Ferdinand Marcos Sr. wanted everyone to see him as the ultimate representation of the Filipino people. To make this point crystal clear, he had a bust of himself carefully sculpted into a hillside in Luzon.  He portrayed himself as having noble, peasant, warrior, artist, colonial, and nationalist roots, as if he embodied the spirit of the entire nation. His wife, the first lady Imelda Romualdez Marcos, also had important roles in the government especially in culture and the arts and their son, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., was being prepared to follow in his father’s footsteps.

Marcos according to the accounts of Nadeau (2020), came from a well-off family in Ilocos Norte, Philippines. His mother was a teacher and his father was a politician. They had prominent and influential connections with Filipino and Chinese families. Marcos grew up learning English and American values from American teachers who came to the Philippines.

Ferdinand Marcos’s political career was supported by influential families, including the Chua family. Marcos went to university and became a lawyer. He was involved in a case where he was accused of killing a politician who defeated his father in an election. Marcos was initially found guilty but later won his case in the Supreme Court (Nadeau, 2020).

During World War II, Marcos served in the military, but there are questions about his actual experiences and the medals he claimed to have received as reported in the media. The Marcos war medals, comprising 33 decorations, were revealed to be part of a fabricated narrative according to a report by Bondoc 2016. These awards were primarily bestowed at politically strategic moments, with questionable authenticity, including duplicates and some being campaign ribbons, unraveling the myth of Ferdinand Marcos as the most decorated Filipino soldier of World War II.

After the war, he practiced law and eventually entered politics. He joined the Liberal Party and won a seat in the legislature representing his home province Ilocos Norte.

In the presidential elections in November 1965, Ferdinand Marcos, Sr., became the president of the Philippines along with his running mate, Fernando Lopez, as vice president.

When Marcos assumed office, he had three main goals for the Philippines: (1) to grow more rice and different kinds of crops so that the country could have enough food for everyone; (2) to change the way land was owned; and (3) to improve the communities. Marcos worked hard to make his plan happen, but there were many difficult things happening at that time, both inside and outside the country. Agoncillo & Mangahas (2010) described the affairs outside the country at that time where there was a growing conflict called the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, which was a global competition for world supremacy. In Asia, the communists were involved in intense fighting and had significant support from students, workers, and peasants. The Philippines, as a member of the Southeast Asian Treaty Organization, sent a civic action group to Vietnam to participate in the war. Within the country, there were several troubling incidents, such as the massacre of peasants in Concepcion Tarlac, the cold-blooded killing of 30 members of Lapiang Malay in Manila, repression against the Huk movement, issues of graft and corruption, and unresolved crimes involving government law agents.

The country was facing economic difficulties back then with power concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy families. Marcos used the people’s desire for good governance to campaign for a better nation. Quoting his first state of the nation address in 1966, “Graft and corruption in our government must be exposed and eliminated,” he acknowledged the challenges the country faced, including corruption and a struggling economy.

The government did not have enough money to pay for basic social services like education, healthcare, social support, defense, and building roads and bridges. To get more money, Marcos borrowed from other countries through organizations like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. He used the money to connect all the islands in the Philippines by building roads and bridges, exemplified by the San Juanico Bridge linking Samar and Leyte provinces.  He also tried to help farmers grow more food by using new types of rice and better irrigation systems (Agoncillo, 1960).

However, there were problems in the countryside with people protesting and causing disruptions. Marcos had to take strong actions against these groups, like the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed group the New People’s Army (NPA). In the cities, he made the police force, through the Philippine Constabulary, stronger to fight crime syndicates and curb rebellion.

Under Marcos’s rule, the economy grew, but he and his wife, Imelda, were accused of corruption and misusing public funds. They controlled the media to spread false information about their supposed development projects. Marcos used his power to influence the legislature and distribute government funds to those loyal to him. Historians even tag their rule as conjugal dictatorship (X. Chua, personal interview, July 12, 2023).

In the 1969 presidential elections, the Marcos-Lopez tandem was reelected for a second term. However, the election campaign was marred by fraud and the utter misuse of public funds. Marcos spent a huge amount of money on advertising and bribed political figures to ensure their support according to accounts of Nadeu (2020).

