Habeas corpus ( /ˌheɪbiːəs ˈkɔrpəs/; Latin: "may you have the body") is a writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention, that is, detention lacking sufficient cause or evidence. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to their aid. Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system to assist wealthy landowners, but it is now available in many nations. It has historically been an important legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom of certain individuals against arbitrary state action. It is a writ requiring a person to be brought before a judge.

A writ of habeas corpus, also known as the Great Writ, is a summons with the force of a court order; it is addressed to the custodian (a prison official for example) and demands that a prisoner be taken before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether the custodian has lawful authority to detain the person. If the custodian does not have authority to detain the prisoner, then they must be released from custody. The prisoner, or another person acting on his or her behalf, may petition the court, or a judge, for a writ of habeas corpus. One reason for the writ to be sought by a person other than the prisoner is that the detainee might be held incommunicado. Most civil law jurisdictions provide a similar remedy for those unlawfully detained, but this is not always called "habeas corpus".^[1] For example, in some Spanish-speaking nations, the equivalent remedy for unlawful imprisonment is the amparo de libertad ('protection of freedom').

Habeas corpus has certain limitations. It is technically only a procedural remedy; it is a guarantee against any detention that is forbidden by law, but it does not necessarily protect other rights, such as the entitlement to a fair trial. So if an imposition such as internment without trial is permitted by the law then habeas corpus may not be a useful remedy. Furthermore, in many countries, the process may be suspended due to a national emergency.

The right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus has nonetheless long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. The jurist Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the British Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty".^[2]

The writ of habeas corpus is one of what are called the "extraordinary", "common law", or "prerogative writs", which were historically issued by the English courts in the name of the monarch to control inferior courts and public authorities within the kingdom. The most common of the other such prerogative writs are quo warranto, prohibito, mandamus, procedendo, and certiorari. The due process for such petitions is not simply civil or criminal, because they incorporate the presumption of non-authority. The official who is the respondent has the burden to prove his authority to do or not do something. Failing this, the court must decide for the petitioner, who may be any person, not just an interested party. This differs from a motion in a civil process in which the movant must have standing, and bears the burden of proof.

Derivation and form[link]

Habeas corpus is a Latin phrase, which can be literally translated as “(We command) that you have the body”.^[3] or "you should arrest" the conventional incipit of medieval arrest warrants in England. The writ is referred to in full in legal texts as habeas corpus ad subjiciendum or more rarely ad subjiciendum et recipiendum. It is sometimes described as the “great writ”. Its name derives from the operative words of the writ in Medieval Latin:

Praecipimus tibi quod corpus A.B. in prisona nostra sub custodia tua detentum, ut dicitur, una cum die et causa captionis et detentionis suae, quocumque nomine praedictus A.B. censeatur in eadem, habeas coram nobis ... ad subjiciendum et recipiendum ea quae curia nostra de eo adtunc et ibidem ordinare contigerit in hac parte. Et hoc nullatenus omittatis periculo incumbente. Et habeas ibi hoc breve.

We command you, that the body of A.B. in Our prison under your custody detained, as it is said, together with the day and cause of his taking and detention, by whatever name the said A.B. may be known therein, you have at our Court ... to undergo and to receive that which our Court shall then and there consider and order in that behalf. Hereof in no way fail, at your peril. And have you then there this writ.

The word habeas in the writ is in the subjunctive (specifically the volitive subjunctive): "We command that you have ...". That the basic form of the writs of habeas corpus, now written in English, has changed little over the centuries can be seen from the following examples.

Examples[link]

VICTORIA by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith, to J.K., Keeper of our Gaol of Jersey, in the Island of Jersey, and to J.C. Viscount of said Island, Greeting. We command you that you have the body of C.C.W. detained in our prison under your custody, as it is said, together with the day and cause of his being taken and detained, by whatsoever name he may be called or known, in our Court before us, at Westminster, on the 18th day of January next, to undergo and receive all and singular such matters and things which our said Court shall then and there consider of him in this behalf; and have there then this Writ.

United States of America, Second Judicial Circuit, Southern District of New York, ss.: We command you that the body of Charles L. Craig, in your custody detained, as it is said, together with the day and cause of his caption and detention, you safely have before Honorable Martin T. Manton, United States Circuit Judge for the Second Judicial Circuit, within the circuit and district aforesaid, to do and receive all and singular those things which the said judge shall then and there consider of him in this behalf; and have you then and there this writ.

Similarly named writs[link]

The full name of the writ is often used to distinguish it from similar ancient writs, also named habeas corpus. These include

• Habeas corpus ad deliberandum et recipiendum: a writ for bringing an accused from a different county into a court in the place where a crime had been committed for purposes of trial, or more literally to return holding the body for purposes of “deliberation and receipt” of a decision.("extradition")
• Habeas corpus ad faciendum et recipiendum (also called habeas corpus cum causa): a writ of a superior court to a custodian to return with the body being held by the order of a lower court "with reasons", for the purpose of “receiving” the decision of the superior court and of “doing” what it ordered.
• Habeas corpus ad prosequendum: a writ ordering return with a prisoner for the purpose of “prosecuting” him before the court.
• Habeas corpus ad respondendum: a writ ordering return to allow the prisoner to “answer” to new proceedings before the court.
• Habeas corpus ad testificandum: a writ ordering return with the body of a prisoner for the purposes of “testifying".

Origins in England[link]

In the 17th century the foundations for habeas corpus were "wrongly thought" to have originated in Magna Carta.^[4] This charter declared that

No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseized of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land.

Blackstone cites the first recorded usage of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum in 1305, during the reign of King Edward I. However, other writs were issued with the same effect as early as the reign of Henry II in the twelfth century. Blackstone explained the basis of the writ, saying "The King is at all times entitled to have an account, why the liberty of any of his subjects is restrained, wherever that restraint may be inflicted." The procedure for issuing a writ of habeas corpus was first codified by the Habeas Corpus Act 1679, following judicial rulings which had restricted the effectiveness of the writ. A previous law (the Habeas Corpus Act 1640) had been passed forty years earlier to overturn a ruling that the command of the King was a sufficient answer to a petition of habeas corpus.

Then, as now, the writ of habeas corpus was issued by a superior court in the name of the Sovereign, and commanded the addressee (a lower court, sheriff, or private subject) to produce the prisoner before the royal courts of law. A habeas corpus petition could be made by the prisoner himself or by a third party on his behalf and, as a result of the Habeas Corpus Acts, could be made regardless of whether the court was in session, by presenting the petition to a judge. Since the eighteenth century the writ has also been used in cases of unlawful detention by private individuals, most famously in Somersett's Case (1771), where the black slave Somersett was ordered to be freed. In that case these famous words are said to have been uttered "The air of England has long been too pure for a slave, and every man is free who breathes it".^[5]

The privilege of habeas corpus has been suspended or restricted several times during English history, most recently during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Although internment without trial has been authorised by statute since that time, for example during the two World Wars and the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the habeas corpus procedure has in modern times always technically remained available to such internees. However, as habeas corpus is only a procedural device to examine the lawfulness of a prisoner's detention, so long as the detention is in accordance with an Act of Parliament, the petition for habeas corpus is unsuccessful. Since the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998, the courts have been able to declare an Act of Parliament to be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, but such a declaration of incompatibility has no legal effect unless and until it is acted upon by the government.

The wording of the writ of habeas corpus implies that the prisoner is brought to the court for the legality of the imprisonment to be examined. However, rather than issuing the writ immediately and waiting for the return of the writ by the custodian, modern practice in England is for the original application to be followed by a hearing with both parties present to decide the legality of the detention, without any writ being issued. If the detention is held to be unlawful, the prisoner can usually then be released or bailed by order of the court without having to be produced before it. It is also possible for individuals held by the state to petition for judicial review, and individuals held by non-state entities to apply for an injunction.

