Jurisprudence on Martial Law Atrocities and Stories
Jurisprudence on Martial Law Atrocities and Stories
The Law Remembers: Philippine Jurisprudence on Martial Law Atrocities and Stories
21 September 1972 marks the day when the late Dictator Ferdinand Marcos signed Proclamation No. 1081, placing the Philippines under a nationwide state of Martial Law. In what has come to be one of the country’s darkest chapters, Marcos’ tyrannical regime oversaw thousands of human rights violations, including tortures, enforced disappearances, internal displacements, and extrajudicial killings.
Legal truths are determined to serve justice. They are ascertained by a judge through a court trial which is governed by procedural and evidentiary rules. They are truths that relate to past events because the legal system is deciding matters of past fact in relation to an actual controversy. This album compiles quotes from Supreme Court cases related to Martial Law and the Marcos dictatorship, with the aim to commemorate the experiences of the victims of human rights violations during the Marcos Regime, and show how the Judiciary resolved them under the rule of law. The UP IHR joins the nation in remembering the 49th anniversary of the declaration of martial law, and the sacrifices of the Filipino people in the struggle against tyrannical rule and oppression.
Due to Gen. Fabian Ver’s order to “conduct pre-emptive strikes against known communist-terrorist (CT) underground houses,” various intelligence units of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, known as Task Force Makabansa (TFM), raided several places, employing in most cases defectively issued judicial search warrants. Aberca, et al. alleged that during these raids their personal items were confiscated, they were arrested without proper warrants, they were denied visits from their relatives and lawyers, and that they were interrogated in violation of their rights to silence and counsel. Moreover, Aberca, et al. alleged that the military men who interrogated them employed threats, tortures, and other forms of violence to obtain incriminatory information. The Supreme Court held that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not bar a civil action for damages for illegal searches conducted by military personnel and other violations of rights and liberties guaranteed under the Constitution. The suspension does not render valid an otherwise illegal arrest or detention. What is suspended is merely the right of the individual to seek release from detention through the writ of habeas corpus as a speedy means of obtaining his liberty.
Due to Gen. Fabian Ver’s order to “conduct pre-emptive strikes against known communist-terrorist (CT) underground houses,” various intelligence units of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, known as Task Force Makabansa (TFM), raided several places, employing in most cases defectively issued judicial search warrants. Aberca, et al. alleged that during these raids their personal items were confiscated, they were arrested without proper warrants, they were denied visits from their relatives and lawyers, and that they were interrogated in violation of their rights to silence and counsel. Moreover, Aberca, et al. alleged that the military men who interrogated them employed threats, tortures, and other forms of violence to obtain incriminatory information. The Supreme Court held that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not bar a civil action for damages for illegal searches conducted by military personnel and other violations of rights and liberties guaranteed under the Constitution. The suspension does not render valid an otherwise illegal arrest or detention. What is suspended is merely the right of the individual to seek release from detention through the writ of habeas corpus as a speedy means of obtaining his liberty.
Eduardo Dizon, a community leader and a self-employed businessman, and Isabel Ramos, a former architecture student, had been arrested, without warrants of arrest or Presidential Orders of Arrest, by the military and then detained in a military camp. The military allegedly released them nine days later. However, they were not released to their parents nor to any other responsible person. They were never seen or heard from by anyone since then. Although the general rule is that the release of a detained person renders the petition for habeas corpus moot and academic, the Supreme Court held that where there are grounds for grave doubts about the alleged release of the detainees, then the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the alleged release is shifted to the persons responsible for the detainees. This applies particularly to cases where the standard and prescribed procedure in effecting the release has not been followed.
The Republic sought the declaration of the aggregate amount of US$356 million (now estimated to be more than US$658 million inclusive of interest) deposited in escrow in the PNB, as ill-gotten wealth. In addition, the petition sought the forfeiture of US$25 million and US$5 million in treasury notes which exceeded the Marcos couple’s salaries, other lawful income as well as income from legitimately acquired property. The Supreme Court held that the sum of $304,372.43 should be held as the only known lawful income of respondent’s since they did not file any Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL), as required by law, from which their net worth could be determined. Besides, under the 1935 Constitution, Ferdinand E. Marcos as President could not receive “any other emolument from the Government or any of its subdivisions and instrumentalities.”
*Note: The average Philippine peso per dollar rate in July 2003, the month the decision was written, was 53.7138.
Mr. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the Philippines to die. Mrs. Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability of government is threatened from various directions and the economy is just beginning to rise and move forward, has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his family. The Court stated that the President cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily in determining that the return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat to the national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return.
