Gabriel & Espiritu Salaysay at Saysay Manuscript (Unedited)

Chapter 14
The Philippines under Martial Law
The tumultuous years between 1970 and 1972 led into a surprising turn of events that
induced fear among Filipinos. This was the period of Martial law. What the Filipinos had a
horrible experience before was dark years of Japanese occupation from 1941 to 1945. But
1945 was the period of liberation when the Japanese surrendered and there was the revival of
hope among Filipinos that democracy had returned. What were pressing at that time was the
growing threat of insurgency perpetrated by the Huks in Central Luzon who fought against
the Japanese but this time were now fighting for the ownership of land in defense of the
peasants. Since firearms proliferated after the Second World War, guns and goons became the
capital of politicians. Firearms and ideology became a crucible mix which when blended with
desperation and hopelessness made it all the more crucible.

Learning Objective
At the end of this chapter, you would have:

a) Differentiated the claims of Ferdinand Marcos‟s Revolution From The Center

and Pete Lacaba‟s “Lying Down In Air”,
b) Recognize the factors that led to the frailties of our society into accepting
and tolerating Martial Law in its first few years.

Preliminary Activity
Analyze the following verses from the Holy Bible.

“Like a roaring lion or a charging bear is a wicked man ruling over a helpless
people.” (Proverbs 28:15)

“When the wicked rise to power, people go into hiding; but when the wicked perish,
the righteous thrive.” (Proverbs 28:28)

Process Questions

 These Bible verses tell of wicked rulers. Why did the writer compare a wicked ruler
to a charging lion?
 Why, do you think, did the writer declare that when the wicked rise to power the
people go into hiding?

Historical Context
After the Second World War, the Philippines was ushered in to the third Republic, a
new chapter in the history of the nation. While Filipino politicians were insinuating the
Americans to leave the country and grant us our independence quickly, after the war,
Filipinos as a whole were singing a different tune: “Americans don‟t leave us” in the midst of
devastation and lack of provisions left by the war. Manuel Roxas, a contemporary of Manuel
Quezon and Sergio Osmeña during the American period became president after the war in
1946. But he only had two years as president for he died of a heart attack in 1948. Elpidio

1
Gabriel & Espiritu Salaysay at Saysay Manuscript (Unedited)

Quirino, his vice-president took over and won the presidency in 1949. The charismatic
Ramon Magsaysay beat him on his re-election bid in 1953 and became president only to meet
a tragic death in a plane crash in 1956 a year before his term expires, where he was sure to
win re-election. Carlos Garcia, his vice-president replaced him and won the presidency in
1957. He lost the re-election in 1961 to Diosdado Macapagal who would be besieged by an
emerging president in the making.

Ferdinand Marcos‟s political career spanned a long time from being a congressman
to being a senator. In 1960 while Diosdado Macapagal was serving as vice-president under
Pres. Carlos Garcia, Marcos crossed paths with Macapagal as both stalwarts of the Liberal
Party wanted to run for the presidency. Macapagal convinced Marcos to withdraw on the
promise that Macapagal will not run for his second term come 1965. But in 1965, Macapagal
abandoned their gentleman‟s agreement and planned to run for re-election. Marcos, on the
other hand, having secured his political capital as President of the Senate was wooed by the
Nacionalista Party as their standard bearer. (Agoncillo and Mangahas 2010: 249). Marcos,
however, had strategetized his plan for the presidency on a series of public relations stunts. In
time for the presidential campaign a biographical book For Every Tear a Victory written by
Hartzell Spence went out of the market which showed the war exploits of the Marharlika
Division which zeroed in on the war exploits of Lt. Ferdinand Marcos during world war II. It
had a companion movie, “Iginuhit ng Tadnana” which also showed the young lieutenant in
action in the battlefield. It was starred by the matinee idols at that time, Luis Gonzales and
Gloria Romero and produced by 777 productions a production outfit of the Ernesto Maceda‟s
family, Marcos‟s political operator. Marcos‟s biography was countered by Macapagal with
his book Macapagal the Incorruptible which was authored by Quentin Reynolds but he died
in an Italian villa while writing the book. The book was finished by Geoffrey Bocca
(Seagrave 1988: 176-177).