Other jurisdictions[link]

Australia[link]

The writ of habeas corpus as a procedural remedy is part of Australia's English law inheritance.^[6] In 2005, the Australian parliament passed the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2005. Some legal experts questioned the constitutionality of the act, due in part to limitations it placed on habeas corpus.^{[7][unreliable source?]}

Canada[link]

Habeas corpus rights are part of the British legal tradition inherited by Canada. The rights exist in the common law but have been enshrined in the Constitution Act 1982, under Section Ten of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.^[8] This states that "Everyone has the right on arrest or detention... (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful."

Suspension of the writ in Canadian history occurred famously during the October Crisis, during which the War Measures Act was invoked by the Governor General of Canada on the constitutional advice of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, who had received a request from the Quebec Cabinet. The Act was also used to justify German, Slavic, and Ukrainian Canadian internment during the First World War, and the internment of German-Canadians, Italian Canadians and of Japanese Canadians during the Second World War.

The writ is available where there is no other adequate remedy. However, a superior court always has the discretion to grant the writ even in the face of an alternative remedy (see May v. Ferndale Institution). Under the Criminal Code of Canada the writ is largely unavailable if a statutory right of appeal exists, whether or not this right has been exercised.

Germany[link]

Germany has constitutional guarantees against improper detention and have been implemented in statutory law in a manner that can be considered as equivalent to writs of habeas corpus.

Article 104, paragraph 1 of the German Constitution provides that deprivations of liberty may be imposed only on the basis of a specific enabling statute that also must include procedural rules. Article 104, paragraph 2 requires that any arrested individual be brought before a judge by the end of the day following the day of the arrest. For those detained as criminal suspects, article 104, paragraph 3 specifically requires that the judge must grant a hearing to the suspect in order to rule on the detention.

Restrictions on the power of the authorities to arrest and detain individuals also emanate from article 2 paragraph 2 of the Constitution which guarantees liberty and requires a statutory authorization for any deprivation of liberty. In addition, several other articles of the Constitution have a bearing on the issue. The most important of these are article 19, which generally requires a statutory basis for any infringements of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution while also guaranteeing judicial review; article 20, paragraph 3, which guarantees the rule of law; and article 3 which guarantees equality.

In particular, a constitutional obligation to grant remedies for improper detention is required by article 19, paragraph 4 of the Constitution which provides as follows: "Should any person’s right be violated by public authority, he may have recourse to the courts. If no other jurisdiction has been established, recourse shall be to the ordinary courts."^[9]

India[link]

The Indian judiciary, in a catena of cases has effectively resorted to the writ of habeas corpus to secure release of a person from illegal detention. The Indian judiciary has dispensed with the traditional doctrine of locus standi, so that if a detained person is not in a position to file a petition, it can be moved on his behalf by any other person. The scope of habeas relief has expanded in recent times by actions of the Indian judiciary.^[10] The habeas writ was used in the Rajan case. It was also filed by Panthers Party to protest the imprisonment of Anna Hazare, a social activist.

Ireland[link]

In the Republic of Ireland access to the remedy of habeas corpus is guaranteed by Article 40.4 of the 1937 constitution. This guarantees "personal liberty" to each individual and outlines a detailed habeas corpus procedure. It does not mention the Latin term but includes the English phrase "produce the body". The constitution provides that the habeas procedure is not binding on the Defence Forces during a state of war or armed rebellion.

Article 40.4.2° states that a prisoner, or anyone acting on his behalf, may make a complaint to the High Court (or to any High Court judge) of unlawful detention. The court must then investigate the matter "forthwith" and may order that the defendant bring the prisoner before the court and give reasons for his detention. The court must immediately release the detainee unless it is satisfied that he is being held lawfully. The full text of the provision is as follows:

Upon complaint being made by or on behalf of any person to the High Court or any judge thereof alleging that such person is being unlawfully detained, the High Court and any and every judge thereof to whom such complaint is made shall forthwith enquire into the said complaint and may order the person in whose custody such person is detained to produce the body of such person before the High Court on a named day and to certify in writing the grounds of his detention, and the High Court shall, upon the body of such person being produced before that Court and after giving the person in whose custody he is detained an opportunity of justifying the detention, order the release of such person from such detention unless satisfied that he is being detained in accordance with the law. [Italics added]

The state inherited habeas corpus as part of the common law when it seceded from the United Kingdom in 1922, but the remedy was also guaranteed by Article 6 of the Constitution of the Irish Free State in force from 1922 to 1937. A similar provision was included when the current constitution was adopted in 1937. Since that date habeas corpus has been restricted by two constitutional amendments, the Second Amendment in 1941 and the Sixteenth Amendment in 1996.

Before the Second Amendment, an individual detained had the constitutional right to apply to any High Court judge for a writ of habeas corpus and to as many High Court judges as he wished. Since the Second Amendment, a prisoner has had only the right to apply to one judge, and, once a writ has been issued, the President of the High Court has authority to choose the judge or panel of three judges who will decide the case. The amendment also added a requirement that if the High Court believes someone's detention to be invalid due to the unconstitutionality of a law, it must refer the matter to the Irish Supreme Court and may only release the individual on bail in the interim.

In 1965, the Supreme Court ruled in the O'Callaghan case that the provisions of the constitution meant that an individual charged with a crime could be refused bail only if she was likely to flee or to interfere with witnesses or evidence. Since the Sixteenth Amendment, it has been possible for a court to take into account whether a person has committed serious crimes while on bail in the past.

Malaysia[link]

In Malaysia, the remedy of habeas corpus is guaranteed by the federal constitution, although not by name. Article 5(2) of the Constitution of Malaysia provides that "Where complaint is made to a High Court or any judge thereof that a person is being unlawfully detained the court shall inquire into the complaint and, unless satisfied that the detention is lawful, shall order him to be produced before the court and release him."

As there are several statutes, for example, the Internal Security Act 1960, that still permit detention without trial, the procedure is usually effective in such cases only if it can be shown that there was a procedural error in the way that the detention was ordered.

New Zealand[link]

In New Zealand habeas corpus may be invoked against the government or private individuals. In 2006, a child was allegedly kidnapped by his maternal grandfather after a custody dispute. The father began habeas corpus proceedings against the mother, the grandfather, the grandmother, the great grandmother, and another person alleged to have assisted in the kidnap of the child. The mother did not present the child to the court and so was imprisoned for contempt of court.^[11] She was released when the grandfather came forward with the child in late January 2007.

The Philippines[link]

In the Bill of Rights of the Philippine constitution, habeas corpus is guaranteed in terms almost identically to those used in the U.S. Constitution. in Article 3, Section 15 of the Constitution of the Philippines states that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it."

In 1971, after the Plaza Miranda bombing, the Marcos administration, under Ferdinand Marcos, suspended habeas corpus in an effort to stifle the oncoming insurgency, having blamed the Filipino Communist Party for the events of August 21. Many considered this to be a prelude to Martial Law. After widespread protests, however, the Marcos administration decided to reintroduce the writ. In December 2009, habeas corpus was suspended in Maguindanao as the province was placed under martial law. This occurred in response to the Maguindanao massacre.^[12]

Scotland[link]

The Parliament of Scotland passed a law to have the same effect as habeas corpus in the eighteenth century. This now known as the Criminal Procedure Act 1701 c.6.^[13] It was originally called "the Act for preventing wrongful imprisonment and against undue delays in trials". It is still in force although certain parts have been repealed.

Spain[link]

In 1526 the Fuero Nuevo established a form of habeas corpus in the territory of the Señorío de Vizcaya. The present Constitution of Spain states that "A habeas corpus procedure shall be provided for by law to ensure the immediate handing over to the judicial authorities of any person illegally arrested". The statute which regulates the procedure is the Law of Habeas Corpus of 24 May 1984 which provides that a person imprisoned may, on his own or through a third person, allege he is imprisoned unlawfully and request to appear before a judge. The request must specify the grounds on which the detention is considered to be unlawful which can be, for example, that the custodian holding the prisoner does not have the legal authority, that the prisoner's constitutional rights have been violated, or that he has been subjected to mistreatment. The judge may then request additional information if needed and may issue a habeas corpus order at which point the custodian has 24 hours to bring the prisoner before the judge.

