Apart from co-opting, exploiting and turning the state security forces into his own thugs, Marcos also systematically destroyed Philippine democracy.

After World War II, the US-styled system of democracy in the Philippines was unique in all of Asia. More than just mimicking the American system, democracy Philippine-style stood a good chance of turning the Philippines into an economic giant in this part of the world—no matter that in the eyes of nationalists, Filipino politicians were the puppets of Uncle Sam and their policies served more the interests of the U.S. than the country’s. But even with the growing nationalism of the ‘50s and ‘60s, the Philippines’s US-imposed democracy seemed to be working.

Marcos changed all that.

More than any other Philippine politician, it was Marcos who thoroughly understood and exploited patronage politics in Malacanang down to the barangay or village unit of government. In exchange for the loyalty of his political allies, Marcos paid back by supporting the perpetuation in power of local political dynasties. These families used the so-called “guns, goons and gold” in Philippine politics, especially during election period, to stay in power. Patronage politics institutionalized human rights violation.

To this day, political dynasties remain well entrenched in Philippine politics.

Human rights abuses were not the monopoly of the Marcos dictatorship, during which countless Filipinos suffered, nor did they happen only until the Aquino government; depending on who’s talking, between 200 and 900 activists, journalists, lawyers, priests, peasants and unionists were murdered since President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo came to power in 2001.

Comparing the similarities between the Marcos and Arroyo regimes will help one understand why more Filipinos fell victim to human rights abuses during Arroyo’s reign compared to the administrations of other post-Marcos presidents, Corazon Aquino, Fidel Ramos and Joseph Estrada.

One similarity immediately stands out: the close, if not symbiotic, relationship with the military establishment of the two regimes.

Like Marcos, Arroyo thoroughly co-opted the state security forces, particularly the military. The current nature of Arroyo’s relationship with the military can be traced to 2001 when she was installed in the presidency after the so-called second People Power uprising, which, like the first, is considered by many as a power grab because the military’s role tipped the balance. Arroyo wasted no time, in fact, to show the military how grateful she was by appointing ex-generals to key positions inside her cabinet and in other government agencies.

This relationship was reinforced when the military quashed an attempt by Joseph Estrada’s forces to lay siege on Malacanang in May 2001.

But what really made Arroyo totally indebted to the military is the armed forces’ alleged role in ensuring her victory in the 2004 elections. The military played a central role in the “Hello Garci” scandal, in which Arroyo was taped talking to an election official discussing how to cheat in the elections. In this scandal, some officers and men in the military, led by the present chief of staff Hermogenes Esperon, allegedly helped in the cheating in Mindanao during the 2004 elections.

This election controversy stays at the heart of the persistent acts to challenge Arroyo’s rule, beginning with an impeachment attempt in 2005 and again in 2006. In response, Arroyo made the military clique in her administration even more powerful, appointing the most number of generals to cabinet posts, chief of them Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, a Marcos-era military official widely credited for ensuring Arroyo’s continuing hold on power.

To human rights groups, it is not therefore an accident that at the time when Arroyo’s political survival depended almost entirely on her military cabal, the killings of activists increased. The killings went hand in hand with a relentless and systematic campaign to demonize as communist fronts the progressive organizations and members of the aboveground Left who were the administration's most vociferous critics.

Arroyo was explicit in her support for the general who was the public face of what has become a war of attrition against leftists and activists, Brig. Gen. Jovito Palparan. Wherever Palparan was assigned, the killings took place and almost always increased. He has denied this repeatedly, although in media interviews, he never denied his disdain for communists and activists, whom he regarded as one and the same.

The military even promoted Palparan, and in a gesture of support for what he was accused of doing, Arroyo also complimented him during her 2006 State of the Nation Address.

Coupled with the fact that not a single soldier has been convicted in any of the cases of murder of political activists, Arroyo’s nod to Palparan gave credence to the view that in this country a culture of impunity has taken root.