But Macapagal had lost his luster since he was involved in several controversies, one
devastating of which was the Stonehill scandal. Harry Stonehill was businessman engaged in
the import and export of cigarette which he got a monopoly through legislators who provided
him the permit to trade but were under his pay check. He also exchanged his profit in dollars
through the black market and deposited the money in Switzerland. When the scandal was
about to explode in the Senate investigation though a blue book that contained the names of
his benefactors, Macapagal deported Stonehill on the pretext that he was a danger to
Philippine society. (Seagrave 1988:166-169).Macapagal also lost popularity with the
perennial rice problem despite the land reform code that was enacted during his term. In 1965,
Marcos swept Macapagal off Malacanang.

Between 1965 and 1969, the first term of Marcos, the government attained
considerable success in addressing the rice shortage. Marcos also embarked on building
infrastructure projects. The success of his administration easily won him a second term which
no president before him had done. At his second term, constitutional change continued as a
carryover of the previous administrations, an aspiration, politicians were dreaming at that
time since they were arguing that the 1935 constitution was designed during the colonial days
of the American period which designed a strong president but which was then in need to be
balanced by an equally powerful legislature. They were opting for a parliamentary
government. By a sweep of luck, Sen. Arturo Tolentino who was urging for constitutional
changes had now become his party mate and ally and with the Marcos‟s second term, charter
change in 1970 got off the ground. But the constitutional change also gave an advantage to
Marcos to propel his political ambition of perpetuating himself to power. In the 1970
constitutional convention Marcos and his allies were able to win considerable seats to
influence the debates into abolishing the presidential system into adopting a parliamentary
one. If this change pushes through, then he could run for a seat in parliament in Ilocos and
still end up being the Prime Minister. Unfortunately, interest groups had already been

2
Gabriel & Espiritu Salaysay at Saysay Manuscript (Unedited)

pressing that Marcos should be driven out of power. A group of young campus journalists led
Ed Jopson asked for an audience with Marcos and in the course of the dialogue the young
journalists shoved a piece of paper which he dared Marcos to sign as a promise that he will
not run for another term as the transitory provision of the constitution would permit him to
(Robles 2016:22-23).By half the second term of Marcos, several sectors had already wanted
him out of office.

On August 21, 1971, at Plaza Miranda, during the miting de avance of the Liberal
Party in time for senatorial midterm election, a grenade was lobbed during the rally, killing
two persons including a journalist and injuring Liberal Party stalwarts among them were
Jovito Salonga, Eva Estrada Kalaw, Eddie Elarde and Sergio Osmeña. But this time as well,
the communists as a disenchanted sector of the society had re-organized under the leadership
of Jose Ma. Sison and co-founded its military arm, the New People‟s Army under Bernabe
Buscayno. During the first quarter of 1972, when the constitutional convention was almost
done with the charter, several riotous student demonstrations were mounted demanding the
resignation of Marcos. This was called the First Quarter Storm. With the communist
insurgency escalating in the countryside, with the secessionist movement in Mindanao headed
by Nur Misuari of the Moro National Liberation Front, and with the disruptive
demonstrations only meters away from Malacañang at Mendiola, the opportunity aligned for
Marcos to take advantage of perpetuating himself in power.

On September 21, 1972, Marcos issued Proclamation 1081 placing the entire
archipelago under martial law and suspending the writ of habeas corpus. Arrests were
effected among suspected communists including his critics and members of the Liberal Party
as the main opposition group against him. His nemesis that had bluntly criticized him on the
senate floor and exposed the anomalies in his television program was Sen. Benigno Aquino.
With the work of the constitutional convention done, the new charter was finally ratified in
1973 under the authoritarian grip of the dictator and with which a parliamentary system now
in place. But this constitution would not be fully implemented since elections were
suspended. Thus there was no need to embark on Marcos‟s plan to run for a seat in parliament
and become Prime Minster, for at this time, in his calculation, he would be president for life.
Aside from massive arrests, media institutions were taken over by government forces and
turned over to government control. But the takeover of these institutions went too far into the
takeover also of private companies that either belonged to their enemies or simply their
families desired to make themselves all the more rich. Examples were Meralco, ABS-CBN,
RPN 9, IBC 13, National Shipyard Company and many more which ended up under the
ownership either of dummies by the presidential family or their cronies. For a time, he has
succeeded on his grim plan to perpetuate himself in power and stifle the democratic
processes. He introduced the New Society with its jingle Bagong Lipunan and slogan “Sa
Ikauunlad ng Bayan Disiplina ang Kailangan,” and its supposed idealogy, The Revolution
from the Center. The people obeyed at first, not for the reason that it was good for them, but
because of outright fear. But years of experience under this regime proved to be a lie of the
promises it hoped to attain. The two readings are a testament. At this time, after World War
II, the Philippines entered into its dark years.