United States[link]

The United States inherited habeas corpus from the English common law. In England the writ was issued in the name of the monarch. When the original thirteen American colonies declared independence, and became a republic based on popular sovereignty, any person, in the name of the people, acquired authority to initiate such writs. The U.S. Constitution specifically includes the habeas procedure in the Suspension Clause (Clause 2), located in Article One, Section 9. This states that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

The writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a civil, not criminal, ex parte proceeding in which a court inquires as to the legitimacy of a prisoner's custody. Typically, habeas corpus proceedings are to determine whether the court which imposed sentence on the defendant had jurisdiction and authority to do so, or whether the defendant's sentence has expired. Habeas corpus is also used as a legal avenue to challenge other types of custody such as pretrial detention or detention by the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement pursuant to a deportation proceeding.

The suspension of Habeas Corpus has occurred in United States history; Former Presidents Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses Grant, and George W. Bush have all signed the suspension of Habeas Corpus.

Equivalent remedies[link]

Poland[link]

In 1433 King Jagiełło granted the Privilege of Jedlna, which proclaimed, Neminem captivabimus nisi iure victum (“We will not imprison anyone except if convicted by law”). This revolutionary innovation in civil libertarianism gave Polish citizens due process-style rights that did not exist in any other European country for another 250 years. Originally, the Privilege of Jedlna was restricted to the nobility (the szlachta), but it was extended to cover townsmen in the 1791 Constitution. Importantly, social classifications in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were not as rigid as in other European countries; townspeople and Jews were sometimes ennobled. The Privilege of Jedlna provided broader coverage than many subsequently enacted habeas corpus laws because Poland’s nobility constituted an unusually large percentage of the country's total population, which was Europe’s largest. As a result, by the 16th century, it was protecting the liberty of between 500 thousand and a million Poles.^[14]

[edit] World habeas corpus

In the 1950s, American lawyer Luis Kutner began advocating an international writ of habeas corpus to protect individual human rights. In 1952 he filed a petition for a "United Nations Writ of Habeas Corpus" on behalf of William N. Oatis, an American journalist jailed the previous year by the Communist government of Czechoslovakia.^[15] Alleging that Czechoslovakia had violated Oatis's rights under the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that the United Nations General Assembly had "inherent power" to fashion remedies for human rights violations, the petition was filed with the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.^[16] The Commission forwarded the petition to Czechoslovakia, but no other United Nations action was taken.^[16] Oatis was released in 1953. Kutner went on to publish numerous articles and books advocating the creation of an "International Court of Habeas Corpus." ^[17]

See also[link]

• Arbitrary arrest and detention
• corpus delicti – other Latin legal term using corpus, here meaning the fact of a crime having been committed, not the body of the person being detained nor (as sometimes inaccurately used) to the body of the victim
• Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon
• Habeas Corpus (play), by the English writer and playwright Alan Bennett.
• Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007
• Habeas Data
• List of legal Latin terms
• Military Commissions Act of 2006
• Murder conviction without a body
• Philippine Habeas Corpus Cases
• Recurso de amparo (Writ of amparo)
• Subpoena ad testificandum
• Subpoena duces tecum

Notes and references[link]

Further reading[link]

• Asha Bandele "Habeas Corpus is a legal Entitlement", a poem in Absence in the Palms of My Hands & Other Poems. New York: Harlem River Press. 1996.
• A.H. Carpenter. "Habeas Corpus in the Colonies." The American Historical Review. Vol. 8., No. 1 (October 1902), pages 18–27.
• Louis Fisher. 2003. Nazi Saboteurs on Trial: A Military Tribunal and American Law. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 0-7006-1238-6.
• Michael Dobbs. 2004. Saboteurs: The Nazi Raid on America. Vintage. ISBN 1-4000-3042-0.
• Charles Doyle. 2006. Federal Habeas Copus: A Brief Legal Overview. Congressional Research Service.
• Peter Irons. 1999. A People's History of the Supreme Court. Viking. ISBN 0-670-87006-4. Political context for Ex Parte Milligan explained on Pp. 186–189.
• Helen A. Nutting. "The Most Wholesome Law—The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679." The American Historical Review. Vol. 65., No. 3 (April 1960), pages 527–543.
• Geoffrey R. Stone. 2004. Perilous Times, Free Speech in Wartime From the Sedition Act to the War on Terrorism. Norton. ISBN 0-393-05880-8.
• Cary Federman. 2006. The Body and the State: Habeas Corpus and American Jurisprudence. SUNY. ISBN 0-7914-6703-1.
• Eric M. Freedman. 2001. Habeas Corpus: Rethinking the Great Writ of Liberty (NYU Press) ISBN 0-8147-2717-4
• Lisa M. Seghetti and Nathan James. 2006. Federal Habeas Corpus Relief: Background, Legislation, and Issues. Congressional Research Service.
• Donald E. Wilkes Jr, The Georgia Death Penalty Habeas Corpus Reform Act of 1995 (1995) & Habeas Corpus: The Great Writ Hit (2006) & Habeas Corpus Uncorpsed (2008) & Habeas Corpus and Baseball (2006) & The Writ of Habeas Corpus in Georgia (2007) & Writ of Habeas Corpus, from The New Georgia Encyclopedia (2009).

External links[link]

• Amnesty International page on Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007
• Barristermagazine.com
• Inmatelaw.org
• LectLaw.com
• Petition for Habeas Corpus April 16, 1843 From Texas Tides
• This American Life: 331: Habeas Schmabeas 2007
• Find Habeas

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: The article lacks structure and needs more background information (as well as sources).. Please help improve this article if you can; the talk page may contain suggestions. (December 2011)

This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist by editing it. (December 2011)

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2011)

There are many people in history who are commonly appended with the phrase "the Great", or who were called that or an equivalent phrase in their own language. Other languages have their own suffixes such as e Bozorg and e azam in Persian and Urdu respectively.

In Persia, the title "the Great" at first seems to be a colloquial version of the Old Persian title "Great King". This title was first used by the conqueror Cyrus II of Persia.^[1]

The Persian title was inherited by Alexander III of Macedon (336–323 BC) when he conquered the Persian Empire, and the epithet "Great" eventually became personally associated with him. The first reference (in a comedy by Plautus)^[2] assumes that everyone knew who "Alexander the Great" was; however, there is no earlier evidence that Alexander III of Macedon was called "the Great".

The early Seleucid kings, who succeeded Alexander in Persia, used "Great King" in local documents, but the title was most notably used for Antiochus the Great (223–187 BC).

Later rulers and commanders began to use the epithet "the Great" as a personal name, like the Roman general Pompey. Others received the surname retrospectively, like the Carthaginian Hanno and the Indian emperor Ashoka the Great. Once the surname gained currency, it was also used as an honorific surname for people without political careers, like the philosopher Albert the Great.

As there are no objective criteria for "greatness", the persistence of later generations in using the designation greatly varies. For example, Louis XIV of France was often referred to as "The Great" in his lifetime but is rarely called such nowadays, while Frederick II of Prussia is still called "The Great". A later Hohenzollern - Wilhelm I - was often called "The Great" in the time of his grandson Wilhelm II, but rarely later.

