19-09: Martial Law in the Philippines: Then and Now with Chel Diokno

I signed Proclamation No. 1081, placing the entire Philippines under martial law. This week on Woke Up PH we have a special episode on the wake of the 47th anniversary of the declaration of martial law. This was a time known to many as the Marcus Dictatorship, where special powers were put in place which led to numerous human rights violations. Today, during a time when the late dictator was buried like a hero and his family continues to stay in power, we speak with attorney Jose Manuel or Chelle Jong. I'm Ed Maglan and you're listening to Woke Up PH, where we talk social issues relevant to today's youth. He is a human rights lawyer and is the chair of the Free Legal Assistance Group. He is also an educator and has served as the Dillasal University founding dean. Of course he also ran for senator this past 2019 midterm elections. Attorney Chelle, welcome to Woke Up PH. Thank you, thank you for having me. So we just found it very timely, attorney, to have you on the show for this very special episode that we have the 47th anniversary of the declaration of martial law. And one of those reasons would be because while our podcast is targeted at the youth and you have been known called by the youth as the Woke Lola, so it's very, very appropriate to have you on our show called Woke Up PH. And we also know that your father was during the time of martial law, he opposed martial law as one of the senators, Senator Jose Drop, who also shares your name. And you have also been very vocal in the past about many human rights issues in the current administration, which I feel are very related to the problems that we've also faced during martial law. Yes, there's so many parallels between what's happening now and what happened before. And you know, I thought that after martial law, we would never return to a situation like that. It really made me sad and a bit depressed that we see ourselves in a similar situation today. Yes, and something I want to start the discussion on, attorney, is going back to martial law during the Marcos era, we want to talk about proclamation 1081, and we want to give our listeners a bit of a background to help them understand, because I feel like most of our listeners probably were not around during that time. What were the reasons behind the government's decision to proclaim martial law during that time? And were the reasons completely unfounded, would you say? And how appropriate was the declaration of martial law in order to address, in order to have certain solutions to whatever problems they were trying to fix? Supposedly, the reasons given by the government at the time had a lot to do with the unrest that was happening. There were a lot of demonstrations and rallies by students and the youth at the time. There was supposedly also an insurgency problem among others. And these were the stated reasons why martial law was declared. But in hindsight, it's very clear to me that martial law was declared really just for one reason alone, and that was to make sure that he would have control over the entire government. And if you look at all the proclamations and the issuances that came right after 1081, these were really all designed to put power in the hands of one man. What Marcos did, upon declaration of martial law, he arrested many of the prominent opposition members in Congress. He shut down Congress. He closed down all the media outlets. He established a censorship agency in the government that censored all news that could come out. And basically, he assumed all the powers of the legislature, as well as being the chief executive, and then he also took control of the judiciary. And it's this portion on the judiciary that's really not discussed very much, how martial law impacted adversely on our legal system. About a week after martial law was declared, Marcos issued Letter of Instruction No. 11. And this letter of instruction directed all members of government, including all judges, to submit letters of retic resignation, which he could accept at any time. So if, for example, he received a report that a judge came out with a ruling that he didn't like or that was opposed to the regime, he could simply accept the resignation of the judge and the judge would be out of office already. So that really was the first attack on the independence of the judiciary. Several months later, this is about January of 1973, he put in a new constitution, the 1973 constitution. And one of the provisions there was that all members of the courts will remain in office until they reach the age of 70 years old, unless decreed otherwise. And the power of decree was in the precedent. So that basically from 1972 to 1986, the Marcos' own every single judge in the Philippines. Justice was no longer based on the merits. Justice was based on how close you are to Malacanian. So it was just, there was a judiciary system, but it was a fake system because essentially it was one person in a way making all the decisions. Yes, and he didn't stop there. He created military courts and he said that for certain offenses like subversion and so forth, rebellion, they could not anymore be tried by civilian judges. They had to be tried by military courts. That's why Nino Yaquino was charged before a military commission and many other prominent opposition members. And if you think about it, since he had all the judges in his pocket, imagine the impact on the legal profession. For a lawyer to get clients, for a lawyer to become successful, he would also have to associate himself with the powers that be. So that really had an adverse impact on the legal profession. Some of my brethren became glorified fixers, basically. They established networks so that they could attract the big companies and the big clients. And their come on was, "Hey, if you become an attorney, I'm sure we will win." And that is still something that is happening today. Okay. And I guess just for a picture of, I guess you gave us a very good idea of how government worked during the time of martial law, but now