21/09/2026
| ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐น๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ป ๐๐ด๐ฒ ๐ช๐ฎ๐ ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฅ๐ฒ๐ฑ: ๐๐ถ๐๐๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ฎ๐น ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐ฃ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ด๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฎ
It was never goldenโit was painted that way.
For decades, the era of Ferdinand Marcos Sr. has been remembered by some as a โGolden Ageโโa period associated with discipline, infrastructure, economic development, and order. Images of highways, government buildings, large-scale projects, and an apparently disciplined society have contributed to this narrative. But these images present only one part of the story.
Behind the polished image of the โNew Societyโ were censorship, political repression, arbitrary arrests, torture, killings, enforced disappearances, and restrictions on civil liberties. Through control of the media and the dissemination of government narratives, the Marcos Sr. administration was able to shape how Filipinos received information about the country. To examine Martial Law, therefore, is not simply to ask what was built during the period. It is also necessary to ask what was suppressed, who suffered, and whose experiences were left out of the official narrative.
๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ ๐ข๐ณ ๐ข๐ป๐ฒ-๐ ๐ฎ๐ป ๐ฅ๐๐น๐ฒ
Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. served as president of the Philippines from 1965 until 1986. On September 21, 1972, he signed Proclamation No. 1081, placing the Philippines under Martial Law. The proclamation was publicly announced on September 23, 1972. Martial Law formally ended in 1981, but Marcos Sr. continued to exercise extensive authoritarian powers until his government was removed from power during the 1986 People Power Revolution.
Proclamation No. 1081 cited threats to national security, including armed rebellion, communist insurgency, violence, and disorder, as justification for declaring Martial Law. The document specifically referred to the Communist Party of the Philippines, the New People's Army, and other armed threats facing the government at the time. These conflicts were part of the political and security situation of the Philippines in the early 1970s.
However, the declaration's stated justification must also be examined alongside what happened after it was imposed. The years that followed were marked by restrictions on civil liberties, military arrests, censorship, and documented human-rights violations. Understanding Martial Law therefore requires looking at both the government's stated reasons for declaring it and the consequences of the system that followed.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ช๐ต๐ ๐๐ฒ๐ต๐ถ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ญ๐ฌ๐ด๐ญ
In Proclamation No. 1081, Marcos Sr. described the country as facing serious threats from armed groups and widespread violence. The proclamation cited communist insurgency, rebellion, bombings, assassinations, and other forms of disorder as reasons for placing the country under Martial Law. It also referred to the Moro rebellion and argued that previous government measures had failed to contain the threats.
These circumstances provide important context for understanding why Marcos Sr. claimed Martial Law was necessary. At the same time, understanding the government's justification does not mean overlooking the consequences of the policies implemented under Martial Law. The extraordinary powers granted to the executive and military were subsequently used in ways that affected journalists, activists, opposition figures, students, workers, and ordinary civilians.
The historical question is therefore not only why Martial Law was declared, but also how those extraordinary powers were exercised and what happened to Filipinos who challenged or became victims of the regime.
๐ง๐๐ฟ๐ป๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ข๐ณ๐ณ ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ง๐ฟ๐๐๐ต
One of the most significant features of Martial Law was the restriction of the press.
Following the declaration, major newspapers, radio stations, and television networks were shut down or placed under government control. Independent reporting became severely restricted, while media organizations permitted to operate were subject to censorship and government influence.
The shutdown of media outlets made it more difficult for Filipinos to independently verify information about arrests, protests, military operations, and human-rights abuses. When journalists cannot freely investigate or criticize those in power, the public's ability to understand events is also limited.
This was an important component of the Marcos Sr. government's information environment. Propaganda did not necessarily require every statement to be fabricated. Controlling which information could be published, which voices could be heard, and which events could be discussed was itself a way of shaping the public narrative.
๐๐ผ๐๐ป๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐๐
Behind every statistic on Martial Law was a person whose life was affected. Human-rights organizations and historical institutions have documented thousands of cases of arbitrary detention, torture, killings, and enforced disappearances during the Marcos Sr. regime.
Estimates commonly cited in historical discussions include more than 3,000 people killed, hundreds who disappeared, and tens of thousands who experienced various forms of human-rights violations. Different institutions may use different methodologies and time periods when counting victims, which is why figures should always be accompanied by their source and definition.
The Philippine government itself eventually established a formal mechanism for recognizing victims. Republic Act No. 10368, or the Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013, created the Human Rights Victims' Claims Board and provided a legal framework for recognizing and compensating victims of human-rights violations committed during the Marcos regime.
These records demonstrate that the abuses of Martial Law were not simply stories passed down through political families or competing memories. They were serious enough to become the subject of a formal government recognition and reparation process.