Rulers[link]

• Abbas I of Persia (1571–1629), Shah of Iran
• Akbar (1542–1605), ruler of the Mughal Empire of South Asia, mainly India
• Alain I of Albret (1440–1522), French aristocrat
• Alexander the Great (356-323 BC), King of Macedonia, Persia, Greece, Egypt, and all of Mesopotamia
• Alexander I of Georgia (1386–1446), King of Georgia
• Alfonso III of León (c. 848-910), King of León, Galicia and Asturias
• Alfred the Great (848/849-899), King of Wessex
• Antiochus III the Great (c. 241–187 BC), ruler of the Seleucid Empire
• Ashoka the Great (c. 304–232 BC), Indian emperor of the Maurya dynasty
• Ashot I of Iberia “the Great”(died 826/830), presiding prince of Iberia (modern Georgia),
• Askia Mohammad I (c. 1442–1538), ruler of the Songhai Empire
• Bhumibol Adulyadej (born 1927), King of Thailand
• Bolesław I Chrobry (967-1025), sometimes called "the Great", first King of Poland
• Bruno the Great (925–965), Archbishop of Cologne and Duke of Lotharingia (also listed in the following section)
• Buddha Yodfa Chulaloke (1736–1809), founder and ruler of the Rattanakosin Kingdom (in what is now Thailand)
• Cnut the Great (c. 985 or 995-1035), King of Denmark, England, Norway and parts of Sweden
• Casimir III the Great (1310–1370), King of Poland
• Catherine the Great (1729–1796), Empress of Russia
• Chandragupta II (reigned 375-413/415), also known as Vikramaditya, ruler of the Gupta empire in India
• Charlemagne (died 814), King of the Franks and Emperor of the Romans
• Chulalongkorn (1853–1910), King of Siam (now Thailand)
• Chlothar II (584-629), King of Neustria and King of the Franks
• Conrad, Margrave of Meissen (c. 1097-1157), Margrave of Meissen
• Constantine I (c. 272-337), Roman emperor
• Cyaxares the Great (c. 625-585 BC), third king of Media
• Cyrus the Great (c. 600 BC or 576 BC–530 BC), founder and ruler of the Persian or Achaemenid Empire
• Darius the Great (550 – 486 BC), third ruler of the Persian Empire
• Devapala (died 850), ruler of the Pala Empire in the Indian subcontinent
• Dionysius I, Greek tyrant of Syracuse^[3]
• Ferdinand I of León and Castile (c. 1015–1065), King of León and Count of Castile
• Frederick the Great (1712–1786), King of Prussia
• Genghis Khan (1162?-1227), founder and Great Khan of the Mongol Empire
• Gero (c. 900–965), ruler of Marca Geronis, a very large march in Europe
• Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden (1594–1632), King of Sweden, founder of the Swedish Empire, and noted military leader
• Gwanggaeto the Great, King of Goguryeo, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea^[4][5]
• Hanno the Great, the name of three leaders of Carthage, in the 4th, 3rd, and 2nd centuries BC
• Henry I, Duke of Burgundy (946–1002)
• Henry IV of France (1553–1610), King of France and King of Navarre
• Herod the Great (73/74 BC-4 BC), King of Judea
• Hugh the Great (898-956), Duke of the Franks and Count of Paris
• Hugh Magnus of France (1007–1025), co-King of France
• Hugh I, Count of Vermandois (1057–1101)
• Humphrey I de Bohun (died c. 1123), Anglo-Norman aristocrat
• Ivan III of Russia (1440–1505), Tsar of Russia
• John I of Portugal (1358–1433), King of Portugal and the Algarve
• John II of Aragon (1398–1479), King of Aragon and, through his wife, King of Navarre
• Justinian I (483-565), Byzantine Emperor
• Kamehameha I (c. 1758-1819), first King of Hawai'i
• Kanishka (died c. 127), ruler of the Kushan Empire in Central Asia and parts of India
• Kvirike III of Kakheti (1010–1029), King of Kakheti in eastern Georgia
• Kublai Khan (1215–1294), Mongol ruler in the 13th century and Emperor of China; founder of the Yuan Dynasty
• Llywelyn the Great (c. 1172–1240), Prince of Gwynedd and de facto ruler of most of Wales
• Louis I of Hungary (1326–1382), King of Hungary, Croatia and Poland
• Mangrai the Great (1238–1317), Lanna, northern Thailand
• Emperor Meiji (1852–1912), Emperor of Japan
• Mircea I of Wallachia (1355–1418)
• Mithridates II of Parthia (died 88 BC), ruler of the Parthian Empire (in present day Iran)
• Mithridates VI of Pontus (134 BC–63 BC), ruler of Pontus and the Bosporan Kingdom
• Mstislav I of Kiev (1076–1132), Grand Prince of Kievan Rus
• Naresuan (1555–1605), King of Ayutthaya
• Narai (1633–1688), King of Ayutthaya (in what is now modern Thailand)
• Odo the Great (died c. 735), Duke of Aquitaine
• Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor (912-973)
• K'inich Janaab' Pakal (603-683), ruler of the Mayan city-state of Palenque
• Parakramabahu I of Polonnaruwa (1123–1186), King of Sri Lanka
• Peter Krešimir IV of Croatia (died 1075), King of Croatia
• Peter the Great (1672–1725), Tsar of Russia
• Peter III of Aragon (1239–1285), King of Aragon and King of Sicily
• Pompey (106 BC-48 BC), military and political leader of the late Roman Republic, rival of Julius Caesar
• Radama I (1793–1828), first king of greater Madagascar
• Raja Raja Chola I (c. 947-1014), Indian emperor of the Cholas.^[6][7][8]
• Rajendra Chola I (reigned 1014–1044), Tamil King of India
• Ramesses II (reigned 1279 BC – 1213 BC), considered the greatest pharaoh of Ancient Egypt
• Ram Khamhaeng (around 1237 to 1247-1298), King of Sukhothai (in present day Thailand)
• Ramon Berenguer III, Count of Barcelona (1082–1131), also Count of Provence and various other counties
• Rhodri the Great (c. 820–878), King of Gwynedd (in present day Wales)
• Roman the Great (after 1160-1205), Grand Prince of Kiev
• Saladin (c. 1138-1193), Kurdish Sultan of Egypt and Syria, founder of the Ayyubid dynasty, and victor over the Crusaders
• Samudragupta (c. 335–375), ruler of the Gupta empire in the Indian subcontinent
• Sancho III of Navarre (c. 992-1035), King of Kingdom of Navarre
• Sargon of Akkad (died c. 2215 BC), ruler of the Akkadian Empire
• Sejong the Great (1397–1450), Korean king^[9]
• Shapur II (309-379), king of the Sassanid Empire, Persia
• Simeon I of Bulgaria (864/865-927), ruler of the First Bulgarian Empire
• Stephen III of Moldavia (1433–1504), Prince of Moldavia (Romania)
• Stephen Uroš IV Dušan of Serbia (c. 1308-1355), King of Serbia and Emperor of the Serbs and Greeks
• Taksin (1734–1782), King of the Thonburi Kingdom (Thailand)
• Tamar (1160-1123), Queen of the Georgian Empire
• Timur (1336–1405), better known as Tamerlane, founder of the Timurid Dynasty
• Theobald II, Count of Champagne (1090–1151), Count of Blois and of Chartres as Theobald IV, Count of Champagne and of Brie
• Theodoric the Great (454-526), King of the Ostrogoths, regent of the Visigoths and a viceroy of the Byzantine Empire
• Theodosius I (347-395), Roman emperor
• Tigranes the Great (140-55 BC), Emperor of Armenia
• Tiridates III of Armenia (285-339), King of Armenia
• Umar (c. 586 to 590–644), second caliph of the Muslim Empire
• Valdemar I of Denmark (1131–1182), King of Denmark
• Valentinian I (364-375), Roman Emperor
• Vladimir I of Kiev (c. 958-1015), ruler of Kievan Rus
• Vytautas (c. 1350-1430), archduke of the Lithuanian Grand Duchy
• William I, Count of Burgundy (1020–1087), Count of Burgandy and Mâcon
• William V, Duke of Aquitaine (969-1030), also Count of Poitou
• Xerxes I (519-465 BC), King of Kings of the Achaemenid Empire (Persia)
• Yu the Great (c. 2200-2100 BC), legendary ruler in ancient China

Religious figures[link]

