Martial Law In The Philippines

Change in American government was imperative in expanding the nation. It is ludicrous to believe that as other nations were growing, America would just sit back and watch. Governmental involvement made "the Philippines ours forever" (Document 1). The United States' plan was to take the Philippines, educate, uplift, and civilize them (Document 2). Such a "noble deed" seemed to benefit both the filipinos and americans. During this time, as mentioned in document eight, "we had duties to others and duties to ourselves". Government's changing role made these relationships available to the

“...We govern our children without their consent...Would not the people of the Philippines prefer the just, human, civilizing government of this Republic…” (Doc B, Albert J. Beveridge). I disagree with this black and white view of the world. The Filipinos are grown people capable of making the best decision for themselves. Children are not (due to their undeveloped frontal lobes). They do not need America to save them. They wanted freedom enough to attempt war with Spain, a global power, so they have earned that

Finally I will discuss two societal issues, violence and population, which I feel heavily influence the force of implementation in El Salvador and the Philippines, respectively. I theorize that a rise in violence is a major trigger for a government, anywhere in the world, to enforce their laws more aggressively. The same concept can be applied to a rise in population. Legislation is especially susceptible to drastic changes in the face of aberrant circumstances. The final section will consist of a discussion of my results. I will interpret my findings and explain how I drew my

Upon McKinley’s assassination, a (relatively) young Theodore Roosevelt found himself in the position of President of the United States. A man of action – perhaps unnecessary action- Roosevelt was unafraid of the political consequences of his bold and often unilateral decision making, both domestically and abroad. U.S. governance in the Philippines had already

I do not think that the United States were the good guys in the Philippine- American war. The only right that we had to be in the Philippines was the right taken from Spain. In many ways the imperialism idea that the U.S. had were undemocratic. The United States at the time was developing and did not have adequate resources to keep military in foreign places. I think that we should have focused on own land. We have a large chunk of land full of growth possibilities. The war was not only brutal on both sides, but it also increased tensions about race. Overall the war did not accomplish much besides hurt both sides. The United States should have stopped their efforts after they met resistance.

was generous to annex the Philippines because the U.S. lead the Philippines to a self-government. “It takes a few weeks of work like this to make one proud that he is an American”(Doc H). This document tells the story of the Philippine- American War coming to the end with America’s victory. Letter written by William Connor shows how the United States military won the war that lead the US to guiding the Philippines to a stronger government. “it cannot rule over vassal states or subjects peoples without bringing in the elements of death into its own constitution…”(Doc I). Document I explains that annexing the Philippines is unconstitutional, but this is not correct because the Philippines was bought by the U.S. and they were owned by U.S. “We could not leave them to themselves- they were unfit for self government- and they soon would have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain’s was”(Doc C). The United States saw the Philippine as unfitted for self- government and the Philippines needed the United States to be a parent government, and guide them to a more fit

The Filipino people had helped the US fight the Spanish-American War in hope to gain independence in return. However, instead of gaining independence the Philippines was annexed to the United States on December 10, 1898. When the Filipino’s had found they were going to be ruled over once again they were very unhappy, after all they had helped the US. When Aguinaldo had found out that the Philippines were going to be controlled by the US, he had declared war on the United States.

“No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent” (Doc A). Abraham Lincoln said that, what he means is we need permission to take someone over our rule. Unlike the US who annexed the Philippines without their consent. The US went against it’s own constitution. The US didn’t want the Filipinos to learn how

The bald red, white, and blue eagle of American Democracy is coming for you Phillipines, run while you can! Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th president of the United States, was so infatuated with the idea of democracy, and he wanted every country to have a little taste of American freedom! After America's victory in the Spanish American War, George Dewey and his 11,000 American troops marched into manila and were unsure whether to liberate or occupy the filipino people. Thinking the they were here to help, the Filipino rebels trusted the Americans, but were soon betrayed as Dewey decided to occupy the land. The United States had three choices to determine what they wanted to do with the Philippines: Give it back to Spain, Give the filipino people their freedom, or to annex the whole country itself. With much debate ranging from artists, influential citizens, and government officials, the US ultimately decided it would annex! The United States should not have annexed the Philippines but rather should have given them their independence. While others may think the annexation of the Philippines would have benefited them, what the Philippines really needed was

Democracy is a unique type of government, and the purpose of this essay is to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses that a democratic government provides. I will detail that many components of this type of society are both strengths and weakness as each component has beneficial aspects as well as unavoidable pitfalls.

Another is that Filipinos have a culture of apathy and tend to use religion incorrectly and passively. People depend on religion and settle for what’s okay. In addition, the initial reaction of Filipinos to change is resistance, and this is why the country does not necessarily progress, or at least, progress at a continuous rate. Then, countries like Spain and Portugal only rode the “economic tiger” after “they realized that the only way to survive was change” (3.Y). Plus, according to another critic, the Philippines already had the experience of being under the parliamentary system during the time of Marcos which only resulted in a People Power Revolution. So why should the country bother going back to that? (4.Y)

 1942: Occupied by the Japanese  1945: Liberated by American and Filipino forces  1946: Attained independency and founded a democracy

Unitarian type of government was first introduced to the country by the Spaniards during the Hispanic era, where after the colonization of the country, the Spaniards made the Philippines highly centralized, whereas it was continued after the Treaty of Paris; the colonization of the Americans, and even until its own government or the grasp of its independence, Unitarian form of government is what is being practiced. Thus, creating the concept of “Imperial Manila.”

In 1972, President Ferdinand E. Marcos (1965-86) declared martial law, citing growing lawlessness and open rebellion by the communist rebels as his justification. Marcos governed from 1973 until mid-1981 in accordance with the transitory provisions of a new constitution that replaced the commonwealth constitution of 1935. He suppressed democratic institutions and restricted civil liberties during the martial law period, ruling largely by decree and popular referenda. The government began a process of political normalization during 1978-81, culminating in the reelection of President Marcos to a 6-year term that would have ended in 1987. The Marcos government's respect for human rights remained low despite the end of martial law on January 17, 1981. His government retained its wide arrest and detention powers. Corruption and favoritism contributed to a serious decline in economic growth and development under Marcos.

My dad told me in an interview about Ferdinand Marcos “I remember that during the early part of Marcos presidency; his intentions were good, but somehow greed and power got the better part of him.” (Political Corruption in the Philippines.) Ferdinand Marcos stayed as a “president” for 21 years because he declared something known as martial law. The martial law removes all power from the previous executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. (Martial Law - Well Prepared) This would go against “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” Article 21 “Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives” ("Universal Declaration Of Human Rights | United Nations".)This violates “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” because he is stripping the power from the people and only giving it to himself. From the martial law, Ferdinand Marcos got tremendous power and became more of a dictator than a president. As a dictator, Ferdinand Marcos led more