Martial Law: Marcos’ Brainchild The last three years

before the declaration of martial law was considered tumultuous. The events were later escalated to become the preconditions of the declaration of martial law on September 21, 1972

by President Ferdinand E. Marcos.

The establishment of the Communist Party of the Philippines in 1969 & its subsequent growth which was estimated by the Philippine Constabulatory of having membership of 7,000 activists & possibly 100,000 sympathizers mostly students who were frustrated by their lack of career oppurtunity.

The 1969 presidential elections where Ferdinand Edralin Marco won a second term proved to be the catalyst to an intensified violence.

Hartzell Spence pictured it this way: On January 26, 1970, when the

reelected government was scarcely a month old, a student-communist riot in Manila caused five deaths. Four days later, about 10,000 demonstrators crashed the grounds of Malacañang, the President’s residence, and burned the medical building before they were driven off with tear gas, leaving four dead. Over the next year and a half, almost daily acts of sabotage disturbed the peace in the Greater Manila Are, the seat of national government, goaded by a continuous newspaper clamor.

Water mains & sewer lines were dynamited, electric conduit blown up. In hit-and-run raids in the suburbs, five mayors, three police chiefs and twenty barrio captains were killed. The havoc spread unrest and inertia: many markets were empty of traders and customers in fear of bombings, and some schools closed as parents kept the pupils at home.

Even before the congressional and local elections of 1971, the lawlessness invited a major tragedy. It denoted on August 21, 1971, during a rally of a Liberal Party leaders was present. Two hand grenades fragmented on the stage at the peak of firework display. Eight persons were killed and 68 injured seriously. The government blamed the communists; the anti-Marcos newspapers accused the President of staging the incident to create a crisis, much as Adolf Hitler had burned the seat of the German Reichstag. On the eve of the convocation of the new Congress in January 1971, students briefly communized the University of the Philippines in a wild demonstration during which a professor was killed.

The continuous violence caused a deep economic recession. Much international capital and native wealth took flight to safer havens abroad, and new venture capital commitments were virtually dormant (1979).

Another threat to our national security erupted in Sulu & the southernmost parts of Mindanao dominated by Muslim Filipinos. Because of the political violence in Luzon, the Moros believed that President Marcos’ government is incapable of combating their resistance or secession from the Republic. In 1971, the Philippine Constabulary intelligence estimated the Muslim Freedom Movement’s strength at 16,000 men, organized for insurrection & heavily armed supplied allegedly by Middle East religious comrades.

In the month of September 1972, a calamity due to the worst typhoons & floods destroyed road systems, river dikes, flood control & irrigation projects. With all these problems confronting the Marcos administration & an imminent coup d'état plotted by the ultra-conservatives with the help of the Communist Party was also in the offing, and Marcos had to do something. With this, Spence had it this way:

The evidence on Marcos’ was conclusive. Intelligence sources, government infiltrators of both left & right wing cabals, purloined or captured plans, and warnings from loyal partisans in turn disclosed that a combined operation against the government pended. The ultra-conservatives, exploiting their communications monopoly, plotted a coup d’etat with communist help. The Maoists would instigate strategic bombings and noisy student outbreaks to spread fear, turmoil & confusion. As a signal for general uprising, two air craft would strafe Malacañang.

Some active or retired army officers would command a force composed chiefly of mercenaries from the private armies of the ruling families. These legions- one at least 3,500 men – had existed for years to protect the oligarchs & their estates & to act as goon squads to hold agricultural workers in subjection. One report listed 165 such contingents. Two families had pledged 300 men each to struggle.

The communist were known to have received heavy shipments of sophisticated weaponry, including electronic gear, from abroad. A freighter loaded with such contraband had gone aground of Isabela Province with a cargo consigned to the New People’s Army & the Communist Party of the Philippines (Spence, 1979).

On September 21, 1972, Ferdinand Edralin Marcos, as President of the Philippines, declared martial law all over the archipelago & according to him this is the foundation of a New Society – a peaceful democratic revolution. A society which later on become oppressive & venal – a condition so characterized a police state.

Under the martial law regime, Marcos did not exercise his powers as President but used his powers as Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces of the Philippines. In swift Machiavellian act, he governed the Philippines with an iron hand through Presidential Decrees & Executive Orders.

