This story
was taken from Bulatlat, the Philippines's alternative weekly
newsmagazine (www.bulatlat.com, www.bulatlat.net, www.bulatlat.org).
Vol. V, No. 21, July 3-9, 2005
`The Philippines Needs a Constructive Armed
Forces’
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 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.” I have a simple
interpretation of these seemingly contradicting provisions: “The armed
forces shall follow the elected government for as long as the people are
fine with it but once the people revolt, the armed forces, being of the
people, should go along with them.” Indeed, what if the government turns
out that it cheated in the elections? What if the supposedly legitimate
government no longer reflects the commonweal, is going against its own
people and uses the so-called majesty of the law to hide its corruption
and flaunt its powers? If the armed forces continues to protect such
government, can we can say that the armed forces is no longer acting as
the guardian of the people? What if the armed forces no longer finds
“nobility, dignity and honor” in being the guardian? Our experience in
2001 shows that the Constitution can be conveniently discarded to suit the
situation. In other words, the majesty of the law can be ignored to cater
to those in power or seeking power without the people’s mandate. In the
end, the only justification for rebellion or the extra-constitutional
takeover of government is victory. If one fails, he is charged with
rebellion and sent to jail. From a constitutional point of view, the AFP
leadership in EDSA Dos (i.e., people’s uprising in 2001) was clearly
unprofessional. They mutinied against their commander-in-chief who
represented a great majority of the Filipino people and they gravely
undermined the Constitution. Consciously or unconsciously, the generals
preserved the military’s power using a loud and powerful minority as cover
against the silent and weak majority. Since there has been no real change
in governance and only change in personalities, the action of the AFP
leadership in 2001 was misguided and self-serving. They were desperados
who merely enabled the trade of one set of crooks and nincompoops for
another. The military’s
interventionism in government has created a three-way political power
structure in the classic Clausewitzian model composed of people,
government and the military. And today, between an inept government and a
corrupt military, the people are getting screwed. Church activism in
recent years has probably made it four-sided, adding a confusing spiritual
element. Though the armed forces is much more in the background today as
compared to the martial law period, it has the unobtrusive power to
intervene in politics. A strong and healthy democracy, however, hinges on
a two-way structure anchored on a contract between the government and the
people as embodied in the Constitution. The military should be under the
government and not a separate power entity. (See Figure 1)
II. A
CONSTRUCTIVE ARMED FORCES The separation of
politics and military is a notable feature of western democracies that was
rammed down our throats by the Americans. I think it is time that we
question this framework and look at alternative models of governance
wherein the military plays a productive role in government and in the
development of Philippine democracy.
The power of the government is only as
good as it is identified with the good of the polity. What if the
government has failed in promoting the common welfare and has committed
illegal acts? What if the country is heading towards disaster? Should the
armed forces stand idle, detached from politics, and allow the politicians
to destroy the country? In a situation of political uncertainty and chaos,
what role should the military play? What should it do? Let me attempt to
answer these questions by first drawing a simple, rough model showing the
relationship of three variables: government, military professionalism and
level of intervention. Let’s call this the GPI graph.
a. There is a direct relationship
between how good government is to the level of professionalism in the
military. Good government means a professional military and conversely, a
professional military implies good government.
b. There is an inverse relationship
between the level of professionalism and the level of military
intervention. As professionalism increases, the inclination to intervene
decreases.
c. There is also an inverse relationship
between how good government is and the level of military intervention. As
government gets better, the likelihood of intervention decreases. From these
relationships, I see three kinds of roles for the armed forces – passive,
constructive and interventionist – depending on the political and military
situation. Role Environment
/ Government Armed Forces
1. Passive
(Constitutional) Government is
firmly established and robust. Democratic institutions are strong
and steady. General political situation is stable Armed Forces is
highly professional. It totally stays away from politics and
subordinates itself to civilian authority. It focuses on its defense
roles and improving its capabilities 2.
Constructive Government is
unstable. Democratic institutions existing but not strong. General
political situation is filled with uncertainty. Armed Forces is
semi-professional or undergoing reforms. It prudently intervenes in
government but does not take over. It acts as a guardian of the
people by being a deterrent to bad government and helps build
democratic institutions. 3.
Interventionist Government is
weak or illegitimate. Democratic institutions are weak. Peace and
order has broken down and violence may have erupted. General
political situation is volatile. Armed Forces is
unprofessional or professionalism is low. It takes over government
and takes a direct role in politics through a military government, a
military-sponsored government or a civilian government that is
beholden to the military. For the situation
today, I believe the armed forces should play the constructive role. It is
a balanced role wherein it does not stand idle or directly take over
government. It is neither indifferent nor destructive. In this role, the
armed forces acts within the framework of the Constitution and as a
counterweight to an ineffective government of unruly and corrupt
politicians to achieve political stability. Further, it acts as catalyst
for improving governance and a force for nation-building. If war is too
complex to be left to the generals, governance is even more complex to be
left alone to the politicians, especially the irresponsible and corrupt.
