1

Speech delivered by Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno during the Commencement Exercises of the Ateneo De Manila University on May 26, 2017 at ADMU, Quezon City

THE ATENEAN FACING MARTIAL LAW

My dear classmate [Fr. Jose Ramon “Jett” T. Villarin, S.J.] whose star I

have always followed from the very moment that I had the chance to interact

with him in my college days and now President of a very great university, the

Ateneo De Manila University, if I would even venture to say, the greatest

university. (applause) Of course, when I go back to UP [University of the

Philippines], they ask me to say something else, no? (laughter)

Dr. Maria Luz [C.] Vilches, Vice President for the Loyola Schools,

Members of the Board of Trustees, graduates of the batch 2017, parents,

guests, my classmate, Dean Antonio Gabriel [M.] La Viña and my student, your

Vice-President [for Social Development], Atty. [Jaime G.] Hofileña.

My speech is entitled “The Atenean Facing Martial Law.”

Thirty seven years ago, dear Loyolans, I stood in your place, about to

take a place of honor and privilege as a graduate of Ateneo.

2

Three years later, Ninoy Aquino would be assassinated; by 1986, the

dictator Marcos fled the country. But on my graduation day in 1980, it was

difficult to be certain of a future outside Martial Law. I was at once optimistic

and fearful: optimistic about my career prospects as any Atenean would be,

but fearful lest the long nights of Martial Law overshadowing our country

never end.

I had actually prepared to talk with you in a more lighthearted and

general manner on themes of justice, democracy, and what it means to be an

Atenean, but the declaration of Martial Law and the suspension of the

privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao this Tuesday impressed

upon me a more urgent and specific subject matter. So yesterday afternoon, I

discarded my prepared speech and resolved that today I would try to address

the questions that must be in your minds and those of your parents. I thought

it behooved me to give you a lens through which you could view present

events and make decisions regarding your participation in the making of

Philippine history.

Allow me to guess at the questions in your mind: Will this Martial Law

declaration bring back the human rights violations and the depredations that

3

characterized the Martial Law regime of 1972? Will investors leave the

country? Will young people still have enough good jobs? Will our labor force

be squeezed into more painful contortions of diaspora? Will our voices still be

heard? The answer, my dear graduates, is “It depends.”

Our hopes for the future depend on whether the Executive Department,

led by the President, the leadership and the entirety of the Armed Forces of

the Philippines and the Philippine National Police, Department of Justice

officials and prosecutors, the Chief Public Attorney and her public defenders

will take sufficient care to abide by the Constitution and the laws even while

Martial Law is in place. It depends on whether there will be abuse of the

awesome powers that Martial Law gives the Armed Forces and the police. It

also depends on whether Congress and the Supreme Court will exercise their

review powers appropriately over the declaration of Martial Law and the

suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus; and whether both houses

of Congress and all courts will continue to function normally and well. It also

depends on whether certain independent constitutional bodies, namely the

Ombudsman, the Commission on Human Rights, and the Commission on Audit

will persist in discharging their proper functions. Finally, it depends on

whether you, my fellow Ateneans, together with the rest of the Filipino

4

population, do your part to ensure that this declaration of Martial Law does

not imperil your future. (applause)

Allow me to clarify that the powers to declare Martial Law and suspend

the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus are expressly granted President

[Rodrigo R.] Duterte under the Constitution. When properly implemented, this

should not by itself unduly burden our country. This power was granted to

allow the President to resolve the situation “in case of invasion or rebellion,

when the public safety requires it.” There may be questions before the

Supreme Court regarding whether this can be extended to encompass

situations akin to invasion or rebellion, and what circumstances constitute

rebellion, but we will not venture into that for now. Suffice it to say that the

Martial Law power is an immense power that can be used for good, to solve

defined emergencies, but all earthly powers when abused can result in

oppression.

