You are on page 1of 4


My reaction paper on the lectured presentation of LTGEN GREGORIO E MACAPAGAL AFP, The Deputy Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines entitled: BUILDING COMMAND RELATIONSHIPS BY ENHANCING JOINTNESS IN THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES. In his introduction, he first defined

Command Relationship as the fundamentals of joint operations; an interrelated responsibilities between commanders; and an operational authority exercised by commanders in the chain of command. Briefly, Command Relationship is the unified accountabilities of AFP chain of command. The presentation was based on the output of his paper during his Advanced Command and Staff Course (Joint) in the Joint Services Command and Staff College, Defense Academy of the United Kingdom. His paper is highly recommended as the turning point for the modernization of the AFP thru the integration of the forces in the Armed Forces of the Philippines settings; namely: PA, PN, and PAF. The speaker focused and aimed on the augmentation of the AFP command relationship between the three services the PA, PN, and PAF by having good relationships, interrelated responsibilities between commanders, and by having operational authority exercised by commanders in the chain of command. The

proposed paradigm shift was believed to prepare the AFP in any modern conflict utilizing different approaches on land, sea and air. The presenters highlighted the different significant worlds military operations conducted through the employment of two or more forces as joint operations, the Joint

Task Force as the fighting forces. During the preparation of campaign plans, they prepared plans jointly and the plans execution were conducted under joint conditions. Also, it was emphasized that the term Area of Operations (AOR) was utilized when a single unit conduct singular operations while in a Joint Operations the Joint Operational Area (JOA) was utilized. Basing on the doctrine of the United Kingdom for Joint and Multinational Operations that defined Joint as pertaining to activities, operations, organizations, etc., in which elements of at least two services participated. The doctrine conveyed the importance of integrating the capabilities of the military services. Wars were no longer fought today by employing only one military service. As stated in the lecture on the three model Countries the Canadian Armed Forces (Unification), the United Kingdom Armed Forces (Jointery), and the United State Armed Forces (Jointness), these countries have already experienced the importance of Joint operations in a modern war. Relatedly, before becoming Jointness on their respective countries, the AFP started the Canadian Armed Forces. In all the three countries, Canadian Armed Forces was different. Viewing the Canadian Armed Forces, former heads of Army, Navy, and Air Force, had direct access to the Minister of National Defense. Since 1967, and until the CDS became the head of the Armed Forces under the Minister of Defense, they followed the Chain of Command. The Armed Forces Council provided piece of advice to the Chief of Defense Staff on command. The Minister of Defense was in control of administration matters the Chief of Defense Staff exercised by virtue of the Canadian Forces Reorganization Act.

The United Kingdom Armed Forces, experienced Advanced Armed Forces on Jointness started in the 1900s, the Chief of Staff Committee was the prime example of jointery, the Joint Planning Committee was formed in 1927 followed by the Joint Intelligence Committee. During World War II, UK land, air and naval forces were in joint and combined operations with its allies. The United State Armed Forces, was the most experienced and most Advanced on the Jointness on their Armed Forces. They had implemented the Jointness of forces slowly but continuously. During the Second World War, the US Armed Forces was the builder the so-called European and Pacific Theatre. The European Theatre was headed by GENERAL DWIGHT D EISENHOWER while the Pacific Theater was headed by GENERAL DOUGLAS MACARTHUR and ADMIRAL CHESTER WILLIAM NIMITZ. The US congress passed the National Security Act in 1947. The Act created the National Military Establishment. The same has given the Joints Chiefs of Staff legal status even without a chairperson. The Secretary of Defense was given limited powers and a small staff, the Secretaries of the military departments were allowed to stay powerful. The US Armed Forces became more dominant and left unified commands as unified in name only. At present, US Armed Forces fights wars almost solely under joint commands. A steady evolution of joint doctrine and exercises seemingly transpire. On the AFP Challenges on Jointness, the term jointness in the AFP was occasionally heard. AFP Jointness Operation came into my reason during our

Operation Module on the scenario and the history of Operation Torts. The AFP were not practicing this kind of operation. As an enlisted personnel in the AFP Jointness was not part of the agenda in the advancement and modernization of the AFP. Unless and

until Congress will pass a law implementing and absorbing the ideals of the Jointness as system in the Armed Forces, the same will not come into a real thing. I wanted to believe that all forces are centralized and in interrelated relationship between one another namely: the PA, PN, and PAF, so that in time of conflict locally or

internationally the name AFP will prevail and claim victory. With due respect to man and woman who headed the AFP since 1968, and up to date; the organization

attempted so many reforms in its structure and have piloted different programs. Consequently, the matters on joint organization were never realized; and have not happened. Based on my limited understanding, one reason was the corrupt leadership and failure program implementation. As noted, the continuity on the development of leadership Jointness of forces in the AFP were not maintained, or either dropped whenever new leaders were appointed. Such resulted to new leadership styles and have never adhered to his successors programs. Cooperation and betterment of the organization were sacrificed. In this regard, in order to have a real reform particularly on the AFP Jointness Operation; Jointness Operation per se, must be given priority. A government focus and sincere transformation must be comprehended. Maybe by

recommending AFP Jointness Operation to the Congress for Appropriations and for our Law making body to enact laws regarding and related to AFP Jointness Operation. In implementing AFP Jointness Operation, the government action to prove adherence to its constitutional mandate of protecting its citizenry, economic advantage and peaceful community is not a dream but a reality.