.png)
Featuring Assistant Professors Leandro Reyes and John Gieveson Iglupas, the discussion examined how experiences during Martial Law shaped collective memory and influenced how historical truths are narrated, challenged, and remembered.
Opening the webinar, CASS Dean Dr. Marie Joy Banawa highlighted the connection between historical knowledge and active citizenship.
“History is sometimes forgotten, but it stays in memory,” Banawa said, emphasizing history as evidence and memory as a reminder. She added that democracy requires citizens to critically analyze information and make informed judgments, noting that how Martial Law is remembered shapes how authoritarianism is understood, while responses to historical distortion affect how citizens recognize the role of institutions in democratic engagement.
Banawa concluded by urging participants to see studying the past not simply as looking back, but as asking what kind of future they wish to create, moving beyond commemoration toward a continuing commitment to citizenship.
Transitioning to the main presentation, Iglupas opened with the question, “What date should we commemorate Martial Law?” Most of the audience answered September 21, or simply “today.” Iglupas then distinguished the date of Proclamation No. 1081 from the public announcement of Martial Law on September 23.
“Marcos was a superstitious man, and his favorite number was 7. And since 21 was divisible by 7, he set the date to September 21st for the declaration of Martial Law,” he explained.
Iglupas connected the discussion to the quote, “Who controls the past controls the future: Who controls the present controls the past,” emphasizing how memories can be socially and politically constructed, contested, and used.
“Memory is not neutral but political; someone decides what is remembered, what is forgotten, and which voices are marginalized, like [what happened] in the Bangsamoro,” he said.
From the politics of memory, Iglupas turned to three massacres tied to the Bangsamoro struggle: the Jabidah Massacre (1968), Manili Massacre (1971), and Tacub Massacre (1971).
He discussed how the events left accounts of civilian killings and brutality, while recognition and memorialization faced varying degrees of delay and difficulty. Continued efforts by communities and the Bangsamoro government to preserve these histories have encountered obstacles, including limited institutional support and concerns surrounding interfaith conflicts.
“Remembering and forgetting are both political choices; with the conflicting narratives, it makes the memorialization difficult. These delays reflect the historical marginalization of Moro voices,” Iglupas expressed.
For him, understanding Martial Law also requires examining the events that preceded it, as memory has helped sustain the Moro struggle for self-determination and shared identity.
“Commemoration is an exercise of memory politics where we uphold the sidelined and those who were silenced,” he added.
Building on the discussion, Reyes asked, “What do we remember when we remember Martial Law?” He explored the different images Filipinos attach to the same historical period.
“Some might answer that Martial Law was the ‘Golden Era’ of the Philippines, but some might also disagree,” Reyes said, noting that younger generations inherit both the memories and silences of those who experienced the period.
He then discussed the Philippines’ economic pressures during the 1970s, alongside developments in infrastructure, and pointed to inflation, low wages, inequality, corruption, and US influence as factors shaping people’s experiences.
“People were in the streets, including students, workers, and farmers, because they were under pressure whether they could even eat,” he said.
Reyes also stressed the need to distinguish protest and activism from armed rebellion: “Street protest and activism is not automatically the same thing as armed rebellion.”
Reyes subsequently discussed “crony capitalism” and how political and economic arrangements during Martial Law affected access to privileges and opportunities. He also examined changes in the media and public sphere, noting the closure of media organizations, restrictions on rallies, and the military’s role during the period.
“A lot of changes happened; the media press was closed, including ABS-CBN, rallies were prohibited, and the military had control. However, authoritarianism does not only mean military [forces] were [present] on the streets. [We also have to look at] who had privileges and how institutions contested that,” he said.
Reyes then turned to agricultural development, particularly programs intended to address the country’s rice shortage. While acknowledging that farmers participated and that the Philippines experienced periods of increased rice production, he questioned how such achievements should be measured and who benefited from them.
“The farmers actually participated, and the Philippines at some point reached development in rice production. However, was it only successful for whom? And to what measure?” he asked.
He also discussed the famine experienced in Negros despite claims of agricultural development, emphasizing that individual fragments of the past should not be treated as the whole. History, he stressed, remains something to learn from, regardless of whether its lessons are comfortable.
The presentations proceeded to an open forum, where an audience member raised parallels between the Martial Law era and current national issues, asking how economic, peace and order challenges under the Marcos Sr. administration compare with those under the present administration of Marcos Jr.
The speakers responded by reflecting on the gradual fading of collective memory and the importance of remembering historical experiences across generations. They noted that while Filipinos are often described as forgiving, forgiveness should not mean forgetting the past, particularly when historical memory is connected to questions of accountability.
Closing the webinar, Political Science Department Chairperson Dr. Hazel Jovita-Olvez urged the participants to carry the lessons of history into their future decisions and engagement with social and political issues.
“May we be the generation that remembers, and because we remembered, we may choose wisely in the upcoming months and years of our lives, especially during elections and in how we position ourselves on different social issues and political issues that continue to shape our present and even future context in the Philippines.” she emphasized.
As the Pagpakabana Series 2026 continues, CASS underscores that the work of memory is a shared civic duty. The webinar reaffirmed the importance of questioning, verifying, and carrying forward the lessons of history–ensuring that “Never Again” will remain not just a slogan, but a lived commitment to truth and freedom.
Written by Mary Llauder
Proofread by Bea Faye Eumague
Layout by Martina Louise Real
Post a Comment
Any comments and feedbacks? Share us your thoughts!