In the end, Marcos’ second term was marked by his continued control over the legislative branch and the distribution of government funds based on loyalty. Despite controversies surrounding his rule, he was reelected as president for a second term.

Due to evidence of rigged elections and the manipulation of Congress to consolidate power, trust in Marcos’ leadership eroded. This led to civil disobedience and a violent crackdown on protesters. The people’s demands for good governance, an end to corruption, and various reforms highlighted the loss of trust in the Marcos government as peaceful citizens took to the streets in protest. 

After the reelection of Marcos, a group of college students marched to the presidential palace to demand change. Protesters from the different parts of the country were calling for better governance and an end to corruption. They advocated land reform for farmers and peasant workers, affordable housing, cheaper prices for essential items, more job opportunities, improvements in the system and quality of education, and the formation of a new constitution to replace the old one, the 1935 Philippine Constitution. They were concerned that the president had excess power, and they wanted safeguards against possible election fraud.

Unfortunately, the protest turned violent when the police shot and killed four protesters at the Mendiola Bridge as narrated by Nadeu (2020). This event became a symbol of sacrifice and bravery during the country’s darkest history.

In 1970, Marcos agreed to convene a convention the following year to review the old constitution. This Constitutional Convention was tasked with drafting a new constitution. After completing the new charter, President Marcos submitted it to 26,000 Citizens Assemblies nationwide. The Kapulungan, a gathering of all these assemblies, convened from January 10 to 15, 1973, to review the provisions of the new constitution.

This convention could have posed a threat to Marcos’ grip on power, as one of its stipulations, for example, was put forth by the Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms, chaired by freedom fighter Raul S. Manglapus (Rizal, 1st District). This resolution stated that “No person who has served as President of the Philippines shall be eligible to occupy the same office or that of chief minister or chief executive any time in the future, nor shall his spouse or relatives to the second degree by consanguinity or affinity be eligible to occupy the same office during any unexpired portion of his term or in one immediately succeeding term.” 

However, it also provided Marcos with an opportunity to bribe delegates in order to alter the rule that limited the president to only two terms. This was exemplified on May 19, 1972 as written by Montalvan (2023), when a scandal emerged. Eduardo Quintero, a former ambassador to the United Nations and representative of Leyte’s 1st District, exposed a bribery scheme. This scheme involved 12 of his fellow delegates, along with the wife of Leyte congressman Artemio Mate and Imelda Marcos, the first lady. The exposé by the 72-year-old Quintero confirmed long-standing public suspicions that the Marcoses were exerting undue influence over the proceedings, seeking to secure provisions that would extend their time in power. This revelation held particular significance given Quintero’s indebtedness to the Romualdezes, who had supported his election. 

During the convention, there were local elections happening across the country. Marcos was accused of orchestrating several bombings, including one at a Liberal Party rally in Manila, where innocent people were killed and injured. According to Agoncillo (1960), Marcos falsely blamed these incidents on the Communists to create an excuse to declare martial law.

The bombings and the false information spread by Marcos turned more people against his government. The press coined the term the beginning of the First Quarter Storm to describe this sequence of events (Totanes, 1998). In 1972, he declared martial law, giving him complete control over the Philippines for more than a decade.

The First Quarter Storm happened in early 1970 and it was a very turbulent time in our country as described by Agoncillo & Mangahas (2010). Students in Metro Manila and nearby provinces protested against President Marcos. They were upset because he wanted to change the rules so he could stay in power longer than what was legally allowed by the law then.

During one protest, an object was hurled at the President as he exited a building, resulting in widespread chaos compounded by gunfire.  Numerous individuals sustained injuries, and the police apprehended several students, intensifying the atmosphere of fear and violence. Tragically, Liza Balando, a young labor leader, was struck by a stray bullet and lost her life.

Four days later, on January 30, 1970 a more aggressive protest unfolded, drawing participants from various backgrounds. The demonstration ended in a violent clash at the Malacanang gates, known as the Battle of Mendiola.  In an article by Reyes & Ariate (2020), one prominent account of the First Quarter Storm that has become widely recognized is Jose F. Lacaba’s Days of Disquiet, Nights of Rage.  In this book, four students who lost their lives in this protest rally who later on  identified as Felicisimo Roldan from Far Eastern University, Ricardo Alcantara from the University of the Philippines, Fernando Catabay from Manuel Luis Quezon University, and Bernardo Tausa from Mapa High School.  

