Reyshel H.

Biñan

A Reflection on the Movie Dekada 70’s’

Movies, as part of literature, show the depths and

richness of culture. This illustrated the way of life of the
people as depicted in the film. In this essay, I will provide or
share my reflections on the film Dekada 70 as it talks about
the family of Bartolome who lived under the regime of
President Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines. This time, the
political scenario and milieu of the Philippines were under
Martial Law which for me, I found quite radical that this movie
had only depicted the civil unrest when people wanted to
oust President Marcos from the political area. I also have
seen the movie “Maid in Malacañang” which given me a
different perspective on why Martial Law was implemented as
there were civil unrest occurred and political distractions
were evident as the Communist Parties were trying to
establish their own system of governance than follow the rule
of law and the regime of truth, justice, and freedom.
Depicted in the film shows how the family of Bartolome
was struggling and was tortured as happened during the
Marcos dictatorship. Amanda, as played in the film by Vilma
Santos, was a housewife with her patriarchal husband Julian,
played by Christopher de Leon, along with their sons, Jules as
played by Piolo Pascual, Gani as played by Carlos Agassi,
Eman as played by Marvin Agustin, Jason as played by Danilo
Barrios, and Bingo as played by John Wayne Sace. Each
character portrays unique and different personalities and
political viewpoints. I noticed struggles for inequalities among
genders existed. The problem between Amanda and his
husband illustrated how woman during that time should
behave; that is--- women or wives must only stay in their
houses and should be taking good care of their children and
their husband. In the film, I can see that Julian never
understand why Amanda wanted to go to work. Julian thought
that Amanda wanted to work because of her financial needs
but never of her desire for self-growth and fulfillment as a
woman. This can be analyzed using the Feminism approach
or the approach that men and women are equal. Whatever
men can do, women can also do. Their differences in sexes
should never be an indicator to work assignments but sad to
say, our society is so judgmental and had provided for double
standards. For instance, even a woman who happens to be a
manager or a boss in the office, once she is in the house,
should be serving her husband. She may be the queen and a
money earner but once she is at home, she is a wife who
must serve her husband and her children.
More so, Dekada 70 a film showed the brutality that
transpired during the time of the Marcos government, but it
never showed the reasons why Martial Law was
implemented, that it was not made and declared only by the
president during that time, but it was agreed by the Congress
and Senates as representatives of the people. Only President
Marcos had announced or declared it since by the law, he
was the only one allowed to do so and nobody else can. If
anybody would be declaring Martial Law, this declaration
would become null and void, illegal and ineffective since
under the Constitution, only the president can. The president
bears all the pains and burden of declaring it. It is my
personal belief that the film is boas as it was never revealed
or illustrated the first few years that Martial Law was
implemented particularly its impact and influence on the
people and on those that were against the government as
they would be establishing another government of their own.
If Martial Law was not implemented, we may become or part
of communism or socialism. There will be more chaos and
disruption of quality lives would occur. The film only
highlighted human rights violations as thousands of people
were tortured, killed, and went missing. However, as to the
real culprit of it, it seemed to be very judgmental as all
accusations were pinpointed to the president alone. In fact, it
was never the president who did all those crimes as being
claimed.
Furthermore, the film showed how powerful martial law is
and how it gives the government the exercise of its inherent
powers such as police power, and as claimed in the film, was
excessively applied toward its citizens. Although it was shown
in the film and would encourage us Filipinos to fight for what
is right, for me, it seemed to be an unworthy call since if
President Marcos really intend to cause harm to the Filipino
people, he should have ordered the firing of the civilians to
protect his seat as President of the Philippines that time. The
film also showcased how prior restraints on communication
were made, the infringement of civil and political rights
especially the freedom of expression and of speech.
All of us have fundamental rights and our rights should
never infringe on the rights of others. If somebody believes
that his or her rights had been violated, numerous options
can be made such as resolving it through negotiations, filing
a claim to the government, or filing a lawsuit. Even under
Pareto’s Optimality – that is, a large portion of the population
may benefit from it while others may be harmed since many
of it will benefit do not tantamount that somebody whose
rights are being violated will remain unheard, unvoiced, or
simply disregarded and placed into the archive. It is my
position that they should be given remunerations for the loss
they received because of the happening or occurrence of the
event that the majority had benefited from it.
More so, under the concept of social justice as given
detailed discussion and meaning in the Philippine landmark
case of Calalang vs. Williams (G.R. No. 47800) that social
justice is the humanization of laws and the promotion of the
greater welfare of all the people. This suggested that those
who have less in life must be more in-laws. In the concept of
equality, there should be the same treatment between the
rich and the poor, however, in social justice, more privileges
are given to the poor than the reach for the poor to alleviate
themselves and to reach equal standings with the rich.
Using the concept of libertarianism, Boaz (n.d.) posited
that the goal of liberalism is to define and defend the
legitimate powers of government in terms of certain inherent
or divinely endowed individual rights and including the rights
to life, liberty, private property, freedom of expression and
association, freedom of religion, governance by consent,
equality under the law, and moral autonomy or the capacity
to follow one's own moral convictions. Following
libertarianism, one should exercise his or her rights without
harming the rights of others and this has been incorporated
under the harm principle which holds that individuals should
be allowed to behave as they like so long as their activities
do not cause harm to others (London & Siddiqi, 2019). I agree
with the libertarianism concept that one should be doing
anything he or she wanted to if nobody was hurt. In Matose
and Lanphier (2020), a libertarian is someone who has
determined, for whatever reason, to prefer a society with a
high degree of individual freedom and minimal interference
with individual rights.
It is my personal belief that one may exercise freedom of
speech and expression if it will be done responsibly:
confirming and verifying the truthfulness of the information.
This means that information is checked, validated, and
exhaustively done. This will describe actions that maximize
happiness and well-being for all affected individuals since
harming others will be avoided as the information is checked
to be legit.
Moreover, many people in the political world hold the
libertarian view that individual freedom is paramount.
Although most people want individual liberty, libertarians are
equally concerned with preserving and enhancing the
freedom of society. When individuals are free, we can build a
society that is better, safer, and more affluent for everybody.
For whatever reason, it favors a society with a lot of personal
freedom and few restrictions on people's rights. Freedom can
be exercised in any other means and restrictions are made
only to prohibit what is perceived to be immoral acts or acts
that are not morals.

References

London, E. & Siddiqi, M. (2019). Religious liberty should do no

harm. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/religious-
liberty-no-harm/

Matose, T. & Lanphier, E. (2020). Rights don’t stand alone:

responsibility for rights in a pandemic. The American
Journal of Bioethics, 20: 169-172.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2020.1779405