I want to go into how else was the rest of the Philippines under martial law. If you were to speak as maybe an ordinary person, but maybe for me to give a more specific scenario, maybe if you were someone from the youth during martial law, what would be your everyday, what were the challenges you would face, what would be different versus you living as a member of today's youth in maybe today's society or in the time it wasn't martial law? Well, number one, I think you would have to grapple with curfew. You see, early part of martial law, you had to be home before midnight. If you were caught on the streets between 12 midnight and 4 am, you would be put in the camps. Either they would force you to cut the grass or give you some minor penalty for being caught outside. The second was your appearance. They would stop any males with long hair, cut their hair forcibly, and also make them cut the grass or do other kind of menial jobs as a form of punishment. Another was freedom of speech. You couldn't go out and protest. You couldn't come together as a group. If you were seen by the authorities in a group, they would disperse you or even arrest you. So these were the everyday things that young people had to grapple with at the time. Before martial law, we were used to having radio, television or Lappanman Facebook. That was our form of entertainment. But when martial law was declared for a while in the beginning, there was no TV, no radio. When they were returned, put back on the air, they were all censored. So even our TV shows, they couldn't talk freely. In fact, I remember there was one MC of a noon show who made a parody of one of the sayings that every hour on the hour they would come out on TV was, "Sa ikaw on lad ng bayan, disiplina ang kailangan." They had noticed a bunch of propaganda that they would play constantly on TV. So this talk show host, TV noon time show host, he said, "Sa ikaw on lad ng bayan, disiplina ang kailangan." And he almost got put in jail just for saying that. And you talked about peace and order and discipline. And would you say, if during that time there really was more peace, order and discipline in society, was the government at that time able to attain in a way more respect from its people? Would you say respect or would you use a different word? I would say fear. There was a lot of fear in the air. People were afraid even to talk about what was happening. And as the son of someone who was arrested at the onset of martial law, it was very difficult for our family because we felt so like we were victims of injustice. But many of our friends would not even want to socialize with us. Many of the people who would often come to our house before martial law suddenly would never want to be associated with us. And it really made us feel so isolated, especially in the beginning of martial law. And the government during that time, you mentioned not their reasons or at least the reasons they would say that they declared martial law. Do you think they were able to achieve their purpose for declaring martial law? And if they were able to, what were the costs for their supposed success of declaring martial law? Well, one thing they were an utter failure in was in terms of addressing the insurgency. They claimed that that was one of the reasons for martial law. But by the end of martial law, it was much, much bigger than it was in the beginning. So instead of being able to deal with it, another stated reason they gave was because, I don't know if you recall that supposed ambush of then Defense Secretary Juan Ponce Enrile, which later on in 1986 he admitted was fake, but later on in his memoir said that it was real. And this was the reason that Marcos gave that he said, "Oh, we need to establish the law in order," because there's so many things happening, attacks on the government. Was martial law able to achieve any of its stated objectives? No, it was only able to consolidate power in one man. And another thing I want to discuss from, I guess, that time now, we've talked about the state of the government, what state, how everyday life was, but in a state of human rights in the country at that time. This is something I feel like a lot of people are quite interested in and would really like to know about. What was the state of human rights during, in the Philippines at that time? You know, at that time, the term human rights was not even a well-known term. And when the first human rights lawyers emerged, my father was one of them, and there were several of these, they were being branded as communists. To be called a human rights lawyer or a human rights defender during the Marcos dictatorship was a tantamount to being branded as someone who was a danger to society or an enemy of the state. So many of those who fought for human rights during that time were either arrested, some even were killed, some were the victims of enforced disappearance, and it was not exactly popular to talk about human rights. It's only towards the end of the Marcos dictatorship, maybe in the mid or late 1980s, that human rights became a more known term, and it's only during the succeeding administrations that we began to accept the notion that every person has basic rights that nobody, not even the state, can violate. In fact, I tell a lot of young people nowadays that we always should honor those who fought for human rights during the 1970s, because if not for them, the freedoms that we enjoy now and sometimes take for granted, we would never even have them. Right, and it's funny that they would use the term "communist" or "communism" to describe the people fighting for human rights, because if we look at the two, at least in today's understanding of human rights and communism, there's not much, I mean, there isn't much overlap. There's practically no overlap. It's hard to find similarities that necessarily link the two. So would you say this type of propaganda, branding, and such were things people back then even believed? Because today, if you say a human rights lawyer was a communist, it wouldn't really make that much sense