๐๐ถ๐น๐ถ๐ผ๐๐ฎ ๐๐ถ๐น๐ฎ๐ผ: ๐ ๐ก๐ฎ๐บ๐ฒ ๐๐ฒ๐ต๐ถ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ก๐๐บ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐
One of the victims remembered from the Martial Law period is Liliosa Hilao, a 23-year-old student activist who died while in detention in 1973. Her case became one of the early and widely documented examples associated with allegations of torture and abuse during the Marcos Sr. regime.
Accounts of Hilao's death have included the official explanation that she died after drinking muriatic acid. However, reports concerning her postmortem examination described multiple injuries and physical findings that raised serious questions about the circumstances surrounding her death. These included bruising, injuries to her body, marks on her wrists, and other signs that were inconsistent with a simple account of su***de.
Hilao's story places a human face on the statistics of Martial Law. She was not merely a number in a list of victims. She was a 23-year-old student whose death became part of the historical record of abuses committed during the period.
๐ญ๐ญ,๐ญ๐ฌ๐ฏ ๐ข๐๐ ๐ข๐ณ ๐ณ๐ฑ,๐ณ๐ฏ๐ฌ
The recognition of Martial Law victims eventually became part of Philippine law. Under Republic Act No. 10368, the Human Rights Victims' Claims Board was tasked with receiving and evaluating claims from individuals who alleged that they had suffered human-rights violations during the Marcos Sr. regime.
The board recognized 11,103 victims as eligible for financial assistance out of more than 75,000 claimants. Compensation was determined through a point system based on the severity and circumstances of the violations. Victims who were killed or forcibly disappeared were among those assigned the highest number of points under the system.
The figures are significant because they show the scale of the claims brought before a formal government institution. They also demonstrate why discussions about Martial Law cannot be reduced solely to political disagreements between supporters and critics of the Marcos family.
๐๐ ๐ช๐ฎ๐ ๐ก๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐๐ผ๐น๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ป
The โGolden Ageโ narrative often emphasizes the infrastructure projects constructed during the Marcos Sr. administration. Major roads, bridges, government buildings, and other projects were indeed built during those years. However, infrastructure is only one measure of a country's economic condition.
The economic record of the Marcos Sr. years also includes substantial growth in external debt. According to data presented by the Martial Law Museum, Philippine external debt increased from approximately $0.36 billion in 1961 to $28.26 billion in 1986. The country's economic situation also deteriorated significantly toward the end of the Marcos Sr. administration, culminating in the economic and political crisis of the early 1980s.
This does not mean that every economic indicator moved in the same direction throughout the entire period, nor does it mean that no development occurred. Rather, it shows why the economic history of the Marcos Sr. era cannot be accurately summarized through infrastructure projects alone. Development, debt, poverty, wages, employment, and the broader economic conditions experienced by ordinary Filipinos all form part of the picture.
A completed building can be photographed and preserved as a symbol of development. The economic costs associated with building it, however, may be less visible. This is why examining the broader historical record matters when evaluating claims about a supposed โGolden Age.โ
๐๐ฒ๐๐ผ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฃ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ด๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฎ
Propaganda becomes powerful not only by creating false stories, but also by determining which stories receive attention. A photograph of a completed infrastructure project may be authentic. A family may genuinely remember experiencing economic improvement during the Marcos Sr. years. Some Filipinos may also remember the period as one of greater order or discipline.
At the same time, survivors can truthfully remember being arrested, detained, or tortured. Families can remember relatives who disappeared. Journalists can remember the closure of their publications. Human-rights records can document killings and other abuses.
These experiences do not become mutually exclusive simply because they tell different stories about the same period. The problem begins when one version of history is presented as the complete story while the experiences of victims and the documentary record are dismissed or ignored.
The history of Martial Law should therefore be examined through multiple sources: government documents, court records, human-rights documentation, economic data, survivor testimonies, historical research, and the accounts of victims and their families.
๐ฅ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฅ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฑ
Discussions about Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and Martial Law remain deeply contested in Philippine society. People continue to have different interpretations of his administration, its accomplishments, and its failures. Historical disagreement, however, should not require ignoring documented events.
Proclamation No. 1081 exists. The media shutdowns happened. Human-rights violations were documented. Victims were formally recognized by the Philippine government. Compensation was provided under a law specifically created for victims of abuses during the Marcos regime.
These records provide a foundation for examining the period beyond political slogans.
Remembering Martial Law does not require Filipinos to remember every aspect of the period in exactly the same way. It requires a willingness to examine evidence, listen to survivors, recognize victims, and question narratives presented as unquestionable truth.
The legacy of Ferdinand Marcos Sr. includes infrastructure and political achievements cited by his supporters, but it also includes authoritarian rule, censorship, and documented human-rights violations. Leaving any of these elements out creates an incomplete picture of the period.
The story of Martial Law should therefore not be reduced to a single photograph, a single statistic, or a single political narrative.
Because when history is reduced to propaganda, the people who suffered can disappear from the story.
NEVER AGAIN. NEVER FORGET.
via | Joy Cabaltea
pubmat by | Ian Anthony Abejero
