Civil Liberties and the Mass Media under Martial Law in the Philippines

Abstract

IN THE TWO YEARS since declaration of martial law in Philippines, President Ferdinand E. Marcos and his supporters have often argued that loss of civil liberties is necessary price Filipinos must pay for social order and economic progress.1 It is even fashionable nowadays for government officials to disparage relevance of liberal democracy to fundamental Philippine problems. Peter Kann of Wall Street Journal has written that the code words now seem to be 'effective administration' and of course 'economic development.' . . . It's almost as if these worthy aims are considered these days to be incompatible with civil liberties and right to vote.2 If loss of civil liberties is only temporary, many Filipinos apparently are willing to pay price. But after two years of martial law, we may ask how long is temporary? What has been gained by curtailment of civil liberties? Any analysis of these questions ought to begin by examining government's argument that it was indeed necessary to suspend civil liberties in order to implement basic reforms. This article examines this proposition with regard to one of most basic of civil liberties in Philippines, freedom of press. Few Philippine institutions have been transformed as drastically as mass media. Before martial law was declared, Philippine press was widely regarded as one of freest in Asia. Since then, press and all other mass communications media have been put under strict control of Marcos government. Why was it necessary to suspend freedom of press? What necessary reforms were hindered by Old Society press? Do these changes justify loss of civil liberties? On eve of martial law, government-media relations were highly unstable and polarized. Journalists themselves disagreed on proper role of press. Many advocated freedom of press as a fundamental