This is a digital material available on the web (print textbook materials authored by Filipino journalists are not available for free on the web):
From: : Lent, J. A. (1974). The Philippine Press under Martial Law. Index on Censorship, 3(1), 47–58, pp. 50-54, Sage Publications. Retrieved from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064227408532297
xxx “A group of journalists were at Manila Airport at about 3 a.m. on 23 September, 1972, awaiting a flight south, when they noticed that planes from the night before had not departed and that the news-stands were devoid of newspapers. Telephoning contacts in the city, they discovered that Marcos had declared martial law during the night.
“Meanwhile authorities went to the home of Joaquin Roces, venerable publisher of the Manila Times group of newspapers, at 2.30 a.m. that morning with specific orders to arrest Roces immediately. The troops ordered him to come out or they would shoot down his door. The publisher was not home, but when contacted by his wife, voluntarily turned himself in to the police.
“News director Ronnie Nathanielsz, according to a UPI dispatch, was waiting anxiously for 2 a.m. to inform his DZHP radio audience that Senator Benigno Aquino had been arrested by government troops. But he never did go on the air. Troops in camouflage uniforms entered his studio just before 2 a.m., ‘ politely told everyone to go home and sealed the doors with masking tape’.
“That same morning, soldiers arrived at the Eagle Broadcasting studios, owned by the Iglesia ng Kristo church, to serve a copy of the presidential decree declaring martial law on them. The station’s guards resisted and opened fire, killing about nine soldiers. The military returned with additional arms and killed nearly a dozen Eagle guards before serving the decree. This incident was not reported in any of the media, foreign or domestic.
“Such were the ways in which media personnel learned of the blow the Marcos government had inflicted on the Philippine press. Citing the media as a prime enemy and target, Marcos wasted very little time. Without warning, police walked into newspaper offices and broadcasting studios, ordered staff members to leave and posted announcements stating: ‘ This building is closed and sealed and placed under military control.’
“They were operating under a letter of instruction from the President to the press secretary and national defence secretary. In that letter, dated 22 September, 1972, the President ordered that all media of communication be taken over for the duration of the national emergency. Such drastic action was rationalised by one military official as necessary to prevent subversives from being warned about operations to pick them up. Thus by daybreak on 23 September he had wiped out the entire news media of the Philippines in a fashion reminiscent of the Japanese occupation of the 1940s. All he exempted was his own Daily Express, his KBS radio station and a few others of his supporters.
“Later on 23 September, when the media sanctioned by Marcos were allowed to resume, it was only to enable the President to inform the people – a t last-of his martial law decision. He did this at 7.17 p.m. on 23 September, over a special national radio-TV network. Actually, Marcos was due to speak to the nation at noon; when he failed to do so, his time was allocated to a cartoon using American voices, which depicted a character carrying a big stick. Whether intentionally or not, this television cartoon spoke realistically of what was on the way in the Philippines.
“During the first 48 hours of martial law, the one television station, the English-language Daily Express and three radio stations operating in the country played up the full texts of the decrees, presidential speeches, general orders and information on ‘ a unique day in history’, when no crimes were officially reported. The three radio stations devoted their programming to horseracing, Marcos speeches or continuous music. By 26 September, four or five radio stations were permitted to operate, this out of a pre-martial law total of well over 200. Additionally, the Philippines Herald was granted approval to publish during the initial week, but a strike that had been called the night before martial law prevented it from ever making a reappearance. Furthermore it was also affected by martial law stipulations that the media should not be adjuncts of other business houses, for the Herald was owned by the large Soriano business empire.
“On 26 September, an announcement by executive secretary Alejandro Melchor sealed the fate of a number of papers. Melchor said some papers would never resume, claiming Manila had too many dailies (fifteen in pre-martial law Manila).