just listening to that. But would you say people from that time would really believe this? Even every authoritarian leader has to have a bogeyman. In the time of Marcos, it was communism, and he really played upon that theme, and he really used it to tell people, "Oh, we need to do this because of the communists and the communists are enemies," and that's why they don't even deserve any rights. Now we see a parallel to what's happening now in the sense that the same issue of communism again has come up in our present day country, and even the issue of, as they say, "dilawan," the same kind of branding, drug addicts, the issue of drugs as well has become part of the new kind of bogeyman that we are experiencing today. Did people believe it? Well, the ordinary person at that time didn't have access to the real news because the news was controlled. So they could only rely on what was being released by the state. And just like today, Marcos enjoyed the popularity among the many of the sectists of our society during that time. So I guess that many of them didn't believe in it. And going to the topic of still human rights, something we want to talk about as well is during that time the price paid for fighting for human rights, even just talking about human rights or questioning the government on human rights abuses would be perhaps extrajudicial killings. We've heard of enforced disappearances. Could you tell us a bit more about these things that were happening to people who were not agreeing with the government at that time? Probably it would begin with surveillance. The human rights defenders would notice that there would be men who seemed to be armed, who looked like they were military men around their offices, sometimes following them. Then what would follow would usually be threats. They would receive maybe letters or some other kind of symbolic threats. Then that would be followed perhaps by an arrest for those more fortunate because at least it was just an arrest. Others would be the victims of enforced disappearance and some of them up to now have never been found. Some of them included Catholic priests. I remember the father Rudy Romano and Cebu who was abducted in Cebu city in I think 1985 and up to now. Nobody knows really what happened to him and he is just one of many victims who were simply fighting for the basic rights of the people. The others would be outright EJK. Even some of my colleagues in FLAB, a free legal assistance group, suffered that fate. Now I want to go to, we've talked a lot about how martial law was during the time of actual martial law. Now I want to go to how martial law is talked about today which I feel like the youth can have a more active role in. For 47 years since the issuance of Proclamation 1081, how would you assess how martial law is remembered today, 2019 at this very moment? A lot has happened in historical revisionism. So I think some of our youth have a confused understanding of what martial law was really all about. In many of these, much of this historical revisionism was deliberately done by those who are associated with the Marcoses. They claim for example that "Oh, it's good that the martial law is not being abolished by the enemies of the people, it's a good economy" and so forth. But all of these have been shown to be untrue. The economists will tell you those who know what really happened, that didn't happen. And as far as the political scene is concerned and the issues of human rights, these are well documented. I would advise young people before they believe what they have been told about martial law to do some research and to go to the websites and the real locations where they can find the truth. One of the things that they might want to do is to visit Panthayag ng Bayani Foundation along Edsa Kesson Avenue because that is one of the repositories of all the violations of human rights. They have documented so many who were victimized by the Marcos dictatorship. And there are many books as well. There are other sites that they can visit which will tell them what really happened during martial law. And in your opinion, to what extent is historical revisionism affecting, I'd say, I guess the true effects of martial law? What are the dangers of this historical revisionism that you mentioned earlier? The danger of course is that people will be lulled into a sense of complacency and think, "Oh, nid naman palagan ng kasamaing ng yaranon kaya ngayon na kahit bay martial law sa Mindanao ay oke lang naman yung." And the other thing is that they may not be sensitive to the underlying factors that to me are really of utmost concern. When you have power in the grips of one person or in a small group of people, there's really a tendency to abuse. There's really a tendency to forget the needs of the people and to put personal interest above the interests of the country. Especially when you have a congress like today that is very subservient to the chief executive where you have a judiciary which is very similar to martial law, where the independence of our judges is in question because of several things. The reasons are different. Walan naman letter of instruction ngayon, walan naman bago pang constitution. But the effect on the judiciary has been the same. Many of our judges are afraid because of the use of lists, narco lists, by the president. And the very first narco list issued way back when the president was just new in power included the name of a dead judge. I don't know if he knew the judge was dead but imagine the effect on all the judges who were in our country. They must have thought, "Kong ngayong patay na nga na judge, ay nga isasama pasalistahan, madali lang kami mayisama jyan." So that's always at the back of the mind of a judge. Second is of course issue of promotion. They will never get promoted if they are seen to be adverse to the interests of the administration. And the third is the removal of Chief Justice Sereno because that was a sign to all the members of the judiciary, "Kong kaya naman tanggalin ang chief justice, si na pa kayo?" So it's very hard for me as