As a crucial stakeholder in governance and society, the armed forces
should use its powers and capabilities for the common good, to deter bad
government and promote democracy and development. If the AFP can use its
intelligence capabilities to monitor the movements of rebel groups, it can
use the same to monitor the activities of corrupt politicians and
generals. If it can keep an eye on suspected destabilizers, why can it not
check a President or any politician who is cheating an election?
Our soldiers are
actually very experienced in this constructive role. The military strategy
against insurgency calls for winning the hearts and minds of the people in
the countryside. In doing so, the soldiers become involved in the
political, economic and social life of the community. When I was the
commander of a remote detachment in San Mariano, Isabela, a major part of
our counter-insurgency effort was community projects. My soldiers and I
were involved in backyard beautification and cleanliness, medical civic
action and building toilets and classrooms. I advised the barangay leaders
on how to manage the village. Before my unit was transferred, we were
talking about cooperatives, markets and farm-to-market roads. Through this
exposure to the community and seeing the failure of government, our
soldiers undergo a subtle process of politicization that has made them
sensitive to the political life of the nation. The participation of junior
officers in the coup attempts and in the mutiny at Oakwood in 2004 is
largely because of this politicized view. This constructive
role can be elevated to a higher level wherein the armed forces
strengthens governance and democratic institutions. In the 2004 elections,
for example, I wrote to the AFP Chief of Staff exhorting him to play this
constructive role by disallowing and evicting all organizations that use
military camps for their political pronouncements and sending a public
warning to politicians, including the President, that any violence,
cheating or fraud will not be tolerated by the AFP and that candidates
cannot use AFP personnel, equipment and funds for the campaign. It was, of
course, too much to expect. In relation to the corruption case filed
against Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia, the Chief of Staff can order the AFP
finance office to open all documentary evidence. For the jueteng
(an illegal numbers game) scandal, military intelligence is more than
capable of gathering evidence to confirm the claims of the witnesses in
the Senate hearing. As to Gloriagate (allegedly wiretapped conversations
between the President and an Election Commissioner), the AFP has the
resources to confirm the authenticity of the purported wiretapped
conversation. Indeed, if the AFP is convinced that the President has
committed improper or illegal acts, it can quietly send her a message to
do what is right for the good of the country or lose its support.
Two factors will
inhibit the effectiveness of a constructive role: lack of credibility and
a generally anti-people armed forces. First, the AFP has lost so much
credibility with the corruption scandals involving active and retired
officers. The Oakwood mutiny showed a deep crack in the system, a fault
line in the AFP leadership. It does not have credible and trustworthy
leaders, not even among the ex-generals who may use the armed forces for
their own ends. The Officer Corps has lost its moral compass and is
fragmented. Second, having been a pacification army since colonial times,
the armed forces has become an “alien force” defending the interests of
the ruling elite against the masses.3 The masses do not
trust the armed forces. If a million squatters today hold a people power
at the EDSA Shrine, I doubt if the generals will drop their support for
the President and join the masses. National Artist F. Sionil Jose
described it best: “This officer corps and the Armed Forces are willing
instruments of the oligarchy and worse, when the officers become generals,
they also become as rapacious as the members of the oligarchy they serve.
In fact, they have themselves become the oligarchs.”4 Two inherent risks of
this constructive role are the potential abuse of power and unwarranted
intervention. Power tends to feed on itself, if uncontrolled, until it
becomes so corrupted that a turn-around is very difficult. The experience
during martial law all too clearly showed the ill-effects of an
overreaching military which has lost touch with itself and the people. It
became greedy, corrupt and abusive. To protect itself and perpetuate its
power, the armed forces can needlessly intervene using convenient even
contrived excuses. To minimize these risks, the armed forces should seek a
balance with the people and must always analyze the overarching
implications of its actions to society and act with the common good in
mind. But let’s be honest.
The armed forces can take over government anytime it chooses and we cannot
really do much about it. Sure, there will be condemnation from certain
groups and the international community. There will be protests and
demonstrations but in the end, if the armed forces persists and it is
united, there is not much the people can do against guns and tanks. If it
intervenes in a time of political uncertainty, such intervention will most
likely be gladly accepted by the people. How long the people can tolerate
a military or military-sponsored government will depend on how it is able
to govern and fulfills people’s expectations. If unable to do so, there
are already existing insurgent organizations throughout the country that
can serve as a nucleus for armed rebellion. Military intervention
is a mere power-grab if it only results in a change of personalities in
government and there is no real structural change in society, particularly
in the equitable distribution of political and economic power. If the
intent is really to make society better, then the military government or
military-sponsored government should focus on 1) establishing a competent
and honest government, 2) building the economy, 3) professionalizing the
military; and 4) rebuilding democratic institutions. Of the last one, an
important task is to prepare the people for an election and then hold an
election as soon as possible. “Preparing” would include disciplining
wayward and corrupt government officials; setting up democratic
institutions such as political parties and peoples organizations;
educating the people about their rights and responsibilities as citizens;
and fixing the electoral system. III. CHALLENGES
AHEAD FOR THE ARMED FORCES A constructive,
professional armed forces serves as a buttress to democracy and the
Constitution. It serves as the guardian of democratic processes while
ensuring that it does not abuse its own power. It uplifts democracy by
strengthening the pillars of governance. It will not allow an
irresponsible and corrupt government to govern. By being professional, it
can pull or catalyze the government and the bureaucracy to become better.