In 1979, ten civilians were arrested by military authorities and were charged for subversion. The Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines created the Military Commission No. 34 to try the criminal cases filed against the ten civilians. On January 17, 1981, President Marcos lifted martial law through Proclamation No. 2045. The same Proclamation also directed military tribunals to be dissolved upon final determination of the pending cases; said pending cases may not be transferred to the civil courts. The petitioners raised the issue that the military commissions or tribunals did not have jurisdiction to try civilians when the civil courts were open and functioning. The Supreme Court ruled that even if martial law was in force, as long as the civil courts in the land are open and functioning, the military tribunals cannot exercise jurisdiction over civilians for offenses committed by them.
Following the assassination of Senator Ninoy Aquino, the military investigators reported that the one responsible was a communist-hired gunman, Rolando Galman. Due to large masses of people calling for the truth, then President Marcos was pressured to create a Fact Finding Board. Said Board then rejected the military version of the event, and reported that “only the soldiers in the staircase with Senator Aquino could have shot him.” Despite this, President Marcos released a public statement that Senator Aquino was killed by a communist-hired gunman, and not by his soldiers. And in the Sandiganbayan, the soldiers were declared innocent and the case against them was dismissed. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the proceedings in the Sandiganbayan were scripted and predetermined. The Court held that the Sandiganbayan and the Tanodbayan “could not cope with the misuse and abuse of the overwhelming powers of the authoritarian President to weaken the case of the prosecution, to suppress its evidence, harass, intimidate and threaten its witnesses, secure their recantation or prevent them from testifying.”
After the bombing of Plaza Miranda in 1971, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 889, which suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Pursuant to the proclamation, the Philippine Constabulary arrested and detained the petitioners without warrant. Petitioners questioned the constitutionality of the Proclamation. The Supreme Court ruled that the power of the Executive Department to suspend the privilege is neither absolute or unqualified. The courts had the power to exercise judicial review and inquire into the factual bases required by the Constitution for the suspension of the privilege of the writ. While this case actually precedes Martial Law, the Lansang ruling was overturned during the period. During Martial Law, it was held that the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus was a political question that may only be resolved by the President. However, the doctrine of Lansang v. Garcia was revisited after Martial Law, and is now reflected in the 1987 Constitution under Section 18, Article 7.
Ten Filipino citizens, who each charged against the estate of Ferdinand Marcos the suffering of human rights abuses such as arbitrary detention, torture and rape by police or military forces, received a favorable judgement at the US District Court in Hawaii. When they filed a petition for recognition and enforcement of the judgment in the Philippines, it was dismissed by the RTC. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Filipino citizens, stating that an opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment in a local forum is essential.
Filmmaker Lino Brocka together with other activists who attended a protest rally and jeepney strike were all detained under a Preventive Detention Action issued by then President Marcos on January 28, 1985. They were charged in three separate informations of the crime of illegal assembly. On February 7, 1985, then RTC Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago, issued a resolution of the said criminal cases, directing the release of Brocka and other accused on bail. Notwithstanding, they continued to be held in detention by order of the military and they were reinvestigated for committing inciting to sedition. Brocka questioned their continued detention, contending that the law does not allow the splitting of a single act into two offenses and filing two informations therefor and that they will be placed in double jeopardy.
Professorial Lecturer, Lyceum of the Philippines College of Law
Fellow, 1st UP Creative Writers’ Workshop (1980)
Instructor I, UP Department of English and Comparative Literature (1982)
Trustee and Corporate Secretary, UP Law Alumni Foundation Inc.; Justice George Malcolm Foundation Inc.