a human rights lawyer, it's so similar to what happened during martial law time, that if you go to the courts, you really cannot expect justice because na compromise narit ang judiciary. And you mentioned earlier about people who would continue to defend in a way in martial law and talking about how things were so great during that time and you mentioned people who might have been affiliated with the ruling powers of that time saying these things. But I think today there are private individuals who actually also share the same opinion. They perhaps may also not have been affiliated at all with that administration that time. And why do you think this is the case that there are so many people who continue to defend that time despite all the facts that are out there? What do you think they experienced during that time or did not experience that led them to continue to say that it wasn't a bad time? I think it's also because we were not able to incorporate in the education, especially in the public education, what really happened during martial law. For example, all the ill-gotten wealth, all the billions of people's money that was stolen during that time, hindi yan naisa sama sa ating kasi sayan. That's one of the reasons. The other of course is there has really been a lot of money spent to foster this fake news, this historical revisionism. And because it was done, there were many productions, you know, nice-looking videos, marame rina loko dun. Another reason I think is because although there were some decisions by the courts, there's not really been a full accountability by those who were responsible for the abuses, for the taking of people's money during the time of martial law. And that's really sad, because that's one of the reasons why I've been talking about justice all this time, because our justice system has been so neglected that the powerful people who have managed to get away with so many illegal things, they are never held accountable, na kakalasut sila parate, dahil hindi na maayosan takbo ng hosticia sa ating. So we should, and I hope that the young people should really do something about this. It's time we fix our justice system. Right, and something next I want to ask is that there have been a good number of administrations that have come after martial law already, yet people seem to still, you know, believe in all this historical revisionism and people still see martial law as a good time. Do you think there is to a certain level fault with the succeeding administrations in not necessarily being able to uplift the everyday Filipinos living situation or economic situation that people would still look at that time as a time that was good, because do you think there have been necessarily failures in the succeeding administrations that have led to people to say that, okay, I don't really feel like things have gotten any better. I don't think my life has become any better. I don't think my family is any better off now than they were during martial law. I think succeeding administrations failed in one really big respect, and that is they neglected our system of justice. They neglected the strengthening of our justice system, so that the lack of accountability we had during martial law, that continued even after martial law. For example, up to today, our courts only received less than 2% of the national budget. Imagine that the courts are supposed to be the last bastion for protecting our rights. They're supposed to be the ones who will punish the corrupt, and they're supposed to be the ones that will punish the criminal syndicates, and yet they don't even have the resources to really operate efficiently. And it's not just this administration, but all succeeding administrations from martial law up to today have neglected our justice system. If you talk to anyone who gets involved in a case, they will tell you, "We have a big problem with vacancies. We have never been able to fill the large number of vacant positions in the judges and in the prosecutors." Until we can do that, we will never be able to restore confidence in our justice system. That's why when I went around the country last year and early this year, everywhere I went, people would tell me the same thing. We can't get justice if we're forced to do so. And that is anywhere you go. The ordinary Filipino has that kind of image and belief in terms of our justice system. We will never be able to develop as a country until we fix the justice system. And you mentioned the justice system. It's one of the key remnants that until today, the problems are justice systems, it's one of the key remnants until the day of declaration of martial law. What other remnants from martial law do you still see at present day that continue to, I guess, for lack of a better term, haunt the Philippines? Until the existence of political dynasties, the way that the elections are held, these are really undemocratic in many ways. Because during the time of martial law, the Marcos is really catered to developing political families in the different areas in the country that would support them. And even after martial law, despite the changes in government, despite the 1987 Constitution, many of these same political families continue to hold on to power in their respective areas. Some of them change, you know, maybe in a different family, but the concept of controlling power as a political kingpin in your province or in your locality is still the same. And it's sad that our election laws have not been able to address that. If you look at it now, we created the party list, right? There would be more sectoral representation in Congress, but on Namiari, the same political families that have been there for forever have now infiltrated the party list system. So I think the other issue that we have to address that dates back to martial law is we need to have free, honest, and fair elections. Right, and I want to jump to a different topic right now, and specific to the Marcos family, whose family members have been winning elections, not just in their province of Ilocos Norte, but also