“ ‘ I don’t know of any American city with that many newspapers,” he said. Marcos, in a New York Times interview of 27 September, said the publishing rights of six dailies would be withheld indefinitely. His reason was different from Melchor’s but quite familiar by that time: the press and radio had been infiltrated by communist propagandists ‘ and have been guilty of distortions, tendentious reporting, speculation and criticism that have damaged society and weakened resistance to Communism’. Two weeks later, Marcos denied what appeared then (and increasingly so since) to be his only reason for suspending the papers, saying they were ‘ locked up not because they were critical of me but because they participated in a conspiracy, a conspiracy of the Communist Party’. At other times, when the government was receiving criticism for its unpopular actions against the press, Marcos officials relented enough to say these were only temporary measures Immediately following the introduction of martial law, a Department of Public Information was established, replacing the Presidential Press Office. This new department of the executive branch, which was also one of the most important, was designated to merge all the public information offices of the various branches of government. Named as Secretary of Public Information was 33-year-old Francisco Tatad, a former diplomatic correspondent and columnist of the Manila Daily Bulletin, well known for his earlier hardhitting writing and liberal leanings. His Undersecretary, Lorenzo Cruz, was also a professional journalist turned government official.
“On 25 September the new Department issued its first two decrees. The first decree [see p. 61] laid down guidelines for the conduct of the news media and instituted a formidable array of government controls and censorship devices. As for the second decree, this dealt with the operation of printing presses, informing printing firms they could not print any matter for mass dissemination without prior approval of the Department and that they could not print any of the prohibited items mentioned in the first decree.
“Besides suspending mass media operations, strengthening the governmental information office and issuing stringent censorship rules, the Marcos regime also arrested its chief opponents, charging that they had been involved in a communist conspiracy. The Roces incident has been mentioned already to indicate how swiftly this took place.
“Besides politicians of the stature of Aquino (chief opposition leader and potential presidential candidate) and Senator Jose Diokno, numerous journalists were detained. Among the first to be arrested were Teodoro Locsin, editor of the Philippines Free Press, a weekly magazine; Luis Mauricio, Graphic magazine editor; Napoleon Rama, Free Press writer; Maximo Soliven, Manila Times columnist; Jose Man Velez, Channel 5; Rosalinda Galang, Times; Rolando Fadul, Taliba; Go Eng Kuan, Chinese Commercial News. On 26 September the Supreme Court heard a petition for habeas corpus filed on behalf of these newsmen by the National Press Club of the Philippines and the Philippine Press Institute.
“Still other prominent journalists detained for varying periods were Juan Mercado, first director of the Philippine Press Institute; Amando Doronila, editor of the Lopez-owned Manila Chronicle; Manuel Almario, a Philippine News Service editor; Luis Beltran, the fiery Manila Evening News columnist and broadcasting commentator; Ruben Cusipag, Taliba crime reporter; Veronica Yuyitung, wife of the deported Rizal Yuyitung; Rogelio Arienda, radio-TV commentator (sentenced to 12 years hard labour in November 1972 for incitement to rebellion over radio); Eugenio Lopez, Jr., publisher of the Manila Chronicle and of The Asian in Hong Kong; Renato Constantino, Graphic columnist; Antonio Zumel, Chronicle; Francisco Rodrigo, Taliba columnist; and many others.
“Detainees were confined to constabulary headquarters where they shared double bunk beds in what was previously a basketball gymnasium. Conditions of detention seem to have been quite liberal according to various reports. Distinguished detainees such as Aquino, Diokno or Roces were lodged in what were described as very comfortable air-conditioned rooms at Fort Bonifacio.
“Aquino later was moved to a prison with the bare necessities, as was Diokno. The government had announced early in martial law that these individuals would be held for the duration of the national emergency or until Marcos ordered their release. By mid-1973, a large number of the detainees had been released and some placed under house arrest.
“To arrest such personalities, as the Far Eastern Economic Review said on 30 September, on charges of sedition and conspiracy was to stretch credibility. Most of the arrested individuals had been pushing for the same types of reform Marcos claimed to initiate after martial law. Roces, for example, had led anti-crime campaigns through his Manila Times for over a decade. He, along with Mercado, had been instrumental in many of the efforts made by the Philippine Press Institute and Press Foundation of Asia to create an ethical and responsible standard for the Philippine press. Maximo Soliven had been warning Filipinos for months that Marcos was attempting to frighten the people into martial law. So had Beltran and Doronila. Overall, despite Marcos’ claims to the contrary, there is little doubt that the only reason most of these individuals were imprisoned related to their anti-Marcos writings. Rama, for example, was probably detained be cause he was a critic of the President in the Constitutional Convention and because he had come to the defence of the Chinese Commercial News when the Yuyitungs were deported.
