Martial law gives military forces authority over civilian law enforcement during times of emergency. Late President Marcos imposed martial law in the Philippines from 1972 to 1981, ostensibly to suppress civil strife and threats of communist takeover. However, his critics argue martial law was unnecessary and violated civil rights. There are differing views on whether martial law protected the country from activists and terrorists, as claimed by government officials, or if it was used to suppress political opposition. The implementation of martial law and its impacts are still debated issues in the Philippines today.
Martial law gives military forces authority over civilian law enforcement during times of emergency. Late President Marcos imposed martial law in the Philippines from 1972 to 1981, ostensibly to suppress civil strife and threats of communist takeover. However, his critics argue martial law was unnecessary and violated civil rights. There are differing views on whether martial law protected the country from activists and terrorists, as claimed by government officials, or if it was used to suppress political opposition. The implementation of martial law and its impacts are still debated issues in the Philippines today.
Martial law gives military forces authority over civilian law enforcement during times of emergency. Late President Marcos imposed martial law in the Philippines from 1972 to 1981, ostensibly to suppress civil strife and threats of communist takeover. However, his critics argue martial law was unnecessary and violated civil rights. There are differing views on whether martial law protected the country from activists and terrorists, as claimed by government officials, or if it was used to suppress political opposition. The implementation of martial law and its impacts are still debated issues in the Philippines today.
Martial law gives military forces authority over civilian law enforcement during times of emergency. Late President Marcos imposed martial law in the Philippines from 1972 to 1981, ostensibly to suppress civil strife and threats of communist takeover. However, his critics argue martial law was unnecessary and violated civil rights. There are differing views on whether martial law protected the country from activists and terrorists, as claimed by government officials, or if it was used to suppress political opposition. The implementation of martial law and its impacts are still debated issues in the Philippines today.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
POSITION PAPER
Martial law is the law administered by military forces that is
invoked by a government in an emergency when the civilian law enforcement agencies are an able to maintain public order safety. It was implemented in the whole Philippines during late president Marcos’ rule. Until now this event is still an issue to Filipinos, for it gave mark to most Filipinos even to foreign nations. Late President Marcos imposed martial law on our nation from 1972 to 1981 to suppress increasing civil strife and the threat of a communist takeover following a bombing in Manila, Philippines. All of the families or martial law supporters are for sure in favor about the implementation of this rule. However, those anti-Marcoses and who are not a favor of the said rule, especially the claiming victims’ assertion must still be honored. As this issue continues, my curiosity developed. I want to know why this people approved this law, and why other people from present generation still continue to make comments about this issue that eventually from the past. What significant event does this law made that up until now, people can’t forget. According to Chester L. Hunt, President Marcos’ claim is nationalistic but without the euphonic anti-foreign attitudes often associated with a nationalistic commitment. However, according to the government’s aged member, martial law is one way for the late President Marcos to protect our country from the growing population of activist nor terrorists. In this matter we can question how does Filipino became an activist? How come they are against Marcoses? What are the reasons behind their actions? My point here is that there will be no activists if they did not see anything that gives them the reason to go against the Marcos rule. If the government only give them the attention they crave for and listen to their voices as they want to tell their point of view, they will not go against the Marcoses as well as to the rules they implemented. And maybe, just maybe there will be no martial law implementation on those years. There are many ways and reasons why martial law should not be implemented by that time. For sure there are reasons for president Marcos to implement this law however, there are also so many reasons for him not to. We just need to be open-minded and know he’s point of view.