About the Authors

Pres. Marcos was born in Sarrat, Ilocos Norte on September 11, 1917. He took up
law at the University of the Philippines where he graduated cum laude. He was also a member
of the UP Reserved Officer Training Corps (UP Vanguard). He topped the bar examinations
in 1939. During World War II, he served as a lieutenant in the Bataan campaign. He was also
implicated and convicted for the murder of Congressman Julio Nalundasan, an arch political
rival of his father but was exonerated by the Supreme Court upon the persuasion of Supreme
Court chief justice Jose Laurel Sr. who saw in him a bright political future. He ran for

3
Gabriel & Espiritu Salaysay at Saysay Manuscript (Unedited)

congress after the 2nd World War and won 3 times. He ran for senate in 1959 and later became
senate president in 1963. He ran for president in 1965 and won his reelection in 1969 until he
declared Martial law in 1972. He was deposed in a People Power revolution in 1986.

Pete Lacaba was a journalist, poet and screen writer. He was an activist who opposed
the manipulation of Marcos to stay in power after 1973 where he gave a vivid account of the
First Quarter Storm which he himself was an active participant. He fought against the
declaration of Martial law, but was later arrested and imprisoned. He lived on until his release
in 1975 upon the request of his friend Nick Joaquin who received the national artist award in
the same year. He lived until the post 1986 People Power revolution to tell his horrid tale of
Martial law.

========================================

Reading 14.1

Revolution from the Center1

By Ferdinand E. Marcos

The man who wants only a quiet life will find no place to hide in today‟s world. We
live in a time of rapid, often violent change. To cry over this is useless. We should rather
decide whether to be the masters or victims of change.
On September 21, 1972, I declared martial law throughout the Philippines.
I did so in accord with our Constitution, as a last defense against two grave dangers to
the state. One was a rebellion mounted by a strange conspiracy of leftist and rightist radicals.
The other was a secessionist movement supported by foreign groups.
The decision was easy to take. For I did not become President to preside over the
death of the Philippine Republic.
Martial law, of course, has evil meanings for Western man. For good reason, he
remembers the many times that he had forced to give up all power to a strong man. This he
had to do in the age of the Roman Caesars; now he sees himself threatened once again by the
alliance between Army officers and some big industrialists. Yet this historic fear is only one
side of the picture.
The other side is that the Asian or African successors to the Western regimes in the
once-colonized territories have often used martial law to perpetuate themselves in office and
keep down their restless people.
So, to the Western mind, martial law by itself is outrageous – though for some reason
Westerners do not seem too enraged by totalitarian dictator who made the trains run on time.
Here I argue the uniqueness of Philippine martial law. This is what I set out to prove:
that martial law became morally and politically necessary in my country‟s situation on the
eve of September 21, 1972. I do not wish merely to justify my recourse to martial law, I offer
the basic idea and faith of those who now seek to remake Philippine society.

