• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
The Philippines Needs a Constructive ArmedForces
 
*********************************************************
NOTE
: Given the sad realities and dire straits of fellow Filipinos in the homeland, it is a rareoccasion that we see a few individuals who may give us hope that the lights are not completelyout.
 
(It is often frustrating and maddening to read or hear columnists, soldiers, politicians,businessmen, churchmen, etc. automatically, like parrots, charge and label those who speakout
against
the government and
for 
the people as all "communists," etc. as if only communistsreally care for the ordinary man. That's how regressive, anachronistic and stunted their thinkingis.)Anyway, Here's an article by one of these few --obviously non-communist-- who speaks out; arelatively, young ex-military (PMA/West Point Class 1986) officer.
 
UPDATE 
: I found this news shockingly sad and an enormous loss to the homeland: minutes after  posting this one, a relative emailed to say that former Captain Rene N. Jarque had a cardiac arrest last August 19 in Jakarta (he was to turn 41 in October). We seem to have only a "few good men" and for some reason, the homeland loses them. We wonder why them? 
 
"Corruption is worse than prostitution. The latter might endanger the morals of an individual; the former invariably endangers the morals of the entire country." - Karl Kraus, 1874-1936.
 
"I helped the poor and they called me a saint, I asked why they were poor and they called me a Communist" –Brazilian Bishop Helder Camara
 
"The accomplish to the crime of corruption is frequently our own indifference." - Bess Myerson, 1924-present 
 
"In all institutions from which the cold wind of open criticism is excluded, an innocent corruption begins to grow likea mushroom - for example, in senates and learned societies." - Friedrich Nietzsche, 1844-1900 
 
“Nations whose NATIONALISM is destroyed are subject to ruin.” - Colonel Muhammar Qaddafi, 1942-, LibyanPolitical and Military Leader 
*************************************************************
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 
 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 aspirationsand 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 havesworn to defend, in the same way the Centurions obeyed their decadent emperors, the way theWermacht blindly obeyed Hitler?
At this point, whose is the Army, the government’s or thepeople’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 tremendousdisenchantment with government and the public is in a restive mood. The economy is hobblingalong burdened by poverty, foreign debt, high fuel prices, inflation, unemployment, budget deficitand uncontrolled population growth. Peace and order is unsteady with insurgency, terrorism andcriminality. Corruption scandals plague the presidency and the military. Her Excellency is beingaccused of cheating in the last election and her spin doctors are taking the people for a ride in acircus of lies and deception. Our country today is being bamboozled by a discredited, crippledand insecure government which does not seem to have a clue, cannot get its act together andlacks the strength of character to lead the nation out of its misery. There is a crisis in nationalleadership 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 thistime of uncertainty and discontent, what should the military do? What should be its role? Should itintervene as in 1986 and 2001? What should the armed forces do to ensure that the governmentdoes not abuse its power, promote the welfare of the people while averting a civil revolution? Letus together explore these and other questions in this paper which is divided into three parts:I. Armed Forces and the ConstitutionII. Armed Forces in Philippine SocietyIII. 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 thePhilippines (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. TheArmed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to securethe 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 civilianauthority is essentially the “supremacy of the law” and a soldier renounces political ambition whenhe 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 asguardians of the majesty of the law.
The soldier is expected to divorce himself from politicsbecause he supposedly “finds nobility, dignity and honor in being theguardian of thepeopleand alegitimategovernment”.(2)
The two other important provisions are
Article XVI, Section 5
, paragraph 1: “All members of thearmed forces shall take an oath or affirmation to uphold and defend this Constitution” andparagraph 3: “Professionalism in the armed forces and adequate remuneration and benefits of itsmembers shall be the prime concern of the State. The armed forces shall be insulated frompartisan politics. No member of the military shall engage directly or indirectly in any partisanpolitical 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 inpolitics shall be strictly limited to the exercise of its members’ rights of suffrage and in ensuringdelivery of ballots to the concerned government entities during election if and when deputized todo 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,“ theConstitution silently condones rebellion as a means to change government
. As this
 
democratic right was aptly described by former United States President Abraham Lincoln, “Thiscountry, with its institutions, belong to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they grow weary of theexisting 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 sameeffect:
“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 theprinciple 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 AFPrecognizes its role to protect the people and assert its rights to participate in democraticprocesses in which it is legally allowed to do so, but it shall never allow itself to be used to subvertthe 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 forcesshall follow the elected government for as long as the people are fine with it but once thepeople 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 supposedlylegitimate government no longer reflects the commonweal, is going against its own people anduses the so-called majesty of the law to hide its corruption and flaunt its powers? If the armedforces 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, dignityand honor” in being the guardian?
Our experience in 2001 shows that the Constitution can be conveniently discarded to suitthe 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 theextra-constitutional takeover of government is victory. If one fails, he is charged with rebellion andsent 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 gravelyundermined the Constitution. Consciously or unconsciously, the generals preserved the military’spower using a loud and powerful minority as cover against the silent and weak majority.
Sincethere has been no real change in governance and only change in personalities, the actionof the AFP leadership in 2001 was misguided and self-serving
. They were desperados whomerely 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 inthe classic
Clausewitzian model
composed of people, government and the military.
And today,between an inept government and a corrupt military, the people are gettingscrewed.
 
Church activism in recent years has probably made it four-sided, adding aconfusing spiritual element.
Though the armed forces is much more in the background todayas compared to the martial law period, it has the unobtrusive power to intervene in politics. Astrong and healthy democracy, however, hinges on a two-way structure anchored on a contractbetween the government and the people as embodied in the Constitution.
The military shouldbe 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 wasrammed down our throats by the Americans. I think it is time that we question this framework andlook at alternative models of governance wherein the military plays a productive role ingovernment 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 illegalacts? 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
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...