• Abraham the Great of Kashkar (ca. 492-586), monk and saint of the Assyrian Church of the East
• Abraham Kidunaia (died c. 366, hermit, priest, and Christian saint of Mesopotamia
• Albertus Magnus (1193/1206–1280), medieval German philosopher and theologian
• Anthony the Great (c. 251–356), early Christian saint of Egypt
• Babai the Great (c. 551–628), Assyrian church leader
• Basil of Caesarea (330-379), Greek bishop and theologian
• Bruno the Great (925–965), Archbishop of Cologne and Duke of Lotharingia (also listed in the previous section)
• Euthymius the Great (377-473), abbot and Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox saint
• Gertrude the Great (1256-c. 1302), German Benedictine, mystic, theologian and Roman Catholic saint
• Pope Gregory I (c. 540-604)
• Hiyya the Great, 3rd-century rabbi, Palestine
• Pope John Paul II (1920–2005)
• Pope Leo I (c. 391 or 400-461)
• Macarius of Egypt (c. 300-391), Egyptian hermit
• Pope Nicholas I (c. 800-867)
• Photius I of Constantinople (c. 810–c. 893), Eastern Orthodox saint and Patriarch of Constantinople
• William of Maleval (died 1157), founder of the Catholic congregation of Williamites

Other[link]

• Beli Mawr, a figure in medieval Welsh literature and genealogies
• Emmy the Great, folk singer
• Matteo Rosso the Great, Roman politician and father of Pope Nicholas III
• Prokop the Great, Hussite general in Bohemia

See also[link]

• Epithet
• List of monarchs by nickname
• List of nicknames of European Royalty and Nobility: G-I
• James, son of Zebedee, also known as James the Greater, one of the twelve apostles of Jesus
• Ajax (mythology), called Ajax the Greater
• Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, whose common honorific "Mahatma" means "Great Soul"

Notes[link]

Ferdinand Marcos
10th President of the Philippines 6th President of the Third Republic 1st President of the Fourth Republic
In office December 30, 1965 – February 25, 1986
Prime Minister	Himself (1978–1981) Cesar Virata (1981–1986)
Vice President	Fernando Lopez (1965–1973) Arturo Tolentino (Feb 16–25, 1986)
Preceded by	Diosdado Macapagal
Succeeded by	Corazon Aquino
3rd Prime Minister of the Philippines
In office June 12, 1978 – June 30, 1981
Preceded by	Office established (Position previously held by Pedro Paterno)
Succeeded by	Cesar Virata
11th President of the Senate of the Philippines
In office April 5, 1963 – December 30, 1965
President	Diosdado Macapagal
Preceded by	Eulogio Rodriguez
Succeeded by	Arturo Tolentino
Senator of the Philippines
In office December 30, 1958 – December 30, 1965
Member of the Philippine House of Representatives from Ilocos Norte's Second District
In office December 30, 1949 – December 30, 1959
Preceded by	Pedro Albano
Succeeded by	Simeon M. Valdez
Personal details
Born	Ferdinand Emmanuel Edralin Marcos[1] (1917-09-11)September 11, 1917 Sarrat, Ilocos Norte, Philippines
Died	September 28, 1989(1989-09-28) (aged 72) Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Resting place	Marcos Museum and Mausoleum, Batac, Ilocos Norte, Philippines
Political party	Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (1978–1989)
Other political affiliations	Liberal Party (1946–1965) Nacionalista Party (1965–1978)
Spouse(s)	Imelda Romuáldez (1954–1989)
Children	Ma. Imelda Marcos Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. Irene Marcos-Araneta
Alma mater	University of the Philippines College of Law
Profession	Lawyer
Religion	Roman Catholicism, formerly Iglesia Filipina Independiente or Philippine Independent Church
Signature
Military service
Allegiance	Republic of the Philippines
Rank	Second Lieutenant
Battles/wars	World War II

Ferdinand Emmanuel Edralin Marcos (September 11, 1917 – September 28, 1989) was a Filipino politician who held the title of President of the Philippines from 1965 to 1986. He was a lawyer, member of the Philippine House of Representatives (1949–1959) and a member of the Philippine Senate (1959–1965). He was Senate President from 1963–1965.

While in power he implemented wide-ranging programs of infrastructure development and economic reform. However, his administration was marred by massive authoritarian corruption, despotism, nepotism, political repression, and human rights violations.

In 1983, his government was accused of being involved in the assassination of his primary political opponent, Benigno Aquino, Jr. Public outrage over the assassination served as the catalyst for the People Power Revolution in February 1986 that led to his removal from power and eventual exile in Hawaii. It was later discovered that, during his 20 years in power, he and his wife Imelda Marcos had moved billions of dollars of embezzled public funds to accounts and investments in the United States, Switzerland, and other countries.

Early life[link]

Ferdinand Edralin Marcos was born September 11, 1917, in the town of Sarrat, Ilocos Norte to parents Mariano Marcos and Josefa Edralin.^[2] He was baptized into the Philippine Independent Church.^[3] According to the Marcos family's oral history, the family name was originally Quidit, and their Ilokano roots have some Japanese and Chinese ancestry.^{[citation needed]} Marcos said that his forefather was a "15th century Chinese pirate".^[4]

In December 1938, Mariano Marcos, his brother Pio, his son Ferdinand, and his brother-in-law Quirino Lizardo were prosecuted for the murder of Julio Nalundasan, one of Marcos' father's political rivals. On September 20, 1935, the day after Nalundasan (for the second time) defeated Mariano Marcos for the National Assembly seat for Ilocos Norte, Nalundasan was shot and killed in his house in Batac. According to two witnesses, the four had conspired to assassinate Nalundasan, with Ferdinand Marcos eventually doing the killing. In late January 1939, they were denied bail^[5] and in the fall^[when?] of 1939 they were convicted. Ferdinand and Lizardo received the death penalty for premeditated murder, while Mariano and Pio were found guilty only of contempt of court. The Marcos family took their appeal to the Supreme Court of the Philippines, which on October 22, 1940, overturned the lower court's decision and acquitted them of all charges but contempt.^[6]

Vanguard Ferdinand Marcos, 1937, leading the U.P. Vanguard Fraternity Homecoming Parade at the U.P. Sunken Garden

Marcos attended college at the University of the Philippines, attending the prestigious College of Law. He excelled in both curricular and extra-curricular activities, he was a valuable member of the university's swimming team, boxing, and wrestling. He was also an accomplished and prolific orator, debater, and writer of the university's newspaper. He also became a member of the ROTC and later an instructor of the subject. He took the 1939 bar exam and topped it with almost a perfect score despite the fact that he was incarcerated when he was reviewing. In 1939, while incarcerated, Ferdinand Marcos graduated cum laude. If he had not been put in jail for twenty seven days, he would have graduated magna cum laude. He was elected to the Pi Gamma Mu international honor society, and the Phi Kappa Phi international honor society which, 37 years later gave him its Most Distinguished Member Award.^[7]

He claimed to have led a 9,000-man guerrilla force called Ang Maharlika in northern Luzon during the Second World War, although his account of events was later cast into doubt after a U.S. military investigation found that many of his claims were false or inaccurate.^[8]

Personal life[link]

He was married to Imelda Romualdez-Marcos, on May 1, 1954 the couple had four children:

• Maria Imelda "Imee" Marcos (born November 12, 1955) Governor of Ilocos Norte
• Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos, Jr. (born September 13, 1957) Senator of the Philippines
• Irene Marcos

Congressional career[link]

House of Representatives[link]

When the Philippines was granted independence on July 4, 1946 by the American government, the Philippine Congress was established. Marcos ran and was twice elected as representative of the 1st district of Ilocos Norte, 1949–1959. He was named chairman of the House Committee on Commerce and Industry and member of the Defense Committee headed by Ramon Magsaysay. He was chairman, House Neophytes Bloc in which (President) Diosdado Macapagal, (Vice President) Emmanuel Pelaez and (Manila Mayor) Arsenio J. Lacson were members, House Committee on Industry; LP spokesman on economic matters; member, Special Committee on Import and Price Controls and on Reparations; House Committees on Ways and Means, Banks Currency, War Veterans, Civil Service, Corporations and Economic Planning; and the House Electoral Tribunal.^[9]

Senate[link]

He was the topnotcher in the senatorial elections in 1959. He was Senate minority floor leader, 1960; executive vice president, LP 1954–1961; president, Liberal Party, 1961–1964; Senate President, 1959–1965. During his term as Senate President, former Defense Secretary Eulogio B. Balao was also closely working with Marcos. Marcos led a controversial political career both before and after his term as Senate President. He became Senator after he served as member of the House of Representatives for three terms, then later as Minority Floor Leader before gaining the Senate Presidency. He introduced a number of significant bills, many of which found their way into the Republic statute books.^[9]