He abolished the Congress of the Philippines & political parties, clumped down on the fiery newspapers & broadcast facilities to instill fear & to silence his critics, & seized public utilities. The military, due to martial law, could arrest at rebellious political oppositions & knock out seditious movements. No political propaganda by the oppositions was allowed to flash on the television screen nor posted in the public. This is a total one-man rule.

On February 22-26, 1986, the top brass of the military chain of command of the Marcos administration staged coup d’etat led by then defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile & his subalterns in the Reform the Armed Forces Movement (RAM) soldiers and backed-up later by the chief of the Philippine Constabulatory/Integrated National Police force under General Fidel Ramos.

They holed up themselves at Camp Crame & Camp Aguinaldo. Corazon C. Aquino & Cardinal Jaime Sin called on their supporters to protect the well-meaning leaders of coup d’etat against any harm that Mr. Marcos may instigate. The people responded until Marcos fled Malacañang . This act of unseating a dictator was christened as Edsa People Power I.

The Impeachment of President Joseph Ejercito Estrada

Impeachment – In this paper, the term refers to the charges that Pres. Joseph Estrada committed against the state. Such charges were bribery, graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, and culpable violation of the Constitution.

Article I – This refers to the charges against the former President embraced under the case of bribery as stated in the Articles of Impeachment.

Article II – This refers to the charges against the former President embraced under the case of graft and corruption as provided in the Articles of Impeachment.

Article IV – This refers to the charges against the former President embraced under the case of culpable violation of the Constitution.

Culpable Violation of the ConstitutionTreasonBriberyGraft & CorruptionBetrayal of Public TrustOther High Crimes

Grounds for Impeachment

Culpable Violation of the Constitution

This refers to a willful and intentional breach of the Constitution. Hence, not every violation of the constitution constitutes an impeachable offense. Violation of the constitution committed unintentionally or involuntary either in good faith or through an honest mistake of judgment is not a ground for impeachment.

TREASONThis is a crime committed by any person

who, owing allegiance to the Philippines, not a being foreigner, levies war against the Philippines or adheres to her enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the Philippines or elsewhere.

* It is the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.

BRIBERY*It is the offering, giving, receiving, or  soliciting of any item

of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.

It may be: 1. Direct Bribery 2. Indirect Bribery

Direct BriberyThe offense committed by

any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties, in consideration of any promise or gift received by such officer.

Indirect BriberyThe offense committed by

any public officer who shall accept gifts offered to him by reason of his office.

Graft and CorruptionThe phrase covers all graft and corrupt

practices. It was not included as ground for impeachment under the 1935 Constitution. Its inclusion may be attributed to the awareness of the 1971 Constitutional Convention of the widespread graft & corrupt in the government at the time.

It was first added by the 1973 Constitution to the grounds found under the 1935 Constitution.

Betrayal of Public Trust

This is a new ground for impeachment. It will cover any violation of the oath of office involving loss of popular support even if the violation may not amount to a criminal offense.

which means any form of violation of the oath of office even such violation may not be criminally punishable offense (Bernas, 1997).

Other High CrimesThe phrase refers to those crimes which,

like treason and bribery, are of so serious and enormous a nature as to affect the very life or orderly workings of the government. For impeachment purposes, no act may be regarded as a high crime unless there is a law forbidding & publishing it.

The ImpeachmentImpeachment: A Constitutional Mandate and Nature.

Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides explicitly the following provisions on impeachment, to wit:

The president, Vice President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions and the ombudsman may be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.

The Constitutional mandate is our guidepost in tackling the impeachment case of the former Chief executive. Never before had the Philippines been in this political dilemma that our legislators did not even bother to craft the rules on impeachment. This is a new political animal that the Filipinos are engaged in.

Legal luminaries are not in virtual unanimity as to what kind of animal this impeachment is.

There are at least two schools of thought which this representation observes & the writers have christened them as the judicial & the political schools of thought.

The first school is of the opinion that it is a judicial proceeding in the sense that the rules on evidence are adopted & that, although the mandate of liberality is being considered & observed by the members of the Impeachment Court, the Chef Justice being its presiding officer to have an orderly trial. The tribunal is known as the Impeachment Court & the judges as Senators-Judges, hence their judgment is of judicial nature.

