The military temptation - BY THE WAY by Max V. Soliven

I’m a firm believer, although I was a prisoner of the military during the Marcos martial law regime, in the principle that the armed forces are the "protectors" of the people and the country. This has been their role since the Philippine Revolution and, most of the time (with the martial law decade and a half providing a painful and cruel digression) our soldiers have served our nation’s interests bravely and well.

However, we must not drag our military into politics. This happened once during the above-mentioned martial- law era – and look what happened. Apo Ferdinand Marcos, who it turned out "faked" most of his own military medals and decorations, "bribed" the military by goodies and perks into becoming his dictatorship’s "private army." That the military deserted him and joined the EDSA People Power revolt is another side of the same coin.

In the current controversy, even those who claim to be democratic in thought and libertarians are calling on the "military" to make the final decision. Shorn of all the high-falutin’ rhetoric and obfuscation, that’s what it comes down to when we hang on the opinions expressed by retired generals and other past military leaders.

Of course their opinions count, and nobody can discount the patriotism and sincerity of my old buddy, retired General Fortunato Abat who honorably fought for our country both here and abroad, but to hint that the military ought to "intervene" today is to subscribe to China’s late ruler Chairman Mao Zedong’s philosophy that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." (1966).

Or, as Ely Culbertson put it in his 1946 book, "Power politics is the diplomatic name for the law of the jungle."

Don’t misunderstand me. We come from a family of "citizen soldiers." My grandfather fought as a captain in the Revolution against both the Spaniards and the Americans, which is why he was called Kapitan ‘Belo (Isabelo) to the day he died as mayor of our hometown. My father, a congressman, graduated from officer’s training in Camp Henry T. Allen in Baguio City (the same officers’ school that produced General Manuel A. Roxas, later our President) and fought in Bataan as a major. I won’t dwell on my own undistinguished record as an Infantry officer. But soldiers are, by dint of their profession, warriors, not politicians.

In the Army, we were taught in the Infantry Training Group (ITG) – my classmate and fellow cadet sergeant was Johnny Ponce Enrile – that the way to solve a problem was to "shoot it." When we were short of supplies, our officers commanded us: "Produce!" How? By taking what we needed. From whom? Guess where.

That’s the military mindset. You survive by direct methods and action. Many generals have become good Presidents (I won’t mention anyone local), like Ulysees S. Grant who commanded the Union Armies in the American Civil War and, of course, Gen. Dwight D. "Ike" Eisenhower. But, in a sense, one of America’s best officers in World War II, who distinguished himself in the European campaign, Gen. Omar Bradley declared: "I am convinced that the best service a retired general can perform is to turn in his tongue with his suit, and to mothball his opinions."

To contradict Douglas MacArthur, though: Old Soldiers never die. But neither do they "fade away."

* * *

Those who interpret the provisions of the 1987 "Cory" Constitution to suit their own agenda have to remember that it was written mostly by victims of martial law, street parliamentarians, and Mabini lawyers who had no great love for the Marcos military. (I was nominated, in fact, by then President Aquino to be a member of that Constitutional Commission, but I declined. I felt – and I still do – that a Constitution ought to be written by an elected, not "appointed", Constitutional Convention by delegates precisely sent to do it by the people).

Considering the thinking of most of the framers of the organic law, therefore, those who say that there’s a provision in it (Sec. 3, Art. II) which would "justify" the military’s "intervention" in the country’s civilian and political affairs are giving it the wrong twist. I refer to the clause which says "the Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State."

That’s a convenient phrase for would-be interventionists but let’s not forget that it is preceded by the assertion that "civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military." There are, in fact, other provisions under Article XVI that negate the warped interpretation of some people (either anti-Erap or pro-Erap) that, being a protector of the people, the military can intrude into a civilian political crisis. These are the provisions which state that "all members of the armed forces shall take an oath or affirmation to uphold and defend the Constitution" and that "the armed forces shall be insulated from partisan politics."

If I recall, the first person who made a remark about intervention was Senator Ponce Enrile who, it must also be recalled, was the 1972 martial law "implementor" as Defense Minister.

On the other hand, I can understand the raised hackles on the part of some of the generals, among them retired Armed Forces Chief of Staff and former Defense Secretary Abat. The generals must have been ticked off by DND Secretary Orlando Mercado and Malacañang, who referred to them as "irrelevant" and having no clout (since it was years since they "commanded" troops) as compared to generals still in the active service. Them’s fighting words, fellas, in any language!

Abat and his Alte Kameraden, however, may be going too far in their reaction and indignation. Even Senator Rodolfo Biazon, himself a retired Marine general and former AFP Chief of Staff, has expressed grave concern over the retired officers’ call for military intervention in the current political crisis.

And there’s one more quotation, pertinent to these confusing times. Winston Churchill, England’s wartime Prime Minister, declared in a speech in the House of Commons (Sept. 30, 1941): "Nothing is more dangerous in wartime than to live in the temperamental atmosphere of a Gallup Poll, always feeling one’s pulse and taking one’s temperature."

* * *

Has the Department of Justice become a branch of the Iglesia ni Cristo? Right now, if the rumormongers are correct, the INC may be on the verge of achieving a "double-whammy", by getting two members of their Church appointed to the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court. I remember that during the Marcos hegemony everytime there was an election in the offing (and the INC’s votes were needed by the ruling Kilusang Bagong Lipunan or KBL), an INC member suddenly got promoted, for instance to the Court of Appeals and later to the Supreme Court.

Let’s say, as current speculation goes, DOJ Secretary Art Tuquero – an INC member – gets designated as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Will his successor in the Cabinet be another Iglesia stalwart? The name being bruited about is that of former Court of Appeals Justice Nicolas Lapeña, who belongs to the same Church, and at present is president of the INC’s New Era University. Three INC Secretaries of Justice in a row? The embattled President Erap must really need "religious" help.