Columnist Refutes Leviste's Undeclared Martial Law Assertion
Batangas Representative Leandro Leviste has recently stirred controversy by declaring that the Philippines is currently experiencing an undeclared state of martial law. The young congressman asserts that he can personally sense this condition, despite the absence of any official proclamation. This bold statement has sparked significant debate across political circles and media platforms, prompting responses from various sectors of society.
Historical Perspective from Martial Law Survivor
A columnist who personally endured the brutal realities of the 1972 martial law under the original President Ferdinand Marcos has come forward to challenge Leviste's claims. Having been twenty years old when martial law was initially declared, this writer possesses firsthand experience of the genuine signs of democratic erosion that characterized that dark period in Philippine history.
The columnist vividly recalls how the Marcos dictatorship systematically dismantled democratic institutions through several authoritarian measures:
- Mass arrests and imprisonment of political critics and opponents
- Forced closure of Congress and cooptation of the judicial system
- Shutdown of independent media outlets including newspapers, radio, and television stations
- Implementation of strict nationwide curfews and prohibition of public gatherings
Contrasting Current Administration with Martial Law Era
The writer presents a compelling comparison between the current administration and the actual martial law period, questioning Leviste's fundamental premise. Under President Bongbong Marcos' government, none of the hallmark characteristics of martial law appear to be present according to the columnist's analysis.
Critical examination reveals several key differences:
- Political critics and opponents remain free to express their views without facing imprisonment
- Congress continues to function with its characteristic noisy debates and legislative processes
- Media organizations persistently publish and broadcast stories critical of the administration
- No nationwide curfew exists, with travel restrictions limited to specific local government jurisdictions
Analyzing Leviste's Core Argument
Representative Leviste contends that the administration's tendency to file legal cases has created a chilling effect, discouraging many from speaking out against the government. However, the columnist counters this argument by suggesting that this very situation demonstrates the absence of martial law conditions.
The writer emphasizes that when a powerful president acknowledges the judiciary's authority and respects its co-equal status within the government structure, this represents the antithesis of despotic behavior. The columnist notes that despite personal political preferences and having supported a different presidential candidate, factual accuracy must prevail over political narratives.
The article concludes with a call for responsible discourse, urging political figures to avoid inventing stories to advance particular agendas. The writer maintains that while healthy criticism of any administration remains essential for democracy, comparisons to martial law should be grounded in historical reality rather than political convenience.