The second school of thought believes that it is a political proceeding. They believe that since it involve only the removal of the political figure from office, but without prejudice to the prosecution of the criminal liability, to which he was elected on the grounds above enumerated. The second school is the prevailing opinion in that the Impeachment Court is a co-equal branch in our political system, hence they will render political justice.

Since the constitutional foundation of our fundamental law is that of the US, we shall take a look at their rationale why impeachment has been constitutionally mandated.

Mr. Edwin Lacierda, a Professor of law, wrote in his article “Impeachment: A Primer commentary”, enlightening beginnings of the impeachment process in the US.

He said: The framers of the US Constitution were

not satisfied with periodic elections. They were concerned that an executive, after ascending to office, would somehow be corrupted or become incompetent that a speedy & immediate remedy was necessary. Benjamin Franklin felt that impeachment was for the benefit of the executive because the alternative to impeachment on the obnoxious chief magistrate was recourse to assassination (Philippine Star, November 14, 2000).

ImpeachmentIt is a legal process provide for in the 1987

Constitution (Article XI- Section 2) as an insurance against abuse of power & committing of crimes by the high officials of the country.

It has been defined as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men. It is essentially in the nature of a criminal prosecution before a quasi-political Court, instituted by a written accusation of a crime or some official misconduct or neglect.

Purpose of Impeachment Its purpose is to protect the people from official delinquencies or malfeasances. It is, therefore, primarily intended for the protection of the State, not for the punishment of the offender. The penalties attached to impeachment are merely incidental to the primary intention of protecting the people as a body politic.

Impeachment Facts on the Former Pres. Joseph Ejercito

Estrada

(from the Congress Watch Report: Report No. 48 (Dec. 11, 2000)

1. Only the President, Vice President, Members of the Supreme Court, the members of the constitutional Commissions, & the Ombudsman may be removed from office through impeachment.

2. The grounds are culpable violation of Constitution, treason, bribery, graft & corruption, other high crimes & betrayal of public trust.

3. The House has exclusive power to determine if there is a probable cause to impeach or not. Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, 1/3 vote (or 73 of the current 217 representatives - excluding Romeo Jalosjos) is needed to affirm an impeachment case.

4. It could be initiated by any member of the House of the Representatives or by any citizen endorsed by a representative. In case the complaint or resolution is filed by 1/3 of the House members, it shall automatically constitute the Articles of Impeachment. Otherwise, the Complaint would have go to the House Committee on Justice tasked to handle public hearings which will submit a report within 60 days.

5. An impeachment case for the same official can be filed only once a year.

Conviction for only one impeachable offense is sufficient to remove the president from the office. In two years of holding office, there were pieces of evidence that Pres. Estrada has committed various impeachable offenses, primarily on the grounds of Bribery, Graft & Corruption, Betrayal of Public Trust, and Culpable Violation of the Constitution.

Events That Led Gov. Luis

Singson to Squeal

What then triggered the governor of the Ilocos Sur, “Chavit” Singson, to squeal?

Him who used to be a friend of Estrada & were considered as “great buddies in wine, women, song, gambling, & all around carousal” ( Benigno Teodoro, Phil. Star, p. 11, Dec. 15, 2000)

If this was so, what brought about the break between the “Damon of Malacañang and the Pythias of Ilocos Sur?”

Singson blames Charlie Atong Ang for the break. Chavit was a political & gambling buddy but Atong Ang was something else. As Benigno describes Ang the “poster boy of Malacañang, a close pal of the president, whose notoriety has never to amaze all of us”.

Singson narrates that Atong Ang slowly maneuvered to create doubt in the mind of the president about the governor’s bonafides. The poster boy reportedly insinuated Chavit Singson was not turning in all the jueteng proceeds (nangungupit) due the president & that he, Atong Ang, could deliver much more. So Bingo-2 Ball came into existence. Since this was legal, it would replace jueteng.

Atong Ang was pocketing the Bingo-2 Ball proceeds in his private account, blames Singson, would turn them over to Pagcor only when it pleased him. Worse, Gov. Singson was bumped off from jueteng in the Ilocos Sur province. Moreover, Atong Ang gave the operations of Bingo-2 Ball to the political enemies of Singson in his own province. This was the trigger. This, Singson said, on the orders of the president himself. This was the iron ball that crashed into Singson’s head.