Past President, UP Women Lawyers’ Circle
Past President, Philippine Bar Association
UP College of Arts and Sciences, A.B. English, cum laude (1982)
UP Law Class 1988
Atty. Rizalde Laudencia
Member, Sangguniang Panlungsod, San Fernando, La Union
Studied at Confucius Institute, Ateneo de Manila University
Does Chinese Painting (Lingnan Style)
Writes poems in English, Tagalog, and Ilocano
UP A.B. Political Science (1978)
UP Law Class 1982
Dr. Rolando Tolentino
Professor, UP Film Institute
Director, UP Institute of Creative Writing
Former Dean, UP College of Mass Communication
Member, Manunuri ng Pelikulang Pilipino and the Film Development Council of the Philippines
Awardee: UP Press Centennial Publication Award; National Book Award, Obermann Summer Research Fellowship; Manila Critics Circle Award; Carlos Palanca Memorial Awards for Literature
A.B. Economics, De La Salle University
M.A. in Philippine Studies, De La Salle University
Ph. D. in Film, Literature and Culture, University of Southern California
Atty. Nicolas Pichay
Director, Legislative Research Service, Senate of the Philippines
Poet, playwright, essayist
Hubert Humphrey Fellow, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University 2018
Awardee: Carlos Palanca Literary Prize (2007 Hall of Fame); NCCA Literary Awards; CCP Literary Awards; Asian Cultural Council; and Gawad Pambansang Alagad ni Balagtas of UMPIL (2016)
UP A.B. Political Science (1984)
UP Law Class 1988
Atty. Alden Lauzon
Assistant Professor 7, Department of Art Studies, UP College of Arts and Letters (CAL)
Associate Dean for Administration, CAL (June 2015 – June 2021)
Senior Partner, Pedregosalaw Offices
UP M.A. Art Studies, Art History (1998)
UP Law Class 2000
Dr. Jose Dalisay Jr.
Professor Emeritus, English and Creative Writing, UP
Fellow and Former Director, UP Institute of Creative Writing
Author, writer
Awardee: 16 Carlos Palanca Awards in 5 genres
UP College of Arts and Sciences, A.B. English, cum laude (1984)
Jayvee Arbonida del Rosario (Student)
___
Fever dream (I want to stay)
What is to wake? As days blur by and memory fails, so too does the line between dream and reality fade. One is as ephemeral as the other. Perhaps, it is in this realm of warped time and lost futures, of muted joys and terrors, where things make more sense.
Marissa Lucido Iñigo (Admin Staff)
___
Pagsulong sa kabila ng pagsubok
Bagamat matagal at paulit-ulit na tayong naghihigpit at lumuluwag sa mga kwarantin na ipinapatupad sa ating bansa, iisa lang ang nababakas sa mga buhay ng mga Pilipino araw-araw, pagsulong at pagtataguyod sa pamilya sa kabila ng pagsubok na sinasagupa araw-araw.
Nababata ng mga manggagawa ang lahat para sa kanilang mga pamilya.
Nadagdag isuot araw-araw ang proteksyon laban sa nakakahawang sakit,
pero talaga nga bang napoproteksyunan tayo sa totoong sakit sa bansa?
“Ano nga ba ang tunay na pagsubok? Ang Pandemya o ang sistema?”
– Tanong ng Pilipinong lumalaban.
Gianina O. Cabanilla (REPS)
___
Stay with me till the sun sets and we rise together
The fury, the fire, the glory of endings and beginnings,
the bone melting pain of it all
Razel Ann Pelandas Esteban (Student)
Life goes on… and we will not stop pushing for a better tomorrow. Not now, not ever.
____ ____
Note: This e-book is intended for online viewing only. It is not intended as an actual publication. Click on the thumbnail to view the winning entries.
Life goes on… and we will not stop pushing for a better tomorrow. Not now, not ever.
UP003
UP004
UP005
UP006
UP007
UP008
UP009
UP010
UP011
UP012
UP013
UP014
UP015
UP016
UP017
UP018
UP019
UP020
UP021
UP022
UP023
UP024
UP025
UP026
UP027
UP028
UP029
UP030
UP031
UP032
UP033
UP034
UP035
UP036
UP037
UP038
UP039
UP040
UP041
UP042
UP043
UP044
UP045
UP046
UP047
UP048
UP049
UP050
UP051
UP052
UP053
UP054
UP055
UP056
UP057
UP058
UP059
UP060
UP061
UP062
UP063
UP063-A
UP063-B
UP064
UP065
UP065-A
UP065-B
UP066
UP067
UP068
UP069
UP070
UP071
UP072
UP074
UP073
UP075
UP076
UP077
UP078
UP079
UP080
UP081
UP082
UP083
UP084
UP085
UP086
UP087
UP088
UP095
UP096
UP099
UP100
UP101
UP103
UP104
UP106
Note to guests:
The Class of 2020 Zoom session went live on 28th August 2020 (5:00pm until 7:00pm). This link is now closed. Thank you for visiting our virtual graduation ceremony. Congratulations, graduates!
Batch Messages:
Have you seen our FlipGrid sharing? Please install FlipGrid or proceed to this link to participate! (We sent login codes in advance, please check your official UP email for the details.)
This is a video playlist. Click on the upper right corner to select a video.
Recommended internet cookies are used by this website to improve your browsing experience. These cookies include Google Analytics, Facebook, Instagram, WordPress and Zendesk products or widgets. Your consent is important to us.
on the upper right corner to select a video.