Truly, the crucial challenge for the armed forces is how to rebuild itself
to a professional and mature organization. The first imperative
is professionalizing the Officer Corps which is the foundation of
professionalism in the AFP and the driving force for sustained reform.
Among the younger members of the corps, there is an inherent desire to
change. Professionalization efforts should nurture this desire by opening
up channels for constructive criticism and initiating affirmative action.
There must be an organized effort mobilizing the Officer Corps to awaken
the generals from their collective self-denial that nothing is wrong with
the AFP and to push the chain of command to initiate painful but necessary
changes, especially the creation of a performance and merit-based system
in promotions and assignments which will ensure that only those who are
competent and honest go up. Another key target is the non-commissioned
officer corps. If the officers are the brain, the corporals and sergeants
form the workforce or backbone of the armed forces. Besides people, the
armed forces should develop efficient, effective and ethical management
systems in personnel, procurement, logistics and finance incorporating
best practices and new information technology. Corruption through
conversion, construction and commissions should be eradicated. It should
formulate doctrine – how it should fight – and not use foreign, especially
American, formulations which are alien to us. Part of rebuilding is
upgrading capabilities to become a multifunctional force capable of
dealing with a variety of military and non-military missions (search and
rescue during natural disasters; evacuation of non-combatants like OFWs
from disaster or war zones; and developmental activities such as building
roads and bridges). Procurement should look into multi-functional
platforms, i.e., planes the provide close air support in battle and also
deliver emergency medical supplies to remote areas, patrol boats that can
also provide medical services to coastal barangays, trucks that can
provide covering fire and also evacuate people during floods. Rebuilding will not
be easy and it becomes even more difficult as the armed forces has to also
deal with security threats and concerns. Besides political necessity, the
security environment is another important reason why the armed forces must
rebuild and professionalize. Allow me to divert a bit and briefly explain
these security challenges so we can appreciate the enormous challenge
facing the armed faces as it struggles to reform as well as perform. Internally,
insurgency is still the major security concern – Communist Party of the
Philippines-New People’s Army (CPP-NPA) and the Mindanao separatist and
terrorist groups. The communist insurgency is tied to political and
economic realities that continue to fuel popular discontent compounded by
government neglect and military abuse. On the other hand, the Muslim
groups are now linked with other Islamic fundamentalist groups in the
region thus broadening the problem. The military approach to the
insurgency has been described as a “conflict trap” with “the rebels too
weak to defeat the AFP and the AFP too inept to defeat the rebels”.5
To get out of this trap, the AFP has to break out of its
Martial Law/Cold War mentality with its outmoded approaches. Against the
left for example, the Anti-Subversion Law has been repealed and the left
organizations have entered mainstream politics with party-list groups in
Congress. The military should now learn to deal with them in a different
way, one which does not violate its own code of ethics “not to stifle
dissent or label principled critique and/or cause-oriented groups as
threats to national security and/or enemies of the state as dissent and
opposition are important features to ensure a healthy and dynamic
democracy”. (Art III, Section 2.20 of the AFP Code of Ethics) Instead of alienating
the insurgents, the government should reach out and engage them,
understand their plight, initiate confidence- and trust-building measures
and resolve the matter peacefully. The approach must be holistic as a
major factor in insurgency is the absence of government in the remote
areas where the rebels are strong. All government agencies should be
involved in delivering basic services to the people. However, in my
experience, there is this “plan-implementation gap” and government
services are non-existent or not felt very much in the countryside. The
military alone is not capable and its main task is to contain the violence
and make the area peaceful and secure so that government can deliver the
services to the people. Externally, global
economic integration has changed the rules of international politics and
diplomacy and is creating a new international security order between those
who are connected to the globalization process and those who are not.