“Within the first two weeks of martial law, international and regional press organisations had voiced strong objections to what had happened to Manila’s media. During the first week, the Manila-based Press Foundation of Asia (PFA) had intervened with the purpose of bringing normality back to the relationship between government and media. A PFA regional deputation (including representatives from Indonesia, India and Japan) held four days of talks with the press secretary, and finally, with Marcos himself. Tatad re-emphasised that the press measures were temporary. On 4 October, 1972, Marcos instructed his press secretary to take the following actions:
“1.Form in consultation with PFA’s representatives, a Press Consultative Panel which would serve as a self-regulatory body for the mass media.
“2. Work out the composition of the Panel and its mode of operation.
“3.Ensure that the Panel consists of representatives of the mass media who are directly responsible for the production of newspapers and broadcasts, along with the Secretary of Information and a representative of the Department of National Defence.
“4. See that the Panel promptly draws up a code of conduct for the profession and guidelines for news and comment.
“5 .Ensure that the Panel functions as a continuing self-regulatory body to evaluate and guide the operations of the mass media and deepen understanding between the government and the media.
“6. Take active steps that would make censorship and the present guidelines decreed by the government unnecessary.
“The President also heard the deputation’s appeal on behalf of the detained journalists and said he would review the remaining cases immediately. According to a PFA official, Marcos was very cordial during the talks and agreed not to interfere in the PFA or other international groups stationed in Manila. However, despite the latter pledge, the PFA in September 1973 gave Marcos a list of items on which he had reneged and a month later threatened to move its headquarters to Kuala Lumpur, feeling it could not function at maximum efficiency under a martial law government.
“Marcos’ minor relaxation of the press restrictions in October and November 1972 probably related to his desire to have the new government appear * “civilian and constitutional, rather than military” and to placate international opinion, rather than to any intention to reform. For although the panel idea was sound and seemed fair and representative on paper, in reality it was a joke. By virtue of the fact that all existing press personnel worked for the government or government-approved media, the panel was inevitably pro-Marcos. One source said the panel was not very operative anyway because journalists did not know to whom to go for clearance and guidance -both the Secretary of Information and a representative of the Secretary of Defence were panel members.
“Marcos, in an interview in The Asian, explaining why it was necessary for the military to work closely with civilian agencies such as the Department of Public Information, said: ‘ The extent of subversive activity overran the work of the mass media, and since the military is our principal source of data on the activities of communists and subversives, the matter, say, of cleaning certain organs of the mass media, becomes a matter both for the military and the Department of Public Information.’
“The press panel was given its first case during the first week of November 1972, when the United States news agency, Associated Press, and the Philippines Daily Express were accused of violating martial law guidelines. The Express had published an AP dispatch from New York citing a split in the Philippine army, which the Department of Public Information termed ‘ false, unfounded and tending to sow discord’. The Express apologised and promised that those staff members responsible would be disciplined (the business editor was asked to resign). However, AP, through its acting bureau chief Lynn Newland, was not so willing to bow to the Philippine government. It accused Tatad of naivete and said AP could not be a party to such censorship. As a result, the government reimposed upon Associated Press the newly-lifted censorship on outgoing press dispatches. The ban lasted six days, but outgoing AP reports would in the future have to get prior departmental clearance, even though the censorship of foreign news agencies had been formally abolished on 2 November.
‘The PFA was clearly not satisfied with the progress of the panel it had helped develop. A second deputation met with Marcos in early November to follow up the agreement, but not to much avail as the government felt it had lived up to its part of the bargain. Officials in November explained that the government would resist any outside pressure on the matter of prematurely releasing detained journalists; in fact, Tatad issued a strongly-worded statement that the government would not be cowed even by a bad press abroad. The story goes that in November, Marcos was preparing to sign a release order when news reached him that an International Press Institute group was coming to Manila, which he interpreted as a sign of pressure tactics by foreigners. As a result, he refused to sign the order. IPI involvement began on 26 September with a wired protest to Marcos, stating that the detention of journalists was unjustified. An IPI resolution to the same effect followed on 6 October.