1
Lifted from his book by Ferdinand E. Marcos, Revolution from the Center, Raya Books, Hong Kong,
1978, pp. 1-, 47-53.

4
Gabriel & Espiritu Salaysay at Saysay Manuscript (Unedited)

For I believe that we in the Philippines have developed the new idea of a reform
government under martial law. We are using martial law not only to restore civil order. We
are using it as the legal means to bring about badly needed and drastic reforms in our country.
I believe that other democracies – especially in the poor countries – can use martial law in the
same way.
Few societies in our time are spared the challenge of revolution, for modern man
believes absolutely in the power to control and change the world around him. And revolution
is the final expression of this modernizing outlook.
In the developing countries, groups of once-passive people are awakening: their
demands make up an explosion of political participation. So the revolution is not about to
come: it is here. The question is: how is change to come about?
Everywhere in the world, democracy must face the problem of how to replace
organizations and ways of doing things that have hardened into bone – so that government
and people lose the flexibility to meet a crisis at home.
This problem is acute because man in the Americas and Europe has had no resort
except revolution – which is bloody, costly and emotionally shocking – to change his
institutions in some radical way. Democracy is said to be a better way of changing things,
because it spreads power among the people. But all of man‟s great leaps toward new ways of
governing himself have always been through bloodshed. Most man finally admit he is not
clever enough to devise a constitutional means for radical change when all other democratic
ways have failed – freedom of speech and criticism, elections, legislatures and constitutional
conventions?
If we cast off our superstitions and prejudices, if we heed the spirit and not the letter
of the law, we shall realize that martial law, given certain safeguards (including periodic
consultations with the people through referendums), can be used both to restore civil order
and to create a new society – without shedding blood and without crippling, much less
removing civil government.

Revolution from above

The simple-minded view is that government cannot lead a democratic revolution –

“for there is no revolution from above.” This view forgets the history is change, that
conditions change and that government itself develops in theory and practice. Countries
evolve their own special character.

The revolutions of eighteenth – century France may have taken for granted that all
rulers were intolerable as their own. As one of them described the French nobility of that
time: “We see on the face of the globe only incapable, unjust sovereigns enervated by luxury,
corrupted by flattery, depraved through unpunished license, and without latent morals or good
qualities.” Such tyrants had to be brought down by a people united in revolution.

But there was around the same time, the English ruling class, which differed in one
crucial way from the French: its government became sympathetic to the people‟s demands.
The English nobles chose to lose their privileges and not their heads. So they led a “revolution
from above” – by opening their ranks to worthy commoners and giving the vote to the masses
of the English people. Here is an example of a ruling class that accepted the fact of social
change and identified itself with the people‟s hopes.

Even today people judge governments by their willingness and capacity to act as the
instruments of social change. Government, especially in Asia and Africa, has stopped being a
mere policeman, governing best because it governs least. The governed look to their
governments for leadership not only in politics but in the economy and in social life.

5
Gabriel & Espiritu Salaysay at Saysay Manuscript (Unedited)

Only when a government has failed in these leadership roles is it rejected and
disowned by the people.

Of course, the great majority of the people do not begin revolution: they answer to the
call of a revolutionary minority. But a revolutionary minority in a democratic society may
have some purpose other than setting the masses free. The government that this minority
hopes to set up may result in less, not more, freedom for the people. A democratic
government, then, is obliged to make itself the faithful instrument of the people‟s
revolutionary hopes.

It must lead a revolution from the center…

A community of equals

In five years of martial law we have achieved civil equality – the kind of equality that
means equal treatment. To be poor in our society is no longer to be under privileged. True,
there is an element of coercion behind this. Martial law enforces equality. As the basis of this
new political bond, it is the precondition for attaining a greater equality, which is social
equality.

A society in which the majority of the people are poor is – as we have experienced –
always in danger of giving its political authority corrupted and dominated by the rich
minority. In these revolutionary times, such a society cannot last long. That society will
endure whose members enjoy equality - in other words, a society which has removed
economic equality…

Human rights

Martial law always creates the liability of abuse, because the situation that requires it
– rebellion, insurgency, anarchy – is far from normal. From the very beginning, I saw clearly
that by invoking so extraordinary a power for government, we might recover political
authority only at the cost of reducing the rights of the people. Beyond that, I realized the
added danger that martial law might set us so irreversibly under authoritarian rule that we
would not be able to return to representative government even after the crisis had passed.
We took steps, very early in the emergency, to see to it that persons detained, whether
for rebellion, or criminal acts, would not be subjected to degrading treatment and punishment.
Despite these precautions, we soon came to know of abuses by soldiers and even of prisoners
being tortured. This knowledge led us into a searching review of both the system of military
justice and the administration of detainees. As part of this review, we offered amnesty to all
detainees who were not charged with murder and who wished to renew their allegiance to the
Republic. As the emergency eased, we set free all detainees against whom charges could not
be filed.
Our action on erring soldiers has been swift. As of June 30, 1977, we had dismissed
2,083 members of the armed forces. Of this number we sentenced 322 soldiers to disciplinary
punishment.
Growing stability has enabled the Government gradually to dismantle some of the
institutions set up under the crisis. The military commissions, for one, are being phased out,
the cases before them being moved to civil courts. In August 1977 I lifted curfew and the
prohibition on Filipinos traveling abroad.
Entirely apart from the rights of accused persons, there are other rights that are
usually suppressed in times of crisis. These are the rights of free speech, of association and
assembly, of movement. Generally, we have modified these rights and not denied them. So