on a national level. And in your opinion, how acceptable is this? Why or why not is it, you know, acceptable or not acceptable? And is them being elected by the people at large, by a majority of Filipinos to seats that have national scope like the Senate, is that a tantamount to forgiveness from the Filipino people in a way? You know, it saddens me that this is happening. I have no personal issues with the Marcos, and if the children had nothing to do with their parents taking of money, the stealing of billions, if they didn't benefit from it, and if they didn't use it for their own political purposes, then I would have no objections at all. The problem is that despite the best efforts of the PCGG and the other government agencies involved, much of those billions that were ill-gotten by the Marcos have never been accounted for, and apparently are still being used by that family. So there is, although there are some cases that are still pending, imagine those cases began in 1986, '87, and it's now 2019, so that's more than 20, 25 years by now, there should have already been closure to this. Now, one of the reasons why there's been no closures, again, we go back to the issue of the justice system, that those long delays in deciding these cases have not been good for the country. Right, and one of the common arguments that people have is that the two Marcos who have been, or are current senators, they were very young during their time, and where do we draw the line here? Because you mentioned earlier that it would have been fine if they didn't use it and so on and so forth, but where exactly is that line that you feel should be drawn, that we can say that they had nothing to do with it, and they shouldn't be held accountable, and where's that other side of the line where they are held accountable? Well, first of all, I wouldn't agree with what you said that they were too young at that time. Well, Amy Marcos was an official, actually, at the time, KB, and I forget what KB means, but she was really an active part of the Marcos dictatorship, so she cannot just wash her hands and say, "Well, I know that." And even as far as Bongbong is concerned, if you look at the records of the PCGG, and if you look at the cases that have been decided, they were also signatories to some of those accounts. So they cannot say that they were innocent and that they had nothing to do with what happened to Marsha Law. So if they really want to say that they had nothing to do with it, then they should open up everything and be as transparent as they can, and let the people really see what they know and what they know. And based on the investigations and documents that have come out, they will have knowledge at the very least, if not complicity. Right. And modern day, looking at some of the events that have transpired over the past few years, on one hand, we have the Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013, but on the other hand, we also have the burial of Ferdinand Marcos in Libby, and the until now, over almost two years of Marsha Law in Mindanao. How satisfied are you with how the government treats the issue of Marsha Law in modern times? Well, this administration has shown an obvious tendency to side with the Marcosists. You have many statements made by the president. You have as well the burial of Marcos in the Libyan of the Bayani. You have the statements supporting Bongbong and so forth. It's a bit different from the stance taken by previous administrations, which looked at what really happened during Marsha Law from a very factual point of view. Now, of course, that part of that is a prerogative of the president, but at the same time, I think it's a disservice to those who really fought for our freedoms and for human rights to see what is happening today. Right. And before we go to, I guess, the last part of our podcast, where we always have a call to action for Teut. I just wanted to sneak in a few questions, I guess, about how your time was, I guess, campaigning and going around the Philippines. And to what level would you say that being aware of the human rights violations in Marsha and during the time of Marsha Law and being, you know, how some people would say more woke on these issues. Is there a link to a position of privilege where you would have more access to education and learn more about these versus, because I'm sure you went all around the country and met people of all, you know, everywhere over the socioeconomic class of different backgrounds, different lifestyles. To what level would you attribute privilege in, you know, being more aware of what really happened? I don't think it's really a question of privilege as much as many of those I met who were around during Marsha Law or who had relatives who were there during Marsha Law or perhaps were victims of Marsha Law. Even those I would meet in the Palenque, they remembered the times and they would tell me that, "Oh, we remember your dad and we appreciate how much he fought for us and for the rights of all people in the country." I think the bigger problem are the youth who had no real exposure to what happened at the time and who based it on what they see on the Internet, what the videos they watch, perhaps some of the books they read and what they learn in school. And I think that we have a big gap, especially when it comes to our education, that we really don't incorporate that part of our history in the teaching of our young people. Right. Yet despite that, I feel like to some level, you were the champion of many of the younger generations. A lot of people, they were the ones who dubbed you "woke lolo" in a way and they really rallied behind you, I would say. That and also in a way, because you mentioned earlier that a lot of the problem is in the youth and them not being able to remember, well not remember because they weren't there, but not being able to really take to heart what happened during that time. But in a way, were the youth also a source of hope for you? Oh, definitely. They have been a main source of inspiration for me. I don't think I would