Aware of those signals, Singson gathered all his papers & documents & deftly evaded a post-midnight ambuscade by the police by refusing to get out of his bullet proof car. From here, we know the rest of his story.

Desertion of Party &

Coalition Members

The “ I Accuse!” privilege speech of Senator Teofisto Guingona & the subsequent revelation of Gov. Luis “Chavit” Singson to the media & later to the Blue Ribbon Committee of the alleged crimes committed by the President, coalition members decided to withdraw their political affiliation with the administration pending investigation by the powerful Senate Committee.

The first to go was Senator Ramon Magsaysay, whose act is worthy of the name of his late father who was considered as the original “Masa President”.

The second was Rep. Roilo Golez. Although this man has been known as having the propensity to project personal political aggrandizement rather than public interest- hence his abandoning the sinking ship of Erap has always been seen as under duress.

Sen. Franklin Drilon followed suit compromising thereby his position as President of the Senate. He is number three (3) in the constitutional lineage of succession to galvanize his open protest against the President.

This was followed by the resignation en masse in the House of Representatives when the Speaker of the Filipino people, Rep. Manuel Villar, left with 40 of his followers, the coalition party that cost also his lucrative position on the historic night of November 13, 2000.

These resignations has institutional impact in the vital societal institutions – financial, educational, civic, religious, cause oriented groups, & the youth – practically joined the chorus of calling of the President to step down in order to save our country from the economic collapse & political bankruptcy.

“I Accuse!” Privilege Speech of Sen. Tito Guingona

Delivered on October 5, 2000 at the Philippine Senate

I accuse Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Republic of the Philippines, of betraying public trust. The people especially the poor reposed in him the trust that the he would protect them from illegal gambling. Instead it appears that shortly after he assumed office in 1998 he entered into an arrangement with Messrs. Bong Pineda, Atong Ang, and Governor Luis Singson to further institutionalize jueteng. In October 1998, President Estrada designated Luis Singson to make the collections of the jueteng operations and to deliver a substantial portion of the amount personally to him. Since November 1998 to August 2000, Luis Singson delivered to him an average amount of Ten Million Pesos a month.

I accuse Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Republic of the Philippines, of graft and corruption. Documents show that shortly after assuming office in 1998 the President asked for a portion from releases of funds allocated for Ilocos Sur under R.A. 7171 , a law that sets aside a portion of excise taxes for the Virginia tobacco producing provinces. After the DBM released the amount of P200 million, the President received P70 million out of said release, contrary to law.

I accuse Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Republic of the Philippines, for violating his own oath of office to enforce the law, of violating the strict mandate of the constitution against conflict of interest because he prejudiced public interest by purportedly releasing public funds for a public purpose when the real intent was to siphon off a substantial portion for personal ends, of violating the prohibition in the constitution against participation in business during his tenure as president. When he made arrangements to get money from jueteng collections, the same was not only illegal participation in an illegal business, it was also an enforced extraction in exchange for illegal protection accorded jueteng operators.

Mr. President, distinguished colleagues- I hold in my hand the documents to sustain the charges. In the national interest therefore I ask that the same be referred to the Blue Ribbon Committee and the Committee on Justice to conduct the needed investigation pursuant to pertinent provisions of the constitution and the statutes relevant thereto.

The people deserve to know the truth, they need to know who is accountable and why. We have a duty to perform, Let us do so without fear or favor.

Thank you

The decision to impeach the President came to the mind of Isabela Representative Heherson T. Alvarez. He was shown the pieces of evidence in the hands of Ilocos Sur Gov. Luis Chavit Singson, a few days before the explosive conference Singson gave on October 9 at Club Filipino where Erap was accused as “the biggest jueteng lord in the country or the lord of the jueteng lords”

But this decision of Alvarez was not an easy task. When the impeachment idea was reported to the media, even party mates of Alvarez were awed by its enormity or skeptical over its real prospects. Lakas was one of the first to underscore the daunting challenge of it passing the lower house.

Then, Barbers, quoted by media said, “ the move is useless… it’s a sure defeat when voting time comes. Lakas would have to court each & every member to the House to come with the needed numbers.”