If the Martial Law power is expressly granted the President, why are

there fears expressed in some quarters regarding the declaration of President

Duterte? You must understand the history of a previous declaration of Martial

Law, which occurred over 40 years ago at the height of President [Ferdinand

5

E.] Marcos’ power. Former Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee,[Sr.], also an

Atenean, in Dizon v. Eduardo1 described September 22, 1972 — the night

Marcos announced Martial Law — as a dark evening when military authorities

moved throughout the city to arrest and detain journalists and members of

the opposition, upon orders of the President-turned dictator. Over the next

decades, enemies of the Marcos regime “disappeared,” were tortured, or

summarily executed. These were the words of Chief Justice Teehankee.

The fears stoked by the terms “Martial Law” and “suspension of the writ

of habeas corpus” are therefore not surprising. But we must remember that

these apprehensions were created by former President Marcos and the

Martial Law that followed his 1972 declaration. If President Duterte and the

aforementioned government authorities avoid the gross historical sins of Mr.

Marcos and his agents, then our country might reap the benefits of the

legitimate use of the provisions on Martial Law in the 1987 Constitution.

You see, the 1987 Constitution in clear and unmistakable language

rejects and absolutely prohibits the particular kind of Martial Law that began

in our country in September of 1972. What do I mean by this? Allow me to

1 Dizon v. Eduardo (G.R. No. L-59118, March 3, 1988).

6

refer to the decisions of our Supreme Court and other tribunals regarding the

essential characteristics of the Martial Law dominating our country following

its 1972 proclamation.

First, that period was characterized by widespread human rights

violations in the form of murders, rape and other forms of torture, forced

disappearances, arbitrary arrests and illegal detention, and forced isolation or

hamletting of villages. In the case of Mijares v. Ranada2, the Supreme Court

described the deep damage dealt to our institutions and the very fabric of our

society as follows:

“Our martial law experience bore strange unwanted fruits, and we

have yet to finish weeding out its bitter crop. While the

restoration of freedom and the fundamental structures and

processes of democracy have been much lauded, according to a

significant number, the changes, however, have not sufficiently

healed the colossal damage wrought under the oppressive

conditions of the Martial Law period. The cries of justice for the

tortured, the murdered, and the desaparecidos arouse outrage and

2 Mijares v. Ranada (G.R. No. 139325, April 12, 2005).

7

sympathy in the hearts of the fair-minded, yet the dispensation of

the appropriate relief due them cannot be extended through the

same caprice or whim that characterized the ill-wind of martial

rule. The damage done was not merely personal but institutional,

and the proper rebuke to the iniquitous past has to involve the

award of reparations due within the confines of the restored rule

of law.”

Perhaps the most specific recount of the human rights atrocities during

the Martial Law period beginning in 1972 can be found in a U.S. Decision,

specifically that of the Hawaiian District Court in the case of In Re: Estate Of

Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litigation, Celsa Hilao, et. al v. Estate Of

Ferdinand E. Marcos.3 The case was a class action brought by victims or

families of victims against the Estate of Marcos, seeking compensation for

torture, disappearance or summary execution. The court made findings of

human rights violations including numerous forms of torture such as beatings

3 In Re: Estate Of Ferdinand Marcos Human Rights Litigation, Hilao et. al v. Estate Of Ferdinand Marcos, (Nos. 94-16739, 95-15779, August 22, 1996).

8

while blindfolded, rape and sexual assault, electric shock, and solitary

confinement. The court noted:

“All of these forms of torture were used during ‘tactical

interrogation,’ attempting to elicit information from detainees

concerning opposition to the MARCOS government. The more the

detainees resisted, whether purposefully or out of lack of

knowledge, the more serious the torture used.”