In the following months, there were more protests. Teachers went on leave because they were not getting paid on time. Students at the University of the Philippines took over their campus for 12 days, famously dubbed the Diliman Commune. 

The protests spread to other cities as well , from Baguio, Davao, and Cagayan de Oro to the Mindanao State University in Lanao del Sur. The students demanded better education and more job opportunities. They became sick of massive corruption and wanted the government to listen to their concerns. 

Some people said the students caused the violence by throwing dangerous things at the police. But others believed the police used too much force. They thought the students had valid reasons to be angry and were just asking for fair treatment (Agoncillo & Mangahas, 2010).

In a subsequent account, La Viña (2022) examined one of the numerous instances of corruption within the regime, which pertained to the case of the Marcos family against the Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 189434, dated April 25, 2012. In this case, the Republic, represented by both the Philippine Commission on Good Governance (PCGG) and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), sought to label Swiss bank accounts amounting to USD 356 million, along with two treasury notes valued at USD 25 million and USD 5 million, as illicitly acquired assets.

When Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law in the Philippines on September 21, 1972, it triggered a period of resistance and struggle against his regime. Given the predominantly religious population of the country, it was not surprising that various groups according to Nadeu (2020), including the Moro National Liberation Front, the New People’s Army, and Christian social activists, stood up for their rights and fought against injustice. This marked a significant chapter in Philippine history, as the churches and the people united to challenge Marcos’s dictatorship and strive for a better future.

During martial law, the churches became important because other institutions like Congress, courts, and media were repressed by the military by shutting them down and raiding and padlocking their offices. The Catholic Church, in particular, fought for the rights of the poor and oppressed. For the media, only those who are aligned to the Marcos regime’s dictatorship were allowed to operate but still under the strict monitoring of the Marcos’ military men, as narrated by writer and historian Torres (2021) in his book BALITA: The History of Philippine Journalism: 1916-2019. The movement against Marcos was also inspired by the country’s history of social activism, which dates back to the fight against Spanish rule.

In January 1981, according to Schirmer & Shalom (1987), Marcos made an announcement to formally end martial law and restore freedom. Quoting the president’s speech during this day “And, so, as I have said, as I sign this decree in your presence proclaiming the termination of the state of martial law throughout the Philippines, I say, we have just begun” (Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines, 1981).  However, despite the lifting of martial law, all of Marcos’s martial law decrees, which amounted to more than one thousand, remained in effect. Marcos retained the authority to order arrests without charging individuals, legislate through decrees, and override the National Assembly. As argued by Maximiano (2021), the lifting of martial law was primarily a symbolic gesture, merely a surface-level change timed conveniently for St. John Paul II’s first pastoral visit to the country. 

The growing revolution of the people with the Marcos dictatorship gained momentum when Benigno ‘Ninoy’ Aquino Jr., a vocal critic of Marcos, was assassinated in 1983. His death sparked outrage. Aquino had been a strong opponent of Marcos and had exposed corruption in the government. He was arrested and imprisoned for several years, enduring torture and isolation.

In 1986, after years of struggle, Corazon Aquino, Ninoy’s widow, was elected president in a snap election. The military split and some officers joined a reform movement. Minister of Defense Enrile and General Ramos took control of major bases and sought support from the American Ambassador, the Archbishop of Manila, and Corazon Aquino. With massive public support, they forced Marcos into exile, and democracy was restored with Corazon Aquino as the new president under a transition government. The series of protests that followed the election gained strength and led to the revolution that took place from February 22 to 25, 1986, at EDSA. This event forced Marcos and his family to flee the country with the help of the United States. Instead of settling in the Ilocos region as Marcos had hoped, they ended up making Hawaii their new home (Tan, 2008).

This peaceful revolution,  known as the EDSA People Power movement, was a turning point in Philippine history witnessed by the whole world.

