions for help from over a dozen international media organizations all expressing dread. We from the country’s media have even a bigger reason to be distressed and indignant.
But for Malacañang to impose martial law and suspend the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus in Maguindanao in the wake of the November 23 massacre however tenuous is to the very least, suspect.
The ‘left’ for good reason believe it is a prelude to its broader implementation in the country and will set a dangerous precedent that could pose a threat to the May 2010 elections and the constitutionally mandated transition to a new government. Note that the military raised its alert levels in Metro Manila last week in view of expected spilling over of tensions in the country’s power seat.
Oh well, history offers clear and painful lessons on the Marcos martial law with the severe restrictions on freedoms it imposed and the wide latitude of official powers it allowed the military and the police. These two institutions’ human rights record under Madam Gloria’s administration is not that spotless either.
Senator Biazon has this to postulate: martial law shall in a contrive manner give the Ampatuans’ wholesale slaughter a revolutionary strain, immensely lessening its criminal nature and will hence be pardonable. Wow! That’s a stroke!
A radio commentary on the other hand expressed that martial law can be used (if it’s not being used already) to dispossess the Ampatuans of all evidences on the vote delivery they allegedly did for the president in the last presidential elections when she beat the very popular showbiz icon late Fernando Poe Jr.
North Cotabato Vice-Gov. Manny Piñol, a former ally of Madam Gloria, on a media interview said that he heard the Ampatuans had threatened to “tell all they knew about electoral cheating” if the president “stops supporting them.” Hmmm.
So – smiling, menacingly grinning, toothless or bloody fanged – what’s the difference? With martial law the party in power rules by gun. Even an elementary pupil can say with precocious certainty that: … hey, no way can fangs be more deadly than guns! Unless “Manong Enrile” has another definition in mind – perhaps something more to the intensity of what he architected back in 1972?
It was a term used by both by personages and institutions – government and public — who profited best from its implementation. Martial law and its bloody fangs loomed less dreadful in the late 1970’s up to its eventual “lifting” in 1983.
We owe it not to the “benevolence” of the despot and all he is in cahoots with who flourished more through it. We owe it to the courage of those who dared challenged it that made possible the continuous ebb of whatever ounce of acceptability it had from the masses of the country and from international opinion.
“Smiling martial law?” Smirking maybe more like it. Toothless martial law, but as against what? A martial law with bloody fangs?
There is no doubt that the Ampatuan carnage strikes at the very foundations of the democracy as the November 23 Movement, a coalition of media organizations and groups shouts so in their December 5, 2009 statement. They call for accountability and swift justice to the slain journalists and other victims of the ‘wholesale slaughter’ to borrow the description made by an international newspapers publication of the butchery.
The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines’ email address is still being flooded today by statements, inquiries and pledges for contributions for help from over a dozen international media organizations all expressing dread. We from the country’s media have even a bigger reason to be distressed and indignant.
But for Malacañang to impose martial law and suspend the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus in Maguindanao in the wake of the November 23 massacre however tenuous is to the very least, suspect.
The ‘left’ for good reason believe it is a prelude to its broader implementation in the country and will set a dangerous precedent that could pose a threat to the May 2010 elections and the constitutionally mandated transition to a new government. Note that the military raised its alert levels in Metro Manila last week in view of expected spilling over of tensions in the country’s power seat.
Oh well, history offers clear and painful lessons on the Marcos martial law with the severe restrictions on freedoms it imposed and the wide latitude of official powers it allowed the military and the police. These two institutions’ human rights record under Madam Gloria’s administration is not that spotless either.
Senator Biazon has this to postulate: martial law shall in a contrive manner give the Ampatuans’ wholesale slaughter a revolutionary strain, immensely lessening its criminal nature and will hence be pardonable. Wow! That’s a stroke!
A radio commentary on the other hand expressed that martial law can be used (if it’s not being used already) to dispossess the Ampatuans of all evidences on the vote delivery they allegedly did for the president in the last presidential elections when she beat the very popular showbiz icon late Fernando Poe Jr.
North Cotabato Vice-Gov. Manny Piñol, a former ally of Madam Gloria, on a media interview said that he heard the Ampatuans had threatened to “tell all they knew about electoral cheating” if the president “stops supporting them.” Hmmm.
So – smiling, menacingly grinning, toothless or bloody fanged – what’s the difference? With martial law the party in power rules by gun. Even an elementary pupil can say with precocious certainty that: … hey, no way can fangs be more deadly than guns! Unless “Manong Enrile” has another definition in mind – perhaps something more to the intensity of what he architected back in 1972?