“The PFA deputation in mid-November, feeling Marcos had betrayed the nature of the October agreement, called upon the world press to take a serious look at Philippine martial law: ‘ Up to now no detainee has been released, none of the old newspapers has been allowed to resume publication, and the self-regulatory body the government has created violates the spirit and intent of the agreement, since none of the old newspapers is represented in this body.’ The deputation said that for forty days they had restrained themselves and other international press organisations from making statements – giving the government a chance to act-but they would no longer be a party to this moratorium. They pledged themselves to remind their readers back home of the denial of civil liberties and the death of the press in the Philippines in at least monthly editorials.
“Long term consequences
“Whereas other Asian nations instituting martial law have often allowed the media to resume within a few days, Marcos’ government favoured a whole new set of politically-acceptable newspapers instead. After a month of martial law, editors, publishers and broadcasters grew pessimistic about their chances of operating. Government papers expanded operations, the Daily Express, for instance, planning for an afternoon edition, a second morning edition in Filipino and a weekly Expressweek. The second paper allowed to function, the Times Journal, was published for the first time in October 1972 and, like the Express, was financed by Marcos’ friends, particularly, at the outset, Edmundo Ongsianko. The Express was reportedly paid for by Roberto Benedicto, ambassador to Japan. Being the only papers available for the initial months of martial law, the Express and Times Journal were placed in extremely advantageous positions. From a circulation of 110,000 on 25 September, the Express had risen to 520,000 by mid-October, about three weeks after martial law. Advertisers queued up for space, even though advertising rates had been increased from 15 to 45 pesos per column inch. The situation was so lucrative that the Express could afford to turn down advertisements. Post-martial law newspapers also had the advantage of low capital overhead costs – in most cases they simply leased the premises of defunct papers. For example, Bulletin Today leases the Philippines Herald properties; Express the Chronicle offices and Times Journal, the Daily Star premises. By early 1973, it was questionable if the Express planned to pay the rent on the Chronicle offices, which was then three months in arrears.
“Being government-sanctioned, the press failed to report activities that could reflect on Marcos.
“And when, in late October, a new constitutional provision was adopted making it possible for Marcos to remain in power indefinitely, Filipinos were unaware of this because Express, Business Day and the broadcasters passed over it in silence.
“In mid-November, Marcos talked about permitting pre-martial law dailies to resume publication but emphasised that a ‘ wide dispersal of ownership by public subscription’ was necessary. New rulings stressed that no one person or family could own more than 20 per cent in any one medium. He hinted that some of these papers, once scrutinised by the press panel, might be permitted to set up shop if they drastically changed their management pattern and capital structure. But those publications that in the eyes of the military had participated in a ‘ conspiracy to overthrow the republic’ were permanently disenfranchised. Apparently, all pre-martial law publications, save the Bulletin Today, were in this category as it was the only paper to resume, despite rumours that the old Philippines Herald and Manila Evening News would start up again.
“On 16 November 1972, the President signed his 36th decree calling for the establishment of the Mass Media Council with Tatad as chairman and the secretary of national defence as cochairman. MMC set guidelines for the reopening of media, and was to supervise and control the ‘ performance and conduct of all mass media relevant to the promotion of closer coordination with the objectives of the government’. MMC ceased functioning in the spring of 1973 with the formation of the Media Advisory Council.
“As indicated earlier, Marcos was inclined to loosen the screws on the media during November and December 1972; at least he wanted it to appear this way during a period when he hoped to get a new constitution approved. The censorship ruling applied to news agencies was lifted and authorised publications and broadcasting outlets were allowed to carry editorials, columns and commentaries, but all of these reports still had to abide by the guidelines. As for the detainees, Marcos authorities said they would be released if they signed oaths promising not to participate in anti-national activities. In addition, they could not resume work without a permit from the army, had to report periodically to the army (which meant they were under house arrest) and could not communicate with foreign correspondents. Some media personnel were released under these conditions in early December, among them Roces, Rama, Locsin, Soliven, Mercado and Doronila. xxx” (Ibid.)
Discover more from marichulambino.com
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