Inter-state conflicts have given way to non-state actors, organizations
and individuals engaging in terrorism and asymmetric warfare.6
With the U.S. as the only superpower, the bipolar structure of the cold
war is gone and a more “intrusive America” is expected.7
In Asia, China’s emergence as an economic and military power alongside
Japan is changing the regional security landscape. Likewise, old
flashpoints still exist – territorial claims, tensions in the Taiwan
straits and Korean peninsula. Erstwhile security concerns like maritime
piracy, trafficking of drugs and humans and money laundering have become
more sophisticated because of global interconnections and new
technologies. In this new
environment, the armed forces should rethink its strategy and outlook of
defense-military alliances. We should perhaps explore closer defense and
military links with emerging powers such as China and India and strengthen
relations with neighboring countries in Southeast Asia. These alliances
will provide the first line of defense and give us breathing space as we
rebuild our national defense. We should likewise develop a self-reliant
defense posture to design strategies and indigenous military technology so
we can defend ourselves using our limited resources and also maintain our
national self-respect by not depending too much on other countries for our
defense requirements. This twin challenge
of rebuilding and dealing with security concerns will take a lot of the
AFP’s organizational strength. Change will question age-old perceptions
and established norms. It will pit people against one another with regard
to ideas, concepts and approaches. There will be tremendous resistance to
change. The existing command structure and social order will be disrupted
and challenged. However, with the right combination of commitment,
organization, leadership and management, the challenge can be met. The
armed forces must hold firm, stay united and keep its eyes on the
objectives in order to accomplish the mission to change. CONCLUSION We pride ourselves as
a democratic nation. But our democracy is a sham as politicians manipulate
the system to perpetuate themselves in power. How can we even think that
we have a democracy when elections, the very soul of democracy, is being
perverted by the very public officials who should protect the sanctity of
the ballot. Democracy is also not just all about having elections or a
Constitution. It is also about having the active and sustained
participation of the people through democratic institutions like barangay
assemblies, people’s organizations, trade unions and political parties.
The armed forces can play a constructive role by safeguarding the
elections from fraud and by promoting peoples organizations rather than
spying on them. Democracy is also not
just the freedom to vote or the freedom of speech or religious freedom. It
is also about being able to live with pride and dignity. It is also about
economic freedom enabling the practice of these rights. How can one vote
if he cannot afford to go to the polling station? How can one practice his
religion when he cannot afford to go to church or has to commit sin to
feed his family? How can one practice free speech if he cannot even read
the newspaper? The government must be able to improve people’s lives so
they can exercise their freedoms. The armed forces can play a constructive
role in preserving these freedoms by educating the people of their rights
and responsibilities as citizens for nation building and engaging in
developmental activities to support the national program for economic
development. Ngayon,
nagtitimbang na naman ang mamamayan. Hindi natin alam kung saan talaga
tutungo ngunit nararamdaman natin na kailangang magbago ng landas para sa
kapakanan na ating bayan. Alam din natin na hindi nararapat ang mga
tiwaling pinuno sa pamahalaan, na kapag hinayaan natin sila ay wala tayong
matatanaw na magandang kinabukasan. Alam natin na kailangan ng ating bayan
ng mga pinuno na magaling, matatag at mapagkakatiwalaan. Subalit hindi na
tayo nakakasiguro kung sino sa mga pinuno ngayon ang nararapat.
(Now, the people are weighing their options. We do not know where this
will lead but we feel that there is a need to change the direction for the
welfare of the country. We also know that corrupt leaders should not be in
government, and that if we allow them to stay in power we will not have a
bright future. We know that country needs leaders who are competent,
strong and trustworthy. But we are uncertain as to the who among the
leaders are deserving.) 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. (This paper was
delivered at a meeting of the Philippine Constitutional Association [Philconsa]
last June 21 at the Manila Polo Club. A former Philippine Army officer who
served as Special Assistant to the Secretary of National Defense, the
author is now working abroad as an executive for a conglomerate.) Notes:
1. Jarque, Jose Rene, “Metamorphosis of
Idealism”, Army Journal, June 1991.
2. Bernas, Joaquin, in a speech entitled
“Supremacy of Law and Mark of Sovereignty”, delivered during the Annual
Convention and General Membership Meeting of the Philippine Military
Academy Alumni Association on 22 Jan 2005. Published in The Cavalier,
March-April 2005.
3. David, Randy in a speech, “The
Philippine Army Through the Years” delivered during the Philippine Army
Senior Leaders Conference, March 2005.
4. Cited in “Frankly Speaking”, Philippine
Graphic, Dec 29, 2003 – January 5, 2004, Vol. 14, Nr 29/30
5. Morales, Ricardo Col., “Transforming,
not Reforming the AFP”, Opinion/Columns, INQ7.net, 27 Oct 04
6. Barnett, Thomas P.M., The Pentagon’s
New Map: War and Peace in the 21st Century, Berkley Books, New
York: 2004.
7. Almonte, Jose, former National Security
Adviser, speaking at the Asia-Pacific Security Conference, as reported in
the Philippine Star, Feb 24, 2004. © 2004 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Publications Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.
Bulatlat