Second, the period of Martial Law that began in September of 1972 was

likewise characterized by its heretofore unprecedented scale of plunder. The

case of Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Peña4 described the

rule of Marcos as a “well-entrenched plundering regime of twenty years,” with

respect to “the ill-gotten wealth which rightfully belongs to the Republic

although pillaged and plundered in the name of dummy or front companies, in

several known instances carried out with the bold and mercenary, if not

reckless, cooperation and assistance of members of the bar as supposed

nominees.” The Supreme Court in that case noted “the magnitude of the

regime’s organized pillage and the ingenuity of the plunderers and pillagers

4 Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Peña (G.R. No. 77663, April 12, 1988).

9

with the assistance of experts and the best legal minds in the market.” The ill-

gotten assets identified so far by both the Presidential Commission on Good

Governance and the Solicitor General are valued at approximately US $5

billion.

Third, the Martial Law following the proclamation of 1972 was

extremely oppressive, concentrating power only in Mr. Marcos and his group.

At one point, the Supreme Court, quoting Chief Justice Teehankee,

characterized the time as “a return to the lese majeste when the voice of the

King was the voice of God so that those touched by his absolute powers could

only pray that the King acted prudently and wisely.” The dictator amassed so

much power as the Commander-in-Chief that he was able to take “absolute

command of the nation and… the people could only trust that he would not fail

them.” We know what happened. Marcos failed our people. Those of us who

were alive at the time bore witness to the human rights atrocities and the

corruption caused by such absolute power.

Fourth, the Martial Law period of 1972 put the Philippines in an

economic tailspin that saw us go from the second most vibrant economy in

10

Asia to its sick man. In Marcos v. Manglapus5, the Supreme Court noted that

excessive foreign borrowing during the Marcos regime stagnated

development and became one of the root causes of widespread poverty,

leaving the economy in a precarious state. In Republic v. Sandiganbayan6, the

Court described the economic havoc created by the authoritarian regime in

this manner:

“At the time that the government of former President Marcos was

driven from power, the country’s debt was over US $26 billion;

and the indications were that ‘illegally acquired wealth’ of the

deposed president alone, not counting that of his relatives and

cronies, was in the aggregate amount of from five to ten billion US

dollars, the bulk of it being deposited and hidden abroad.”

These are only a few excerpts from some of the many decisions of the

highest court of the land that memorialize for all of history the atrocities

committed during the era heralded by the 1972 declaration of Martial Law.

They may not be the most heartrending of accounts due to the necessary haste

with which I compiled them, but I encourage you to do further reading on 5 Marcos v. Manglapus (G.R. No. 88211, October 27, 1989).

6 Republic v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 104768, July 21, 2003).

11

these and similar cases. These excerpts together with unrefuted historical

accounts are a testament to our country’s resolve to never again allow

ourselves to return to those dark and terrible times. (applause)

Thus the 1987 Constitution in unmistakable language says7:

“A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the

Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or

legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of

jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where

civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the

privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.”

As we face the days following President Duterte’s declaration of Martial

Law in Mindanao, it behooves us to ask what we can do in the present with the

time that is given to us to ensure that the horrors of Martial Law that followed

the 1972 declaration do not happen again.

For if being an Atenean means anything, it must be this: that each of us

individually, and as a member of the Ateneo as an institution bears a great

7 1987 Constitution, Article VII, Section 18

12

deal of responsibility for the well-being of this country. And this responsibility

entails leading not by possessing power for power’s sake but by sacrificial

example, by dying to ourselves and taking up our crosses daily. (applause) If

power is to be granted to an Atenean, then such power must be exercised the

way Christ exercised his leadership, by being a servant, first to the Father, and

to His brothers and sisters.

These are times when everything that can be shaken is being shaken,

when institutions are being challenged to their very foundations, and basic

ideas of decency and human dignity are being violated with great impunity.

These are times more than any other that will sorely test the Atenean’s

capacity to distinguish right from wrong and the Atenean’s ability to act in

service of what is right, and true, and good. (applause)

Do not be discouraged, for you are well-equipped for the challenges of

these times. You only need to look within and around you and reflect on the

Atenean principles inculcated in you over the years.