even have run for office if not for my kids and for the young people of our country. You see, I don't, what really pains me is that I cannot accept that my kids and young people are going to grow up in a country that has no accountability, where people can just do anything they want as long as their powerful chances are they are going to get away with it. I cannot accept that. And it reached a point where I felt that I really had to stand up for and say really what I have been trying to say for so long. Given a platform that can reach a lot more people than inside the courtroom, because I have been really talking about justice for a long time, but never in terms of a political campaign. And I was also very shocked by the kind of connection that I developed with the young people. In the beginning, it was something that I really couldn't understand why they had this liking for me. But later on, after talking to a lot of them, I think they saw that I was not pretending that this is something I've really been doing for a long time. And I really believe in it. And I do believe that the young people are at the most potent force in the country today. The median age of the Filipino is 23.5 years old. So actually, there are really Filipinos in the country. As older generation, it's not our country anymore. This is your country. And I want to do everything I can to help young people bring back the kind of nation that we can be proud of, a nation that we can all say, "This is the Philippines and we really love our country." Right. And you mentioned earlier that running for a specific office seat like the Senate gave you a certain level of clout where you were able to speak to more people and communicate with more people. Is this something you feel like you would do again? Well, I'm open to it. It's not an easy thing to do. It's actually quite difficult, especially for someone like me who's not used to this kind of limelight. But at the same time, I really believe that we need to do something good. And if no one else is willing to stand up, then I am willing to stand up and convince people that let's make this country really some nation that we can all be proud of. Right. Because I think after the recent midterm elections, people are already tweeting and posting on social media that, "Oh, 2022 campaign for children again." So I think that's a good sign for you, if ever, right? And okay, I want to move on to the last part of our podcast, which is something we always do every episode. It's the call to action. So we want all our episodes to be very actionable for you, if they felt that the podcast had inspired them in any way, things that they can perhaps do. And I guess for this episode is in a way the challenge to #NeverForget, which a lot of people use and say in relation to martial law. And should we, in your opinion, should we prevent martial law from ever happening again, like plain and simple, prevent martial law from ever happening again? If not, how can we safeguard against abuses committed when martial law was implemented during the Marcos era? You know, I think that it will be very difficult to bring back the same kind of martial law that we had during the Marcos time, because of the 1987 constitution. There were so many safeguards put in there. But nonetheless, I hope that we, in fact, I was one of those who argued that the martial law in Mindanao should be lifted already. And I don't believe that it's necessary this time for any administration to impose martial law in any part of the country. But even more than that, what we have to safeguard and really be on our toes on is the underlying things that happened during martial law, the control of power, the concentration of power in one person, where the president can say to Congress exactly what he wants, and they jump. If he tells them to jump in the lake, they'll probably jump in the lake. And he also has control of the judiciary. Most of those appointed in the Supreme Court were appointed by the sitting president, aside from the fact that he can easily issue a narco list and put the judge's name on that list and so forth. So these are the things that I would want to, you know, really hope that we all realize that there are many dangers associated with all these things that are happening. But beyond that, I'd also like to say that I really believe in our young people, and I really believe that they know what is happening and they know what is right and what is wrong. And they are just waiting for the right time to really take over the Philippines. And I just think that there's a time when we can really make a change for everyone, not just for the people who are affected. And Attorney, how can we, the youth, speaking for the youth, how can we help combat specifically historical revisionism? What do you think is the maximum and the minimum the ordinary Filipino youth can do to help this specific cause of historical revisionism? Well, number one is you're never too young to know the truth. You're never too young to speak the truth, especially to speak the truth to power. I would call on all the youth to really find out what happened before so that we will not allow it to happen again. And to really go out of their way to talk to those who were involved during the Marcos time, those who fought the dictatorship, to go to these places like Bantai of the Bayani and other places. There's going to be a museum put up for the martial law victims. When that's up, I would encourage them to go to listen to people who were, who really fought against what happened. And to, you know, start sharing that with their friends, with their relatives, with everyone they meet. Because the only way we can fight historical revisionism is with the truth. Just as the only way you can fight authoritarianism is with the truth. So the truth is really the power of the people I believe. All right. Thank you, Anthony. If you like this episode, share it with a friend. Don't forget to subscribe, rate and leave a comment. That's all for this week. We'll see you next Wednesday for a new episode of Woke Up PH.