Presidency[link]

Juan Ponce Enrile, Acting Secretary of Finance (1966–1968), Secretary of Justice (1968–1970), Secretary of National Defense (1970–1971; 1972–1978) and Minister of National Defense (1978–1986)

Romeo Espino, Armed Forces Chief of Staff (1972–1980)

Fabian Ver, Armed Forces Chief of Staff (1980–1986)

Carlos P. Romulo, Secretary of Foreign Affairs (1973–1978) and Minister of Foreign Affairs (1978–1984)

Fidel Ramos, Chief of the Philippine Constabulary (1972–1986), and Marcos' second cousin^[10]

Imelda Marcos, Minister of Human Settlements (1978–1986)

Ernesto Maceda, Jr., Chairman of the Presidential Arm on Community Development

First term (1965–1969)[link]

Presidential campaign[link]

Marcos was famous for his anti-Japanese guerrilla activity during World War II—something that set him apart from his political opponents, many of whom had collaborated with the Japanese. Using a combination of vote-buying, electoral fraud, and coercion, coupled with an effective media campaign, Marcos won the presidency in 1965.^[11]

Infrastructure programs[link]

The leaders of the SEATO nations in front of the Congress Building in Manila, hosted by Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos on October 24, 1966. (L-R:) Prime Minister Nguyen Cao Ky (South Vietnam), Prime Minister Harold Holt (Australia), President Park Chung-hee (South Korea), President Ferdinand Marcos (Philippines), Prime Minister Keith Holyoake (New Zealand), Lt. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu (South Vietnam), Prime Minister Thanom Kittikachorn (Thailand), President Lyndon B. Johnson (United States)

Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos with Lyndon B. Johnson and Lady Bird on September 12, 1966.

In his first State of the Nation Address (SONA), Marcos revealed his plans for economic development and government reform. Marcos wanted the immediate construction of roads, bridges and public works, which included 16,000 kilometers of feeder roads, some 30,000 lineal meters of permanent bridges, a generator with an electric power capacity of one million kilowatts (1,000,000 kW), and water services to eight regions and 38 localities.^{[citation needed]} He also urged the revitalization of the judiciary, the national defense posture and the fight against smuggling, criminality, and graft and corruption in the government.^{[citation needed]}

To accomplish his goals “President Marcos mobilized the manpower and resources of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) for action to complement civilian agencies in such activities as infrastructure construction; economic planning and program execution; regional and industrial site planning and development; community development and others.”^{[12][unreliable source?]} The employment of technocrats in key positions and the mobilization of the AFP for civic actions resulted in the increasing functional integration of civilian and military elites.^{[13][unreliable source?]}

Vietnam War[link]

To the surprise of many, soon after becoming president, Marcos wanted the Philippines to become involved in the Vietnam War. He asked Congress to approve sending a combat engineer unit to South Vietnam. When the previous Philippine president, Macapagal, suggested in 1964–1965 to send troops it had been Marcos who had led the opposition against this plan on both legal and moral grounds. Despite opposition against the new plan, the Marcos government gained Congressional approval and Philippine troops were sent from the middle of 1966 as the Philippines Civic Action Group (PHILCAG). PHILCAG reached a strength of some 1,600 troops in 1968 and between 1966 and 1970 over 10,000 Filipino soldiers served in South Vietnam, mainly being involved in civilian infrastructure projects.^{[14][unreliable source?]}

Second term (1969–1981)[link]

1969 presidential election[link]

In 1969, twelve candidates ran for president.^{[citation needed]}

Marcos was reelected for a second term—the first Filipino president to win a second term.^[15] The election was marked by massive violence, vote-buying, and fraud on Marcos' part,^[16][17] and Marcos used $56 million from the Philippines' treasury to fund his campaign.^[18] His running mate, incumbent Vice President Fernando Lopez was also elected to a third full term as Vice President of the Philippines.^{[citation needed]}

Student uprising[link]

In 1970, students in Manila mobilized enormous numbers of people to attend protests against U.S. imperialism and the "rise of fascism" under Marcos. The protests later became known as the First Quarter Storm.^[19]

Martial law and the New Society[link]

Ferdinand Marcos with Secretary of State George Shultz, 1982.

Marcos declared martial law on September 22, 1972, by virtue of Proclamation No. 1081 which he signed on September 21, 1972, extending his rule beyond the constitutional two-term limit. He justified this by exaggerating threats of Communist and Muslim insurgencies.^[21] He would later tell historians that he signed Proclamation No. 1081 as early as September 17.^[22] Ruling by decree, he curtailed press freedom and other civil liberties, closed down Congress and media establishments, and ordered the arrest of opposition leaders and militant activists, including his staunchest critics, senators Benigno Aquino, Jr., Jovito Salonga and Jose Diokno.^[23][24] Marcos claimed that martial law was the prelude to creating his Bagong Lipunan, a "New Society" based on new social and political values.^{[25][citation needed]}

A constitutional convention, which had been called for in 1970 to replace the Commonwealth era 1935 Constitution, continued the work of framing a new constitution after the declaration of martial law. The new constitution went into effect in early 1973, changing the form of government from presidential to parliamentary and allowing Marcos to stay in power beyond 1973.^{[citation needed]}

After putting in force amendments to the constitution, legislative action, and securing his sweeping powers and with the Batasan under his control, President Marcos lifted martial law on January 17, 1981. However, the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus continued in the autonomous regions of Western Mindanao and Central Mindanao. The opposition dubbed the lifting of martial law as a mere "face lifting" as a precondition to the visit of Pope John Paul II.^[26]

Marcos had a vision of a Bagong Lipunan (New Society) similar to Indonesian president Suharto's "New Order administration". He used the years of martial law to implement this vision. According to Marcos' book, "Notes on the New Society," it was a movement urging the poor and the privileged to work as one for the common goals of society and to achieve the liberation of the Filipino people through self-realization.^{[citation needed]}

Marcos confiscated businesses owned by the oligarchy. More often than not, they were taken over by Marcos' family members and close personal friends, who used them as fronts to launder proceeds from institutionalized graft and corruption in the different national governmental agencies as "crony capitalism," Marcos' friends using them for personal benefit. With genuinely nationalistic motives, crony capitalism was intended to redistribute monopolies traditionally owned by Chinese and Mestizo oligarchs to Filipino businessmen though in practice, it led to graft and corruption via bribery, racketeering, and embezzlement. Marcos also silenced the free press, making the state press the only legal one. He also seized privately owned lands and distributed them to farmers. By waging an ideological war against the oligarchy, Marcos gained the support of the masses though he was to create a new one in its place. Marcos, now free from day-to-day governance which was left mostly to Enrile using his power to settle scores against old rivals, such as the Lopezes, who were always opposed to the Marcos administration. Leading opponents such as Senators Benigno Aquino, Jr., Jose Diokno, Jovito Salonga and many others were imprisoned for months or years. This practice considerably alienated the support of the old social and economic elite and the media, who criticized the Marcos administration endlessly.^{[citation needed][27]}

Between 1972 and 1976, Marcos increased the size of the Philippine military from 65,000 to 270,000 personnel.^[28] Military officers were placed on the boards of a variety of media corporations, public utilities, development projects, and other private corporations. At the same time, Marcos made efforts to foster the growth of a domestic weapons manufacturing industry and heavily increased military spending.^[29]

The GNP of the country stood at $11.5 billion by 1980, which represented a 6.6% average annual growth rate. The 1980 GNP is four times greater than the GNP in 1972. Rice production increased from 5.1 million metric tons in 1972 to 7.25 million metric tons in 1980 due to Masagana 99.^[30]

From the declaration of martial law in 1972, until 1983, the U.S. government provided $2.5 billion in bilateral military and economic aid to the Marcos regime, and about $5.5 billion through multilateral institutions such as the World Bank.^[31]

