THE FILIPINO MIND

The Philippines Needs a Constructive Armed Forces

*********************************************************
NOTE: Given the sad realities and dire straits of fellow Filipinos in the homeland, it is a rare occasion that we see a few individuals who may give us hope that the lights are not completely out.

(It is often frustrating and maddening to read or hear columnists, soldiers, politicians, businessmen, churchmen, etc. automatically, like parrots, charge and label those who speak out against the government and for the people as all "communists," etc. as if only communists really care for the ordinary man. That's how regressive, anachronistic and stunted their thinking is.)

Anyway, Here's an article by one of these few --obviously non-communist-- who speaks out; a relatively, 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 like a 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-, Libyan Political 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 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
(Not able to reproduce the chart in this blog - Bert)

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 21,2005 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.
http://bulatlat.com/news/5-21/5-21-constructive.htm

"I either want less corruption, or more chance to participate in it." - Ashleigh Brilliant, 1933"

"There is no higher RELIGION than human service. To work for the common good is the greatest creed.'' - Albert Schweitzer, 1875-1965, German Born Medical Missionary, Theologian, Musician, and Philosopher