Magis, or the constant pursuit of improvement and excellence, for

difficult times require extraordinary people, and you are those. Ad Majorem

Dei Gloriam: For the greater glory of God — for these are times when our faith

13

will be tested, our paths will be dark and full of shadows, and only by

surrendering all our actions to God may we continue towards the light. “One

Big Fight!” (applause) More than a cheer used in basketball games, “One Big

Fight!” embodies the wholehearted passion and dedication that must fuel all

our actions.

But the most fundamental Atenean value today is that of being a person

for others. To be an Atenean is to serve — compassionately, selflessly, with

unceasing dedication. To be an Atenean is to constantly continue the work of

addressing others’ needs; to think broadly, not merely in terms of impact on

one’s self but impact on one’s community and country. To be an Atenean is to

deeply and completely understand that it is in service to others that our lives

take on their full meaning. To be an Atenean is to forsake a life of self-centered

safety for a life of service. To be a person for others is to commit to a just and

noble cause greater than oneself.

Given the present day when the possibility of history repeating itself

looms imminent, no cause requires your commitment as much as the cause of

human rights, justice, and democracy, themes you have aptly chosen.

(applause) For today, people’s fundamental human rights and freedoms, the

14

core of our democracy, face grave and blatant threats. The culture of impunity

is on the rise. People are pressured to favor the easy choice over the right

choice: expediency over due process, unlawful termination of human life over

rehabilitation.

You need to make a stand, dear Ateneans. More than merely ruminating

on the idea of justice, I call on each of you to commit to confront the common

injustices of our society and seek to address them. I urge you to speak out

with truth even against the overwhelming tide of popular opinion and reach

out to the oppressed and disenfranchised. When you face threats to the

sanctity of human rights or the stability of our democracy, give your all to

protect these freedoms. Give your all to protect our nation and our people.

(applause)

Stand up and give “One Big Fight!” (applause) As I stated in my speech to

the lawyers in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines National Convention last

March, we are not fighting a person or an establishment but a culture, a

pattern that pervades our society today. It is a pattern of apathy, rage, and

despair, one that began when people learned to tolerate wrong, stopped

hoping, and ceased caring.

15

I understand that the task before you is immense, but I have no doubt

you are more than up to the challenge for you have been honed over your

years in the Ateneo to fulfill your calling in extraordinary ways. That is why I

do not feel only hope when I look at you. My heart is actually filled with

grateful gladness. Throughout the countless calamities that have struck the

country, you Ateneans have always been among the first to respond and help.

(applause) Unstintingly and without hesitation, Ateneans have reached out,

time and time again, to complete strangers — giving of themselves to people

they may never even meet again.

Last year, when the history of our nation was subjected to attempts at

revision, you were among the first to speak up. I saw young men and women

from the Ateneo spill out into the streets, furious and indignant, speaking up

against this distortion of our history and reaching out to show fellow Filipinos

that they were not alone. As a fellow Atenean, I understood that this

passionate outpouring of righteous anger sprang from a deep understanding

of what it means to be a person for others. (applause)

Know that being a person for others and standing for human rights,

justice, and democracy are one and the same. To stand for human rights is to

16

value others’ freedoms as much as you value your own. To stand for justice is

to oppose any attempts to value one group’s freedoms more than those of

others. To stand for democracy is to love your country and your people so

fully that you will act to ensure democratic processes are followed despite

great personal cost. To stand for all of these is to sacrifice yourself so that

others may know freedom, safety, and all the fullness of life.

Know that you are not alone. You will not be alone. Have the courage to

stand. My prayers are with you, young Ateneans. As you face this crossroad

and move on to a new chapter of your lives, may the Lord bless and keep you.

May He make His face shine on you and be gracious to you. May the Lord turn

His face towards you and give you peace.

Mabuhay po kayong lahat, class of 2017! Make us proud! (applause)