WHILE THERE has been both boon and bane to Martial Law over the years, former President Ferdinand Marcos’s 10-year imposition of Martial Law has been dubbed as one of the “darkest chapters” of Philippine history.

During the implementation of Martial Law from 1972 to 1981, all government powers were transferred to the former President. Aside from strict curfew hours and the crackdown on privately-owned media facilities, Marcos was keen on detaining anyone he deemed as a threat⁠—be it student activists or prominent politicians who did not take his side.

However, more appalling than mass censorship were the brutal human rights abuses during the era. According to American historian and educator Alfred McCoy, there were 3,275 instances of extrajudicial killings, notwithstanding those unrecorded; 35,000 reports of torture some almost resulting in death; and  70,000 cases of wrongful seizure and imprisonment

Despite this data, the Martial Law narrative remains contentious. With a growing generation of students who did not experience Martial Law firsthand, we rely on educators who are presented with the formidable challenge of encouraging discourse and asking the right questions. These educators shoulder the responsibility of asserting that history must be remembered, regardless of others’ assertions to “move on.”  

One for the books 

The notion that some students may be unaware of the atrocities of Martial Law is not unfounded. One could look to viral videos of millennials being in favor of Martial Law and articles wherein they insist that it may have not been “as bad as you thought.” These instances have compelled people to question whether the current curriculum has done enough to shed light on the Martial Law and the atrocities of the era. 

In fact, former senators have called history textbooks that discuss Marcos’ Martial Law “one-sided” due to the narrative’s tendency to only tackle the positive aspect of the Marcos regime. Sources have pointed out how circulated textbooks only discuss the merits of the Marcos presidency, while another says nothing about the dictatorship at all.

In addition, there have been concerns from educators about how there is no “uniform standard” on how Martial Law is taught, thus allowing professors’ personal preference to affect how they discuss the topic. This, then, prompted historians to push for a review of existing materials on Martial Law. 

In turn, the Department of Education assured the public that the K-12 curriculum makes it possible for students to form critical assessments of Martial Law. Education Secretary Leonor Briones claims that the K-12 curriculum is currently “providing students with a balanced perspective of the [Marcos] dictatorship” from which they can then formulate their own opinions.

However, Development Studies Program Director Jayeel Cornelio, PhD, notes that K-12’s goal to produce more competitive laborers downplays critical thinking and democratic participation. According to Cornelio, this emphasis on competitiveness has bred a post-Marcos generation of disillusioned youth. 

When it comes to the college context, History Department professor Janet Estella points out that while Martial Law is discussed in sixth grade under Philippine History, there is still a need to educate students at the university level. 

“[A] grade six student will have a different level of understanding and analysis compared [to] when you are already a first-year or second-year college student,” she insists. “[And] there are a lot of topics to be covered in Philippine history and contemporary issues that, most of the time, Martial Law can just be a ‘passing topic’ for some teachers because of the ‘pressure’ to cover all the topics in this subject.” 

Defining desensitization

Having established the lapses regarding Martial Law education in our curriculum, President of the Ateneo Assembly Shawn Ang points out the inaccessibility to balanced education vis-à-vis the wide reach of social media as a major contributor to the mixed opinions on Martial Law. 

As a free and open space to initiate discussions, the internet serves as a platform where misinformation is not policed or corrected often enough. “People have different ideas of what it was like back then, and this could be attributed to either their education, their social media circles, [or] the information fed to them by supposed ‘reputable’ sources,” he says.

The digital age has proven to be a double-edged sword in the face of remembering history. While some have taken to social media to assert that they have not “moved on,” there are inevitably some millennials who have still expressed indifference about the gravity of Martial Law.

“Honestly, it really came to a point that I got really frustrated as a History teacher,” Estella admits. “Seeing your former students share fake news and memes [on] social media is really heartbreaking.”

Within our own

The question for educators then becomes: In today’s day and age, is there still room for objective discourse and discussion on Marcos’ Martial Law in the four corners of the Ateneo’s classrooms?

For educators such as the Office of Admission and Aid Director Jose Tirol, PhD, discussing Martial Law in class can still be “a daunting task,” as it becomes required of them to “take apart the role of social memory.” Tirol delves into this by mentioning how the historical memory of different institutions can be heavily influenced by personal agendas.

“[Discussing Martial Law] would mean delving into [a] Philippine culture that prefers to move on rather than to feel discomfort, or to prioritize pakikisama (camaraderie) rather than [the] public humiliation of other people, even if it is well deserved in the context of justice,” he says. 

Nonetheless, Tirol insists that teaching Martial Law is a necessity because “[young] Filipinos have to identify what is merely a historical anomaly that does not recur, or a historical pattern, which if allowed to persist, only becomes more difficult to deal with over time.” 

Lim shares these sentiments, simply saying in assurance, “There is always room to discuss Marcos’ Martial Law, whether in a history or a politics and governance course,” 

Even programs such as Introduction to Ateneo Cultures and Traditions (InTACT) have found ways to touch on the topic. One such example would be the plenary talks on remembering the EDSA People Power Revolution held by the Office of Student Services Director Cholo Mallillin. He calls the plenary talk a “necessary component” of InTACT, insisting that it “should be a part of the Ateneo tradition to always be vigilant of all forms of persecution and [abuses] of power, and be in the forefront of movements that fight against oppression and injustice.”

Struggles and setbacks set aside, one thing still rings true: Though our educators carry the burden of shedding light on the Martial Law era in a balanced manner, the preservation of national memory relies on those who go beyond textbook definitions and periodical exams. Within our campuses, our professors are at the forefront of integrating Martial Law in the academe; however, there is only so much that they can discuss before leaving it up to their students to discern for themselves. 

“As academics discussing Marcos’ Martial Law, our objective is not to instill propaganda either pro or anti,” Lim concludes. “But [instead] to really educate students on why Martial Law happened, [the] circumstances that allowed it to happen, and [the] circumstances that can prevent it from happening again.”