6
Gabriel & Espiritu Salaysay at Saysay Manuscript (Unedited)

the Government has not prevented the political Opposition from openly criticizing it. We
have allowed all peaceful assemblies, rallies and marches, even those united only by the
belief that all Government policies are wicked. We have stopped only those demonstrations
that had threatened to break out, or had broken out, into violence. And we have called persons
to answer for their opinions only when they had tried to incite listeners to act violently against
the Government and outside the political process.
The Western press may naturally regard Government as its adversary. I have always
questioned the usefulness of such a self-righteous attitude for the press in the poor country –
whose society is often under siege, and whose stability depends on its leaders‟ ability to
conciliate and harmonize the widest range of interest. That we permit the press to criticize the
Government, that we encourage it skeptically to examine our programs – this the most
cursory treading of today„s Manila newspapers will prove. But we argue against distractions
that turn the papers to sensationalism and to sowing tensions in society.
In the beginning, we also had to regulate the workers‟ right to strike – a decision that
brought down on us much criticism from abroad. But we did not also abolish the bargaining
rights of workers. We set up machinery for settling industrial disputes through reconciliation
and compulsory arbitration. Generally, we have found that this machinery is able to settle
disputes speedily – with much the same results as those that workers would have gained had
they been able to strike. In any case, we have since lifted the ban on the right to strike, except
in a few vital industries whose disruption would severely affect the public interest.
In our situation, we dare not be obsessed with the forms of freedom and democracy,
and reach for less than their substance. I think that we have struck a balance between the
rights of the person and rights of the community. By so doing, we have broadened, rather than
constricted, the dimensions of human freedom in the Philippines.
In telling the people of martial law in September `1972, I had stressed that it was
being imposed in accordance with the 1935 Constitution, that it was not a military takeover of
the civilian government and that all the laws not directly affecting the state of emergency
would still prevail.
In early 1973 the political Opposition brought a number of cases before the Supreme
Court that questioned the legitimacy of the martial law government. Now martial law itself
cannot be challenged as extraconstitutional or illegal. Yet the Government submitted itself to
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all the “marital law cases” to show its subordination
to the Constitution and its adherence to the rule of law. The overall verdict of the Court was to
establish the validity of the proclamation and its continuance under our legal system.
Subsequently, the Government also brought the question of its policies before the
people, through referendums. Of course, some people have said that these referendums were
held only to consolidate and perpetuate authoritarian rule. That is their opinion but I have
always been concerned that the policies of government, particularly those that call for great
adjustments in the political and social order be rooted on the advice and consent of the people.