Other party mates were not exactly jubilant in the face of the grave risks. The party would be losing more ‘masa’ support which has steadfastly stood by Erap. And if the impeachment move would lose in the House, it would be humiliating for the minority party.

It was not difficult to find allies then, first in the House itself & outside among civil societies & not government organizations. Bohol Representative Ernesto Herrera & Quezon City Representative Mike Defensor were ready allies whose courage & integrity have been proven in stakes issues.

By a coincidence, a group representing a wide spectrum of political ideology were also set to bring charges against Erap, & they readily agreed to harmonize & unify the impeachment complaint.

From the above signatories to the complaint, 30 others joined. Then Speaker Manny Villar bolted the LAMP coalition bringing with him 40 Lakas-NUCD party mates.

When Villar’s transmittal of the complaints to the Senate on November 13, 2000 before the House, there were already some 115 signatories, 42 more than the 73 required to obtain the 1/3 vote from the 218-member of Congress. This meant automatic transmittal of the impeachment complaint to the Senate where the former President will be tried, judged & convicted or exonerated.

House of the Representatives Impeached the

President

On the faithful night of November 13, 2000, in a stunning political coup which shocked Malacañang occupants & their political architects, the Speaker of the Filipino People, Rep. Manny Villar, sent the articles of Impeachment to the Senate of the Philippines for trial. This unprecedented gargantuan act of the speaker is considered as his last hurrah before his impending removal from his position by the powers-that-be.

What followed next was the expected removal of the Speaker which was an exercise in futility since the very purpose of such changing of the guards is to prevent the transmittal of the Articles of Impeachment to the waiting Impeachment Court – The Senate of the Philippines. The ruling party lost in that protracted- political tug-of-war.

Before the 22 members of the August Impeachment Court were more than 200- page Articles of Impeachment crafted by Rep. Heherson Alvarez & sponsored by him & Rep. Ernesto Herrera. It was endorsed by more than the required constitutional mandate of one third or 73 signatories for such Articles of Impeachment to be transmitted to the higher chamber of Congress for litigation.

This Constitutional Act of the lower house shows its independence in its own sphere. It is the first time in Asia in general & in the Philippines in particular, that the highest leader of the country will be removed from office through the political process of impeachment. The cost might be excessively expensive its remuneration is a legacy of political social, & economic stability.

Congress’ Reorganization: Senate

& the House of Representatives

Following the resignation of Sen. Franklin Drilon from the ruling coalition, the Senate of the Philippines, with the blessing of Malacañang, decided to change its leadership. The ruling coalition reasserted its muscle against recalcitrant members & punished them by removing them from their committee chairmanship.

Senator Aquilino Pimentel was elected as the new Senate President. He had to vote for himself upon knowing that theirs was a stalemate of 9-9 votes for him & senator Drilon. For him to be elected as primus inter pares, i.e., First Among Equals, he should receive a majority vote from his peers. So there is a need for him to cast his vote instead of abstaining for delicadeza. And so on November 9, 2000, he was elected as President of the Senate that completed the change of leadership after protracted political battle.

The brief but exiting political skirmishes that followed the impeachment of the President by the House of Representatives was equally dramatic. The reorganization would have been anti-climatic, since the President had been impeached.

But the boisterous noise of the expectators in the full packed gallery made the impeachment proceedings even more colorful when a member of the House, Rep. Jose Marie Gonzales, slapped sgt.-at –arms, Gen. Fabic, for failure to restore order in the August chamber. Unruly behavior – both from the crowd & some members of the Lower House – had been displayed which very much disturbed the civil society of-law makers.

These events preceding the reorganization, although uncivil, highlighted the changing of the guards of the Lower chamber. The speaker was eventually & finally removed from his position by a vote of 11 lawyers with proven integrity, trial technique capability, & interest at serving the public.

The new leadership wanted to recall the Articles of Impeachment as it was allegedly passed not in conformity with the House Rules. The House under Speaker Arnulfo Fuentabella’s stewardship was prevailed upon the argument that Rep. Manuel Villar did not violate any House Rules since the House is not acting as a legislative body to transmit only the Articles of Impeachment. Therefore, the Speaker was then acting as the Speaker of the Filipino People & not as the Speaker of the House of Representatives.