Filipino bands

Estelito Mendoza defends Marcos martial law, says SC backed it

Mara Cepeda

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

Estelito Mendoza defends Marcos martial law, says SC backed it

Marcos Presidential Center

The solicitor general of Ferdinand Marcos fails to mention the extent of the dictator's influence over the judiciary

MANILA, Philippines – Veteran lawyer Estelito Mendoza defended martial law under dictator Ferdinand Marcos, arguing that the late strongman’s military rule was legitimized by the Supreme Court (SC).

Mendoza, the solicitor general of Marcos, failed to mention the extent of the dictator’s influence over the judiciary back then. He also evaded the links of the Marcos dictatorship to a range of abuses, from killings to media censorship. 

Mendoza talked about martial law during his lecture at the “Marcos 100 Forum: The North Remembers” held on Friday, September 8, at the Mariano Marcos State University-Batac City Campus. 

The Marcos clan is spearheading a number of events this week in line with the family patriarch’s 100th birth anniversary on September 11. (READ: Malacañang declares holiday in Ilocos Norte for Marcos’ 100th birthday)

“Too often they would just characterize his regime as one of dictatorship, but tell me, even at the beginning, I emphasize that whatever he did, he did by the force of law, not by the force of arms,” said Mendoza, who was applauded many times during his lecture.  

“[He did it] not by the emotional torrent suffered by those who were concentrated in camp… but always by the force of law to quell the rebellion in 1972 and then building a new society, hoping that by building a new society, there will be no insurgencies of that measure again in our history,” he added.  

Marcos signed Proclamation 1081 on September 21,1972, placing the entire Philippines under martial law. He formally announced this on television at 7:15 pm on September 23, citing the increasing threat of communism then to justify the declaration. (READ: Martial Law 101: Things you should know)

Mendoza noted that Congress was no longer in session when Marcos declared martial law. 

“That is very significant because there you will not be confronted with speeches, with investigations, with resolutions enacted by members of the Senate particularly, and of the House of Representatives,” said Mendoza. 

One of Marcos’ staunchest critics at the time was Senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr, who was assassinated at the Manila International Airport in 1983. 

Marcos had also released several general orders that guided his martial rule, which included the transfer of all powers to the president, authorizing the military to arrest individuals conspiring to take over the government, the enforcement of curfew hours, and the banning of group assemblies. 

His 21-year rule was mired in killings, torture, disappearances, media oppression, and corruption. (READ: Martial Law, the dark chapter in Philippine history)

Despite this, the SC allowed a hero’s burial for Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani last year. It was not the first time the high court ruled in favor of the Marcoses.

Hero or plunderer?

In his lecture on Friday, Mendoza recalled the Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) of 1971, which was tasked to replace the 1935 Constitution of the Commonwealth era.

The Constitution drafted by the 1971 Con-Con was supposed to undergo through a plebiscite through written ballots in 1972. But Marcos intervened.

The former president arrested members of the Con-Con, which later reconvened and rewrote a Constitution that suited Marcos more. He then set aside plans for the plebiscite and instead formed barangays or Citizens’ Assemblies.

“But he circumvented this… And instead of submitting the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention, he presented it in a plebiscite through the Citizens’ Assemblies who ratified it – not by written ballots but by the show of hands,” said Mendoza. 

Marcos’ critics wanted the SC to deem the 1973 Constitution as invalid through the Javellana versus Executive Secretary case. Mendoza said it was one of the most difficult cases he had to face in his career.

Marcos, however, counted several SC justices then as his allies. On March 31, 1973, the SC released its final ruling on the case, with the justices not arriving at a majority vote. Then-chief justice Roberto Concepcion resigned in protest.

“That there being no majority to declare the ratification invalid, there is no longer any legal impediment for the new Constitution,” said Mendoza. “It was by the force of law that [Marcos] was able to continue and maintain reforms to build a new society.”

The Official Gazette also called the said SC ruling the “final legitimizing decision…on the constitutionality of Martial Law.”

Mendoza, who continues to lawyer for the Marcoses, closed his lecture by showering the late dictator with praises.

“[He is] a leader who served the Philippines selflessly, dynamically, with vision, with intelligence, and foresight which no other leader has so far shown,” Mendoza said. 

But Marcos’ critics believe otherwise, arguing that a plunderer and a human rights abuser will never be a hero. – Rappler.com

Add a comment

Sort by

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

Summarize this article with AI

How does this make you feel?

Loading
Download the Rappler App!
Clothing, Apparel, Person

author

Mara Cepeda

Mara Cepeda specializes in stories about politics and local governance. She covers the Office of the Vice President, the Senate, and the Philippine opposition. She is a 2021 fellow of the Asia Journalism Fellowship and the Reham al-Farra Memorial Journalism Fellowship of the UN. Got tips? Email her at mara.cepeda@rappler.com or tweet @maracepeda.