<div class="image-550">
<img src="https://cdn.kahimyang.com/resources-9/marcos-meets-aquino-sm.webp" alt="President Ferdinand Marcos meets Senator Ninoy Aquino" loading="lazy" />
<div>
(President Ferdinand Marcos meets Senator Ninoy Aquino)
</div>
</div>
<p>
One needs to ask why it is that martial law in its generic sense is such a vilified construct when in fact it is present and mentioned as a constitutional remedy for modern states. Every constitution has a provision on the mechanics of how and when it can be declared and invoked. Its limits are specified, even as it remains an option for states to declare to protect itself and its citizens.
</p>
<p>
Indeed, modern constitutions have always been construed as limitations on the state's powers. They are the embodiment of the delimitation of the authority of the powers of governments vis-à-vis the rights of their citizens. But they also specify the duties and responsibilities of the state to protect those rights, which include the right to life and liberty, and to a safe environment. Certainly, while citizens have rights to protest and dissent, and to free speech, when those rights are expressed in ways that would harm other citizens, either directly or indirectly, by causing the state and its various instrumentalities to collapse, then it is incumbent upon the state to protect itself and its citizens.
</p>


<p>
It is a fact that there was a communist rebellion that threatened the country. It is not a matter of whether the rebellion was justified and that the state was corrupt. In fact, the more we appreciate the argument that the Philippine state at the time when Marcos declared martial law in 1972 was ripe for a revolution, the more we shed light on the structural-functional necessity for political violence. Marcos' martial law was an open declaration of state political violence targeting the threat of political violence emanating from the communist rebellion. States have always been accorded the monopoly for the legitimate use of political violence, and their being corrupt or undemocratic does not diminish that right, provided that they operate within the bounds of domestic and international law.
</p>
<p>
In political science, we study internal political upheavals not as confined only within the context of domestic or local dynamics but also in the context of regional and global geopolitics. It is a fact that Cold War politics played an important role in defining the historical trajectories not only of the Philippines but of Southeast Asia and even the world. Developing and underdeveloped countries provided a fertile stage for the conflict between the West and the communist bloc. The structural realities of authoritarian and corrupt regimes fed the emergence of communism in many countries which threatened the stability of states and governments.
</p>
<p>
This is what the Philippines experienced in 1972. Marcos did not create the global context, but he certainly rode on it when he declared martial law. It is undeniable that the communist left had made significant inroads among the peasants, urban workers, students and the intelligentsia. His political plans juxtaposed with the logics of containment and counterinsurgency that were the natural reactions of other countries as they confronted their own revolutionary challenges. Thailand had its own anti-communist pogrom, even as Indonesia presided over a bloodbath to purge the left. In the latter, it was even precipitated by a coup that ousted President Sukarno. In our case, President Marcos launched a coup against the Constitution by declaring martial law.
</p>
<p>
This is not to justify the political violence but simply to locate the explanation in the context of narratives that do not simplify actors as evil villains or innocent victims. It is a fact that many of the so-called victims of Marcos' martial law were in fact actual revolutionaries who were sworn to dismantle his government and replace it with a communist one. They consciously chose to rebel against the State. They were also engaged in their own brand of political violence. While they fought for the downtrodden and marginalized, it cannot be denied that a significant portion of the country saw them not as saviors but as threats and welcomed martial law in a more positive light.
</p>
<p>
The problem faced by many who analyze Marcos and martial law is that they commit the error of conflating the corruption of the political elites and the logic of martial law. A cleaner analysis would be to attempt to draw out the specific moments in which the corruption and cronyism were not because of martial law, but because of the structural realities that our country is cursed with and would have had to endure anyway. The proof is that his successor, Corazon Aquino, was the antithesis of Marcos. Yet, corruption, rent-seeking and cronyism persisted. It is simply intellectual laziness to believe that these were simply the lingering effects of the shadow of Marcos' authoritarianism.
</p>


An objective and critical view of Marcos' martial law