Constitutional democracy under Martial Law versus EDSA Lies

Most, if not all, legal pundits would agree to the fact that the declaration of the Martial Law in 1972 was well within the legal confines of the 1935 Constitution. As the constitution then stipulated, the President was not only authorized but was mandated to exercise it should circumstances require him to do so. This was clearly stated in Article VII Section 11 (2) of the 1935 Constitution which directed the President to “…place the entire or a part of the Philippines under Martial Law to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, insurrection, or rebellion.” The provision also authorized him to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in exercise of this power. Failure to declare and implement the Martial Law under the pressing conditions of the time is not only anti-democratic but also purely irresponsible.

The intention of the martial law was to save Philippine democracy from the imminent dangers that threaten public safety and order. When Martial Law was declared, subversive elements such as the communist armed struggle and the secessionist Moro rebellion clearly endangered the very integrity of the state beginning in 1968 when CPP-NPA and the Moro National Front were organized.

The current narrative on the Martial Law tells us that it ended when Marcos left Malacanang. This is a pure fabrication systematically repeated in the mainstream media. In reality, Martial Law ended in 1981 followed by a popular election which Marcos won by landslide. Two years after Ninoy’s death in 1983, Marcos called for a Snap Election which Cory participated. The former won the convincingly over the latter although this was bitterly contested by the Aquino camp. As the events showed, Cory became part of the democratic electoral process after the lifting of the Martial Law in 1981.

Cory Aquino’s ascent to power was not legitimate to begin with. The EDSA uprising cannot be cited as the strongest justification for her legitimacy for it was not a unanimous expression of the sovereign mandate of the Filipinos. The 1973 Constitution was. The law provided for a constitutionally-recognized succession. But Aquino and his cohorts rejected it. This blatant violation of the constitution was far more dictatorial than anything seen in our modern democratic history. Eventually, the political elites behind EDSA crafted a new constitution to legitimize their hold to power. The 1986 power EDSA revolt was nothing but an unconstitutional plot executed in a very undemocratic way.