In a 1979 U.S. Senate report, it was stated that U.S. officials were aware, as early as 1973, that Philippine government agents were in the United States to harass Filipino dissidents. In June 1981, two anti-Marcos labor activists were assassinated outside of a union hall in Seattle. On at least one occasion, CIA agents blocked FBI investigations of Philippine agents.^[32]

The Marcos regime instituted a mandatory youth organization, known as the Kabataang Barangay, which was led by his Marcos' eldest daughter Imee. Presidential Decree 684, enacted in April 1975, required that all youths aged 15 to 18 be shipped off to remote rural indoctrination camps, where they underwent a ritualistic program designed to instill loyalty to the First Couple.^[33][34]

Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile, Chief of Staff of the Philippine Constabulary Fidel Ramos, and Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines Fabian Ver were the chief administrators of martial law from 1972 to 1981, and the three remained President Marcos' closest advisers until he was ousted in 1986. Enrile and Ramos would later abandon Marcos' 'sinking ship' and seek protection behind the 1986 People Power Revolution. The Catholic hierarchy and Manila's middle class were crucial to the success of the massive crusade.^{[citation needed]}

Cabinet[link]

Prime Minister[link]

In 1978, the position returned when Ferdinand Marcos became Prime Minister. Based on Article 9 of the 1973 constitution, it had broad executive powers, that would be typical of modern prime ministers in other countries. The position was the official head of government, and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. All of the previous powers of the President from the 1935 Constitution were transferred to the newly restored office of Prime Minister. The Prime Minister also acted as head of the National Economic Development Authority. Upon his reelection to President, Marcos was succeeded as Prime Minister by Cesar Virata in 1981.^{[citation needed]}

Cabinet under Martial Law[link]

Third term (1981–1986)[link]

On June 16, 1981, six months after the lifting of martial law, the first presidential election in twelve years was held. As to be expected, President Marcos ran and won a massive victory over the other candidates. The major opposition parties, the United Nationalists Democratic Organizations (UNIDO), a coalition of opposition parties and LABAN, boycotted the elections.

Aquino's assassination[link]

In 1983, opposition leader Benigno Aquino, Jr. was assassinated by his Philippine military escort at the Manila International Airport upon his return to the Philippines after a long period of exile. The available evidence suggests that Imelda Marcos and General Fabian C. Ver planned the killing, but it is possible that Marcos himself made the actual order to have Aquino killed. This coalesced popular dissatisfaction with Marcos' authoritarian governance and pilfering of public wealth, leading to widespread protests against the regime.^[38]

Impeachment attempt[link]

Ferdinard Marcos in 1983.

On August 13, 1985, fifty-six Assemblymen signed a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Marcos for alleged diversion of U.S. aid for personal use,^[39] citing a July 1985 San Jose Mercury News exposé of the Marcoses’ multi-million dollar investment and property holdings in the United States.^{[citation needed]}

The properties allegedly amassed by the First Family were the Crown Building, Lindenmere Estate, and a number of residential apartments (in New Jersey and New York), a shopping center in New York, mansions (in London, Rome and Honolulu), the Helen Knudsen Estate in Hawaii and three condominiums in San Francisco, California.^{[citation needed]}

The Assemblymen also included in the complaint the misuse and misapplication of funds “for the construction of the Film Center, where X-rated and pornographic films are exhibited, contrary to public morals and Filipino customs and traditions.”^{[citation needed]}

Downfall[link]

During these years, Marcos's regime was marred by rampant corruption and political mismanagement by his relatives and cronies, which culminated with the assassination of Benigno Aquino. Critics considered Marcos the quintessential kleptocrat,^[40] having looted billions of dollars from the Filipino treasury. The large personality cult in the Philippines surrounding Marcos also led to disdain.^{[citation needed]}

During his third term, Marcos's health deteriorated rapidly due to kidney ailments, often described as lupus erythematosus. He was absent for weeks at a time for treatment, with no one to assume command. Marcos's regime was sensitive to publicity of his condition; a palace physician who alleged that during one of these periods Marcos had undergone a kidney transplant was shortly found murdered. Many people questioned whether he still had capacity to govern, due to his grave illness and the ballooning political unrest.^[41]

With Marcos ailing, his equally powerful wife, Imelda, emerged as the government's main public figure. Marcos dismissed speculations of his ailing health as he used to be an avid golfer and fitness buff who liked showing off his physique. In light of these growing problems, the assassination of Aquino in 1983 would later prove to be the catalyst that led to his overthrow. Many Filipinos came to believe that Marcos, a shrewd political tactician, had no hand in the murder of Aquino but that he was involved in cover-up measures. However, the opposition blamed Marcos directly for the assassination while others blamed the military and his wife, Imelda. The 1985 acquittals of Ver as well as other high-ranking military officers for the crime were widely seen as a miscarriage of justice.^{[citation needed]}

By 1984, his close personal ally, U.S. President Ronald Reagan, started distancing himself from the Marcos regime that he and previous American presidents had strongly supported even after Marcos declared martial law. The United States, which had provided hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, was crucial in buttressing Marcos's rule over the years.^[42] During the Carter administration the relation with the U.S. soured somewhat when President Jimmy Carter targeted the Philippines in his human rights campaign.^{[citation needed]}

In the face of escalating public discontent and under pressure from foreign allies, Marcos called a "Snap Election" in 1986, with more than a year left in his term. He selected Arturo Tolentino as his running mate.^{[citation needed]} The opposition to Marcos united behind Aquino's widow, Corazon, and her running mate, Salvador Laurel.^[43][44]

The "People Power movement" drove Marcos into exile and installed Corazon Aquino as the new president.^[45] At the height of the revolution, Enrile revealed that his ambush was faked in order for Marcos to have a pretext for imposing martial law. However, Marcos maintained that he was the duly elected and proclaimed president of the Philippines for a fourth term.^{[citation needed]}

The Philippine government today is still paying interest in public debts incurred during Marcos' administration. It was reported that, when Marcos fled, U.S. Customs agents discovered 24 suitcases of gold bricks and diamond jewelry hidden in diaper bags and in addition, certificates for gold bullion valued in the billions of dollars were allegedly among the personal properties he, his family, his cronies and business partners surreptitiously took with them when the Reagan administration provided them safe passage to Hawaii. When the presidential mansion was seized, it was discovered that Imelda Marcos had over 2700 pairs of shoes in her closet.^[46]

Economy[link]

Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos on a walk with U.S President Ronald Reagan.

To help finance a number of economic development projects, the Marcos government borrowed large amounts of money from international lenders.^[47][48] The Philippines' external debt rose from $360 million (US) in 1962 to $28.3 billion in 1986, making the Philippines one of the most indebted countries in Asia.^[47] A sizable amount of this money went to Marcos family and friends in the form of behest loans. These loans were assumed by the government and still being serviced by taxpayers. Today, more than half of the country's revenues are outlaid for the payments on the interests of loans alone.^{[citation needed]}

Foreign capital was invited to invest in certain industrial projects. They were offered incentives, including tax exemption privileges and the privilege of bringing out their profits in foreign currencies. One of the most important economic programs in the 1980s was the Kilusang Kabuhayan at Kaunlaran (Movement for Livelihood and Progress). This program was started in September 1981. Its aim was to promote the economic development of the barangays by encouraging its residents to engage in their own livelihood projects. The government's efforts resulted in the increase of the nation's economic growth rate to an average of six percent or seven percent from 1970 to 1980.^[49]

The Philippine economy suffered a great decline after the Aquino assassination in August 1983. The political troubles hindered the entry of foreign investments, and foreign banks stopped granting loans to the Philippine government.^{[citation needed]} In an attempt to launch a national economic recovery program, Marcos negotiated with foreign creditors including the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), for a restructuring of the country's foreign debts – to give the Philippines more time to pay the loans. Marcos ordered a cut in government expenditures and used a portion of the savings to finance the Sariling Sikap (Self-Reliance), a livelihood program he established in 1984.^{[citation needed]}

