THOSE who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. This cautionary observation from the philosopher George Santayana seems rather appropriate today in view of the revisionist retelling our shared national experience with martial law in the 1970s, coming from one of its architects, Juan Ponce Enrile.
Enrile, as defense secretary, was in the inner circle of President Ferdinand Marcos when he declared military rule in 1972, and served as martial law administrator. For the next decade, he remained one of Marcos’ most loyal allies and was rewarded with great power and wealth, breaking with the dictator only when his regime began to crumble in the wake of the assassination of opposition leader Senator Benigno Aquino Jr.
In a press conference on Feb. 22, 1986 at the start of the People Power revolution, Enrile admitted that the attack on his car on Sept. 22, 1972, was staged in order to justify the declaration of martial law. The confession, covered by radio and television, was witnessed by millions of Filipinos.
In subsequent interviews, Enrile confirmed that the assassination attempt was staged.
But in his memoir, Enrile contradicts himself, and says political opponents had spread rumors of the ambush being staged.
This week, Enrile went a step further in his revision of history, saying in an interview that only one person—a drug dealer—had been executed during martial law, and not one was arrested for his religious or political beliefs.
“Name me one person that was arrested because of political or religious belief during that period. None. Name me one person who was arrested simply because he criticized Marcos. None,” Enrile said in his interview.
Sadly, nobody was there to contradict Enrile, since the interview was conducted by Marcos’ son, former senator Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
Had Enrile addressed his question instead to someone from the Human Rights Victims’ Claims Board, he might have obtained 11,103 names who will receive compensation for human rights violations they suffered under Marcos’s martial law regime.
These names were not the result of any propaganda—they were based on claims received, evaluated, processed and investigated by the HRVCB—and represented only 14 percent of the total 75,749 applicants.
Angered by Enrile’s claims, prominent politicians who suffered under martial law have also made their voices heard.
Against this backdrop, we welcome the Palace statement that Enrile cannot twist history and claim there were no arrests of political activists under martial law.
“As far as the Palace is concerned, there are decisions affirming that there were grave human rights violations committed during the Marcos regime. There’s even a law in Congress which provides for compensation for victims of martial law,” Presidential Spokesman Harry Roque said. “I don’t think they can twist history when there’s a law and there are court decisions attesting to what happened during martial law.”
At 95, perhaps Enrile’s memory may no longer be what it was. But those of us who lived through the martial law years and know people who were detained for their beliefs, remember.
It is often suggested these days that we need to move on from that period in our history. On this we agree. But moving on does not mean forgetting the excesses of the past, pretending they did not exist, or falsely believing that they could not happen again.