In this period of uncertainty, it is time for the armed forces, as the protector and defender of the people, to play a constructive role so that the nation can alter course with the right leaders and build a true democratic society so the people may have a firm hope in the future.
BY RENE N. JARQUE
Bulatlat
Bulatlat.com
During the 1989 coup attempt I was a young lieutenant in the First Scout Ranger Regiment. After that disaster, I asked myself this question:
The ideals of democracy state that the Army stands for the people and not just the privileged few. However, political reality dictates that the Army is really of the constituted government. In our country, the government is the privileged few and their network of relatives and patrons. What then if the policies and actions of government do not coincide with the common aspirations and general welfare of the people. Should soldiers be guided by their collective conscience or by their strict military oath to obey their civilian leaders as embodied in the Constitution they have sworn to defend, in the same way the Centurions obeyed their decadent emperors, the way the Wermacht blindly obeyed Hitler? At this point, whose is the Army, the government’s or the people’s? To whom does the Army now owe its allegiance? To whom does it rightfully or conscientiously belong?1
Sixteen years after, that question is still very much relevant. Today, there is tremendous disenchantment with government and the public is in a restive mood. The economy is hobbling along burdened by poverty, foreign debt, high fuel prices, inflation, unemployment, budget deficit and uncontrolled population growth. Peace and order is unsteady with insurgency, terrorism and criminality. Corruption scandals plague the presidency and the military. Her Excellency is being accused of cheating in the last election and her spin doctors are taking the people for a ride in a circus of lies and deception. Our country today is being bamboozled by a discredited, crippled and insecure government which does not seem to have a clue, cannot get its act together and lacks the strength of character to lead the nation out of its misery. There is a crisis in national leadership and the people are confused and demoralized.
Once again, we are careening into political turmoil that threatens our fragile democracy. To some, the situation is ripe for a change in government and as such, there are calls for a “revolutionary government” and rumors of destabilization plots and coup d’etat abound. In this time of uncertainty and discontent, what should the military do? What should be its role? Should it intervene as in 1986 and 2001? What should the armed forces do to ensure that the government does not abuse its power, promote the welfare of the people while averting a civil revolution? Let us together explore these and other questions in this paper which is divided into three parts:
I. Armed Forces and the Constitution
II. Armed Forces in Philippine Society
III. Challenges Ahead for the Armed Forces
I. ARMED FORCES AND THE CONSTITUTION
The 1987 Constitution contains several provisions directly referring to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). The most important of them and the subject of much debate is Article II, Section 3 which states that “Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory.” Fr. Joaquin Bernas calls the first provision the “civilian authority clause” and explains that civilian authority is essentially the “supremacy of the law” and a soldier renounces political ambition when he subordinates himself to civilian authority. He calls the second provision the “mark of sovereignty” implying the professionalism which should be inherent in the armed forces as guardians of the majesty of the law. The soldier is expected to divorce himself from politics because he supposedly “finds nobility, dignity and honor in being the guardian of the people and a legitimate government”.2
The two other important provisions are Article XVI, Section 5, paragraph 1: “All members of the armed forces shall take an oath or affirmation to uphold and defend this Constitution” and paragraph 3: “Professionalism in the armed forces and adequate remuneration and benefits of its members shall be the prime concern of the State. The armed forces shall be insulated from partisan politics. No member of the military shall engage directly or indirectly in any partisan political activity, except to vote.” This is supported by the AFP Code of Ethics in Article III, section 2.8: “The AFP recognizes the sanctity of its insulation from politics. Its involvement in politics shall be strictly limited to the exercise of its members’ rights of suffrage and in ensuring delivery of ballots to the concerned government entities during election if and when deputized to do so. The AFP therefore pledges not to interfere in any politically motivated activities.”
However, by declaring in Article II, Section 1 that “sovereignty resides in the people,“ the Constitution silently condones rebellion as a means to change government. As this democratic right was aptly described by former United States President Abraham Lincoln, “This country, with its institutions, belong to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it.” Marcelo H. Del Pilar also said something to the same effect: “Insurrection is the last remedy, especially when the people have acquired the belief that peaceful means to secure remedies for evils prove futile”.
The AFP Code of Ethics in Article III, Section 2.12 also supports this: “The AFP adheres to the principle of democracy that the government is of the people, by the people and for the people. The real power and authority in the governance of the nation emanates from its citizens. The AFP recognizes its role to protect the people and assert its rights to participate in democratic processes in which it is legally allowed to do so, but it shall never allow itself to be used to subvert the sovereign will of the majority neither would it lend its power to stifle the rights of the minority.”
