TWO DAYS FROM now, the Filipino people (at least those intending to participate) will be going to the polls and cast their own verdict on martial law and the proposed amendments which are cunningly presented, though, in a “package deal.”
Up to this moment, however, many are still doubting whether to vote or not at all, considering the threat of imprisonment for not voting. Is it not that an individual may freely chose either to exercise his right or not? A citizen is granted the right of suffrage for him to express his opinion, for instance, on the forthcoming referendum. But the citizen is compelled at this time to participate in this coming referendum which is, to many Filipinos, full of discrepancies.
For instance, the incumbent President, himself, revealed to the Newsweek magazine (August 9, 1976) that he would like to “eliminate the term “martial law” which seems to cause so much distress to Western constitutionalists and call it instead “constitutional authoritarianism” or “emergency situation”, which is not unlike Mussolini’s authoritarian democracy. This therefore is a clear manifestation that whether the people vote in favor of, or against, martial law this coming referendum, President Marcos will not lift ML substantially.
As a matter of fact, the National Federation of 42,000 barangay units proposed to “institutionalize martial law” – to perpetuate it and make it an institution. Thus, many of our people believe that which ever way you vote, still the present regime prevails.
Another tricky method employed by the present regime is evident in the second question which consists of nine (9) proposed amendments to the Constitution and to which the Filipino people will either vote “YES” or “NO.” This is a gross distortion of parliamentary practice since the people are made to cast one vote on 9 amendments all at the same time. How could those law-makers who formulated the referendum questions be so unparliamentarian when, in fact, they’ve been engaged in legislation for years considering the thousands of decrees already issued since the declaration of martial law? Besides, in the promulgation of these decrees, the people did not have a voice at all but these decrees are, nonetheless, are imposed on them.
Realizing these hopeless contradictions in the coming referendum-plebiscite, our fellowmen who intented to boycot the referendum are, in a way, justified. They feel that they have to live up to their own values and conscience. Thus, in their own words, they proclaim, “a rigged referendum violates the sense of dignity of our people by forcing them, against their will, to collaborate in the forging of their own chains. Man has a basic right to refuse to participate in a farce that defrauds him and his fellowmen.”
In the mock referendum conducted by the SNRC here in San Beda, the results show that 56% of those who voted, favor the immediate lifting of martial law while only 40% voted for its retention. Majority of our own students honestly believe that it’s now time for those in power to restore the basic human rights of the people, including the right to seek the truth through a genuinely free press, the right to discuss public issues freely and openly without fear of reprisal, the right to meaningful participation in the government, the right to assemble peacefully (not like what the police did in Plaza Miranda last Oct. 10) and many others. These can’t be made realizable NOT UNTIL MARTIAL LAW IS LIFTED.
This editorial piece was published in The Bedan’s September 1975 Regular Issue—three years after Martial Law was declared.