******

Reading 14.2

7
Gabriel & Espiritu Salaysay at Saysay Manuscript (Unedited)

Lying Down in Air2

By Pete Lacaba

At dawn of April 25, 1974, in the second year of martial law, I was awakened by
shouts of: “Buksan n‟yo‟ng pinto! Awtoridad ito!” (Open up! We are the authorities!) I
looked out and saw that the house was surrounded by armed men taking cover behind jeeps
and cars that had their headlights on.
As soon as I opened the door, the first man who came in shoved the barrel of his rifle
into my stomach. Then somebody spun me around and forced me to lie face down on the
floor. In that position, I was stepped on, kicked in the ribs, hit in the back and on the back of
the head with rifle butts.
After the house had been searched and my two house companions were in custody,
someone who acted as though he was in command (I would learn later that he was a first
lieutenant, but not the head of the raiding party) dragged me into the bathroom and asked if
there was a tunnel underneath us. I couldn‟t help giving a short laugh, struck by the absurdity
of the question. Angered by my response, he gave a sudden blow in the chest with his closed
fist. The lieutenant was an Arnold Schwarzenegger pumping-iron type, and at that time I was
111 pound weakling. That single punch sent me reeling against the bathroom‟s tiled wall.
The sun was up when we were taken in separate cars to Camp Crame in Quezon City,
to the headquarters of the 5 th Constabulary Security Unit (5CSU). After some routine
questioning and filling up of forms in the office, I was taken to the back, the troops‟ sleeping
quarters. Constabulary officers and enlisted men – including a buck private who was himself
under detention, for murder – took turns making me a punching bag.
Mostly I was pummelled with fists in the chest and the stomach. I was seated on the
edge of a steel cot. My tormentors and interrogators sat in chairs or stood before me, hitting
me each time a question was asked or an answer was unsatisfactory. Troopers passing by, on
their way to their lockers or wherever, felt free to hit my nape of the back of my head with
open palms or karate chops.
At one point I was made half-squat with arms outstretched. One of my tormentors
then took a broom and slowly, methodically beat my shins with the broom‟s wooden handle.
Although he seemed to be hitting me with very little force, the cumulative effect of the
beating caused my shins to swell and made it (sic) sore and sensitive for a few days.
At another point I was made to lie down with the back of my head resting on the edge
of one steel cot, both of my feet resting on the edge of another cot, my arms straight at my
sides, and my stiffened body hanging in midair. This was the torture they called higa sa
hangin (lying down in air), also known as the San Juanico Bridge, named after the country‟s
longest bridge, built during Martial Law and dedicated by Marcos to his wife Imelda.
“Lying down in air” is difficult enough, since you have to contend with the pull of
gravity. But even before gravity could take its toll, somebody standing close by would give
me a kick in the stomach and bring my body down to the floor. The steel cot scraped skin off
my nape as I slid down.
I was forced to “lie down in air” twice. The third time I simply refused to get up. I
stayed crumpled on the floor and said, “You may as well just kill me. Go ahead and kill me.”
That was when the torture stopped for the day.

2
Lifted from her book by Raissa Robles, “Lying Down in Air,” Martial Law Never Again, Quezon
City: Filipinos for a Better Philippines, Inc., 2016, pp. 63-64.

8
Gabriel & Espiritu Salaysay at Saysay Manuscript (Unedited)

I had been continuously tortured for about eight hours. Incredibly enough, we even
had a lunch break. I forced myself to finish up the horrid prison food on the aluminium army
tray that they placed before me, hoping that when they resumed hitting me in the stomach I
would throw up in their faces. I never did.
I can no longer remember the exact sequence of events, but in the days that followed,
during the fortnight when we were incommunicado and our families went desperately from
camp to camp looking for us, I experienced various other forms of harassment and torture.
Once, while a deposition was being taken, the sergeant conducting the interrogation
suddenly kicked me in the chest. We were both seated in one corner on the 5CSU office, face
to face, and I insisted on answering only questions pertaining to myself, refusing to answer
those that would implicate other people. After the nth “I prefer not to answer that question,”
he raised his booted foot and gave me a kick in the chest that sent the chair on which I was
seated skidding clear across the room. When the chair hit the wall, I fell to the floor.
On another occasion, a lieutenant reviewing my deposition made me stand in front of
an air conditioner going full blast while he interrogated me. And he smiled when he saw me
that I was shivering uncontrollably.
On still another occasion, another lieutenant ordered me to close my eyes in the
course of an interrogation. A hand that I assumed to be the lieutenant‟s then slapped my
closed eyes and my nape repeatedly, almost rhythmically.
Once, the detained soldier who had been one of my torturers on my first day took me
out of the cramped prison cell that I shared with about 30 other political prisoners. He gave
me a tongue-lashing for having poked fun at his rather unusual name. While he was spewing
saliva in my face, his fellow soldiers gave me a few jabs in the ribs.
One day I was led out of the small prison cell, handcuffed, and made to board a jeep
with three or four of the men who had tortured me on my first day. I thought for sure this was
it, they were going to take me to wherever their killing fields were and blow my brains out.
Instead, we went to a military hospital, the V. Luna in Quezon City. I recognized the place
because it was there that my father, a war veteran, had died of cancer about a dozen years
earlier.
It now seemed to me that my torturers were humane after all, that they would have
treated for the bruises on my nape and shins. But as soon as we were inside a doctor‟s clinic
in one of the wards, I was blindfolded with my own snot-splattered handkerchief, made to lie
down on the examination table and injected with what I would later surmise to be a “truth
serum”. In a couple of minutes I felt like I had downed half a case of beer. My head swam,
and my body seemed to float. Once again the third degree began. I can remember talking
drunkenly and trying to give misleading answers that would still somehow sound credible to
my interrogators.
I don‟t know how long the interrogation took before I finally lost consciousness. It
was dark when I was roused from sleep, taken to the jeep, and brought back to my prison cell.
They had to half-carry me all the way. My legs felt like jelly and I didn‟t seem to have any
control over any part of my body, although I kept mumbling my own mantra:” Mind over
matter, mind over matter.” The mantra didn‟t work.
About two weeks after my arrest, I was taken to the office of the lieutenant who had
slapped my closed eyes. He said my wife and my mother were in the other room. They had
finally found my place of detention. But the lieutenant said he would only allow me to see
them if I would name one name and give one address of a person involved in the underground
resistance. “Have pity on your wife and your mother,” he said. “They would very much like
to see you.” After a few moments of agonizing, I said I couldn‟t do it. He eventually let my
wife and my mother come in and talk to me for about 10 minutes, but not after subjecting

