Time and time again, the public is warned: History tends to repeat itself. Are we now seeing a reprise of the events that led to Marcos’ declaration of Martial Law in 1972?
To recall, Proclamation 1081 read in part: ”My countrymen, as of the twenty-first of this month [September 1972], I signed Proclamation No. 1081, placing the entire Philippines under Martial Law.”
Thus with this Proclamation by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos, there was closure of all television/radio stations, all newspapers/publications, all other media outlets, which were accompanied by curfews, the suspension of civil law, civil rights, suspension of the writ of habeas corpus (prohibiting any person from requesting the Court to produce an unlawful detention of a prisoner), and the application or extension of military law/justice on civilians.
Civilians defying Martial Law or opposed/critical to the regime may be subjected to military tribunals (court-martial).
Supporters for the franchise renewal of TV network ABS-CBN have recalled its fate during the Marcos era, and said that “the shutdown of ABS-CBN due to a mere personal grudge by the Chief Executive is evocative of the forced shutdown of radio and TV stations during the Marcos martial rule in 1972”.
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Did you experience a feeling of deja vu when Solicitor General Jose Calida filed a petition for quo waranto with the country’s Supreme Court against ABS-CBN and its subsidiary ABS-CBN Convergence? Calida was asking the TV network, through the Supreme Court, to show by what authority they have for exercising some right, power, or franchise they claim to hold.
Whatever legal rigmarole is implied in this suit, it is simply alarming, insinuating the shaky status of press freedom. Or was this a legitimate duty of the Solicitor General? Why pick on ABS-CBN?
Remember, the 1987 Constitution provides: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.” (Const. Art. III, sec. 4).
After the ratification of the 1987 Constitution and beyond, freedom of expression or of the press remains, and will be always be a necessary condition for a strong and vibrant democracy.
Press freedom has to be fought vigilantly, and guarded earnestly, regardless of the cost.
__________________________________
Author’s email: [email protected]