In 1986, the Philippines bore witness to a momentous event known as the People Power Revolution. Over the course of four days, from February 22 to 25, hundreds of thousands of Filipinos converged on Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA) to vehemently protest the rule of President Ferdinand Marcos, Sr., who had claimed victory in a controversial re-election over Corazon Aquino. Marcos had held power since 1965, orchestrating a regime marked by authoritarian control, curtailed civil liberties, and the relentless suppression of political dissent. Accounts of Sanchez (2021) stated that the Marcos government was notorious for imprisoning and torturing political opponents, rewriting the Philippine constitution, and amassing vast wealth through control of the media and siphoning international funds. The People Power movement had been quietly gathering momentum for years, with dedicated activists working both within the Philippines and in exile to expose the atrocities and corruption of the Marcos regime. Despite this, some foreign governments, notably the U.S., had supported Marcos as a Cold War ally.

Key turning points came in the form of Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr.’s assassination in 1983, which shocked the world, and rumors surrounding Marcos’s health, which ignited discussions about his potential successors. In 1985, Marcos’s call for a snap election left Filipinos grappling with the question of whether it was an opportunity for change or a trap. Many decided to boycott the election, fearing that participation would legitimize the regime, while others rallied behind Corazon “Cory” Aquino, widow of Senator Aquino. The protests on EDSA grew in strength, and despite Marcos’s orders to suppress them, a faction of military officers refused to do so, including those associated with the Reform the Armed Forces Movement (RAM). The Catholic Church played a crucial role in supporting the peaceful protests, and Radio Veritas became a vital communication hub. International pressure mounted against Marcos, eventually leading to his departure for Hawaii on February 25, 1986. As Corazon Aquino was sworn in as President, the world celebrated the triumph of People Power, an enduring example of how ordinary citizens can unite to effect positive change and restore democracy.

The events in 1986 marked a significant turning point in its history of the Philippines as it emerged from the oppressive grip of President Ferdinand Marcos, Sr., a dictator who ruled with an iron fist for over two decades. The aftermath of Marcos’s regime bore witness to a concerted effort to defend and promote human rights and democracy in the country.

Following her rise to power, President Corazon Aquino instituted a revolutionary government based on the Freedom Constitution, temporarily defining the government structure until a democratically-crafted constitution could be adopted for Pres. Aquino’s Bagong Demokrasya or New Democracy. Under this new administration, key changes were implemented, including the dissolution of the Batasang Pambansa, which was predominantly controlled by Marcos’s loyalists, the appointment of new Supreme Court justices, and the replacement of Marcos appointees with officers-in-charge (OICs). Subsequently, efforts were made to seize control of all suspected ill-gotten monies, assets, properties, and valuables associated with the Marcos family and their cronies. This endeavor was executed through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), led by former Senator Jovito R. Salonga, who swiftly sequestered businesses and corporations linked to Marcos, revealing the staggering wealth amassed by Marcos and his associates, amounting to approximately one-third of the nation’s total resources (Agoncillo & Mangahas, 2010).

Another crucial step taken to restore democracy and human rights in the country was the passage of Republic Act No. 10368, also known as the “Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013.” This landmark legislation reflects the nation’s commitment to justice and healing after years of human rights abuses.

The law begins by declaring a clear policy of recognizing the heroism and sacrifices of Filipinos who suffered during Marcos’s regime, which spanned from September 21, 1972, to February 25, 1986. It acknowledges the moral and legal obligation of the state to provide recognition and reparation to victims and their families for the physical and psychological suffering they endured. This act was a vital step in promoting democracy and safeguarding human rights in the Philippines (RA 10368, 2013).

Under the Act, a Human Rights Victims’ Claims Board was established to receive, evaluate, process, and investigate applications for claims. It also set criteria for the determination of awards, considering the gravity of human rights violations suffered by each victim. The monetary reparation provided was derived from funds recovered from Marcos’s ill-gotten wealth.

Furthermore, the Act established the Roll of Victims, which enshrines the names of all human rights victims, whether they sought reparation or not. It also created the Human Rights Violations Victims’ Memorial Commission to preserve the memory of these victims and educate future generations about the atrocities committed during the Marcos regime.