However, the economy experienced negative economic growth from the beginning of 1984 and continued to decline despite the government's recovery efforts. The recovery program's failure was caused by civil unrest, rampant graft and corruption within the government, and Marcos's lack of credibility. Marcos himself diverted large sums of government money to his party's campaign funds. The unemployment rate ballooned from 6.30% in 1972 to 27.65% in 1985.^{[50][citation needed]}

Between 1972 and 1980, the average monthly income of wage workers had fallen by 20%. By 1981, the wealthiest 10% of the population was receiving twice as much income as the bottom 60%.^[51]

With help from the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, Marcos brought the "Green Revolution" (industrialized, chemical agriculture) to the Philippines. These reforms resulted in high profits for transnational corporations, but were generally harmful to small, peasant farmers who were often pushed into poverty.^[52] After declaring martial law in 1972, Marcos promised to implement agrarian reforms. However, the land reforms "served largely to undermine Marcos' landholder opponents, not to lessen inequality in the countryside",^[53] and "encouraged conversion to cash tenancy and greater reliance on farm workers".^[54] From 1972 to 1980, agricultural production fell by 30%.^[51]

Under Marcos, exports of timber products were among the nation's top exports. Little attention was paid to environmental impacts of deforestation. By the early 1980s, the industry collapsed because most of the Philippines' accessible forests had been depleted.^[55]

Post-presidency[link]

At 3:00 p.m., February 20, 1986, Marcos talked to United States Senator Paul Laxalt, asking for advice from the White House. Laxalt advised him to "cut and cut cleanly", to which Marcos expressed his disappointment after a short pause. In the afternoon, Marcos talked to Enrile, asking for safe passage for him and his family including his close allies like General Ver. Finally, at 9:00 p.m., the Marcos family was transported by four Sikorsky HH-3E helicopters^[56] to Clark Air Base in Angeles City, Pampanga, about 83 kilometers north of Manila, before boarding US Air Force C-130 planes bound for Andersen Air Force Base in Guam, and finally to Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii where Marcos arrived on February 26. Marcos died in Honolulu on September 28, 1989, of kidney, heart and lung ailments. He was interred in a private mausoleum at Byodo-In Temple on the island of Oahu, visited daily by the Marcos family, political allies and friends. The late strongman's remains are currently interred inside a refrigerated crypt in Ilocos Norte, where his son, Ferdinand, Jr., and eldest daughter, Imee have since become the local governor and representative, respectively. A Mount Rushmore-esque bust of Ferdinand Marcos, commissioned by Tourism Minister Jose Aspiras, was earlier carved into a hillside in Benguet. It was subsequently destroyed by suspects that include left-wing activists, members of a local tribe who have been displaced by its construction, and looters hunting for the Marcos' legendary hidden treasure.^[57] Imelda Marcos was acquitted of embezzlement by a U.S. court in 1990 but was still facing a few hundred additional corruption charges in Philippine courts in 2006.

In 1995 some 10,000 Filipinos won a U.S. class-action lawsuit filed against the Marcos estate. The charges were filed by victims or their surviving relatives for torture, execution and disappearances.^[58][59]

Corazon Aquino repealed many of the repressive laws that had been enacted during Marcos' dictatorship. She restored the right to habeas corpus, repealed anti-labor laws, and freed hundreds of political prisoners.^[60]

From 1989 to 1996, a series of suits were brought before U.S. courts against Marcos and his daughter Imee, charging them with executions, torture, and disappearances committed under their command. A jury in the Ninth Circuit Court awarded $2 billion to the plaintiffs and to a class composed of human rights victims and their families.^[61] On June 12, 2008, the US Supreme Court (in a 7–2 ruling penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy in “Republic of the Philippines v. Mariano Pimentel”) held that: “The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions to order the District Court to dismiss the interpleader action.” The court dismissed the interpleader lawsuit filed to determine the rights of 9,500 Filipino human rights victims (1972–1986) to recover $35 million, part of a $2 billion judgment in U.S. courts against the Marcos estate, because the Philippines is an indispensable party, protected by sovereign immunity. It claimed ownership of the funds transferred by Marcos in 1972 to Arelma S.A., which invested the money with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., in New York.^[62][63][64]

Human rights groups place the number of victims of extrajudicial killings under martial law at 1500 and Karapatan, a local human rights group's records show 759 involuntarily disappeared (their bodies never found). Military historian Alfred McCoy in his book "Closer than Brothers: Manhood at the Philippine Military Academy" and in his speech "Dark Legacy" cites 3,257 extrajudicial killings, 35,000 torture victims, and 70,000 incarcerated during the Marcos years.^[65][66] The newspaper Bulatlat (lit. "to open carelessly") places the number of victims of arbitrary arrest and detention at 120,000.^[67]

Legacy[link]

Marcos' family and cronies looted so much wealth from the country that to this day investigators have difficulty determining precisely how many billions of dollars were stolen. However, it is estimated that Marcos alone stole at least $5 billion from the Filipino treasury.^[68][69] The Swiss government, initially reluctant to respond to allegations that stolen funds were held in Swiss accounts,^[70] has returned US$684 million of Marcos’ wealth.^[71][72][73]

According to Jovito Salonga, monopolies in several vital industries have been created and placed under the control of Marcos cronies, such as the coconut industries (under Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. and Juan Ponce Enrile), the tobacco (under Lucio Tan), the banana (under Antonio Floirendo), the sugar industry (under Roberto Benedicto) and manufacturing (under Herminio Disini and Ricardo Silverio). The Marcos and Romualdez families became owners, directly or indirectly, of the nation's largest corporations, such as the Philippine Long Distance Company (PLDC), of which the present name is Philippine Long Distance Telephone (PLDT), the Philippine Airlines (PAL), Meralco (an electric company), Fortune Tobacco, the San Miguel Corporation (Asia's largest beer and bottling company), numerous newspapers, radio and TV broadcasting companies (such as ABS-CBN), several banks, and real estate properties in New York, California and Hawaii.^[74] The Aquino government also accused them of skimming off foreign aid and international assistance.^{[citation needed]}

Many laws written by Marcos are still in force and in effect. Out of thousands of proclamations, decrees and executive orders, only a few were repealed, revoked, modified or amended.^[75] Few credit Marcos for promoting Filipino culture and nationalism. His 21 years in power with the help of U.S. massive economic aid and foreign loans enabled Marcos to build more schools, hospitals and infrastructure than any of his predecessors combined.^[76]

Writings[link]

• Today's Revolution: Democracy (1971)
• Notes on the New Society of the Philippines II (1976)
• An Ideology for Filipinos (1980)
• Marcos' Notes for the Cancun Summit, 1981 (1981)
• Progress and Martial Law (1981)
• The New Philippine Republic: A Third World Approach to Democracy (1982)
• Toward a New Partnership: The Filipino Ideology (1983)

See also[link]

• Rolex 12

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Aquino, Belinda, ed. (1982). Cronies and Enemies: the Current Philippine Scene. Philippine Studies Program, Center for Asian and Pacific Studies, University of Hawaii. 
• Bonner, Raymond (1987). Waltzing with a Dictator: The Marcoses and the Making of American Policy. Times Books, New York ISBN 978-0-8129-1326-2
• Celoza, Albert F. (1997). Ferdinand Marcos and the Philippines: the political economy of authoritarianism. Greenwood Publishing. ISBN 978-0-275-94137-6. http://books.google.com/books?id=Sp3U1oCNKlgC. 
• Salonga, Jovito (2001). Presidential Plunder: The Quest for Marcos Ill-gotten Wealth. Regina Pub. Co., Manila
• Seagrave, Sterling (1988): The Marcos Dynasty, Harper Collins
• Library of Congress Country Studies: Philippines. The Inheritance from Marcos

External links[link]

Find more about Ferdinand Marcos on Wikipedia's sister projects:
	Definitions and translations from Wiktionary
	Images and media from Commons
	Learning resources from Wikiversity
	News stories from Wikinews
	Quotations from Wikiquote
	Source texts from Wikisource
	Textbooks from Wikibooks