9
Gabriel & Espiritu Salaysay at Saysay Manuscript (Unedited)

them for a much longer time to the mental torture of knowing I was just in the other room and
fearing they would not be allowed to see me.
I was detained without charges for close to two years. In the first six months of
detention, I was made to wash cars and clean the enlisted men‟s incredibly filthy latrines.
Halfway through my detention I experienced a recurrence of the pulmonary tuberculosis of
which I had already been cured before Martial Law. I had to be confined for about a month at
the Quezon institute, a hospital that specialized in tuberculosis cases. Three shifts of prison
guards kept me company.

========================================

Reinforcement Activity

 Differentiating the claims of Ferdinand Marcos’s Revolution From The Center

and Pete Lacaba’s “Lying Down In Air.”

Complete the following matrix.

Claims of Marcos Claims of Lacaba

in Revolution from the Center in Lying Down in Air

 Recognizing the factors that illustrate the frailties of our society into accepting
and tolerating Martial Law in its first few years.

Fill up this diagram. You can consult or interview other people who lived through
the Martial Law era to answer the “Perception and feeling of the people.”

Condition Perception Characteristics Hideous

antecedent and feeling of Filipinos character
to Martial of the of
Law people individuals

Martial
+ + + = Law

What then are our frailties as a people that have made us susceptible into
accepting a dictatorship?

10
Gabriel & Espiritu Salaysay at Saysay Manuscript (Unedited)

Relevance
The two documents presented here are relevant on these points:

 Marcos‟s Revolution from the Center is a self manufactured propaganda to

justify the imposition of Martial Law.
 Lacaba‟s “Lying Down in Air” is a victim‟s detailed testimony that serves as an
example of the horrible human rights abuse suffered by many in the opposition in
secret but widely known.

Challenge
What measures would you take personally to prevent the occurrence of another
dictator as our leader and the abuse of power through Martial law or through political
institutions that mimic that of Martial law if it is only done to perpetuate power?

References
Agoncillo, Teodoro A. and Mangahas Fe B. (2010) Philippine History, Quezon City: C&E
Publishing.

Lacaba, Pete (2016) “Lying Down in Air,” in Robles, Raissa Martial Law Never Again,
Quezon City: Filipinos for a Better Philippines, Inc.

Marcos, Ferdinand E. (1978) Revolution from the Center, Hong Kong: Raya Books.

Robles, Raisa (2016) “Lying Down in Air,” Martial law Never Again, Quezon City: Filipinos
for a Better Philippines.

Seagrave, Sterling (1988) The Marcos Dynasty, New York: Harper and Row Publishers.

11