Is there a role for the military?

There is but it may become problematic in the interpretation of just what that role is in the 1987 Constitution. The role of the military in the fate of a nation depends on the specificity of the situation from country to country as well as on the time and circumstances.

I first met Former Defense Secretary Gen. Fortunato Abat in a workshop sponsored by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. At that time, the debate was between an elected convention or the elected Congress to carry out the urgent need for constitutional reform. It was this issue that divided the founding group of the Coalition for Constitutional Change Now . The jovial Gen. Abat never wavered from his position for convention. No matter how much we argued that the pro-convention side, egged on by an endangered Senate, was just a smokescreen for no constitutional reform. Events proved our position right. Convention proponents were disguised status quoers. They wanted no change.

For more than a year constitutional reform was blocked by an allegedly pro-convention Senate which consistently refused debate yet made it appear they were more democratic. When the Lower House challenged the Senate and agreed to a convention, the senators said there was no more time. Oppositionist Sen. Edgardo Angara, the chief promoter of FPJ’s presidency, said any decision for constitutional reform would have to wait after the May elections. At the same time, he said, we will have newly- elected officials who will not give up their terms for the sake of a parliamentary federal system. He suggested a referendum before May that would decide to terminate all terms by 2007. I don’t know what he said that for. A referendum before May would be impracticable but not a constituent assembly that could tackle that one provision in a day. Up to now, nothing has been done which suggests this was not a serious proposal.

It is clear to many the country is in a crisis that can go out of hand. Gen. Abat’s premise for military intervention cites the 1987 Constitution which states the military as the protector of the People and the State in times of crisis. He cites instances when the military acted as the safety valve of democracy: the military withdrew its support for Marcos, intervened in aid of the people against the economic plunder and immoral abuse then President Estrada and then on the Labor Day 2001 riot against the Arroyo government. "The intervention of the military in times of crisis simply means that the security of the State and the protection of the People are fundamental in the stable survival of the nation." That may well be but history has shown that armed intervention can be dangerous and a savior can also be an oppressor as it was demonstrated during the military-backed Marcos regime.

The military can play a crucial role with the proviso that it does not pre-empt civilian authority. No matter how risky this may seem, it has to wait in the wings until civilian authority calls for its help. Then and only then can it take on the role of protector of the State and the people. I differ with Gen. Abat in his interpretation of the instances in which the military intervened. Although there was a military plot against Marcos, civilians completed the overthrow. During the Erap presidency, civilians were already in EDSA by the time the military came in and in the Labor Day case, it was not an intervention but a police duty to quell a riot of partisans. Paradoxically, that is how the Philippine military has preserved its integrity (minus some discontents and misguided elements) unlike some in Latin America and Thailand in Asia where it displaced civilian authority and ultimately failed. That route, in the long run, does not work.

Meanwhile there is yet another conflict between the Senate and the House. This time it is about the budget. According to sources, FPJ backer Sen. Tito Sotto blocked the passage of at least 35 local bills already approved by the House by calling an adjournment. He did this to get back at Speaker JDV’s alleged attempt to reenact the 2003 budget. Minority senators alleged De Venecia and the President were not interested in passing the 2004 budget, maliciously imputing that "like Poe’s citizenship, it is being used as an excuse not to have an election." Curiously administration senators, Manuel Villar and Joker Arroyo echoed attacks against JDV and by inference President Arroyo. Informed sources denied the allegations. There are already funds not only for the elections but also for salary increases for the armed forces and other personnel to man the election. There is no danger to the election. What will be in question is the P200 million pork barrel for each senator. Under a re-enacted budget, the senators will have to course this through the President and that they are unwilling to do. More importantly the public is not being told a re-enacted 2003 budget will save some P60 billion. The saving will stave off a fiscal crisis that could blow up in the second semester when the new president will have the headache on how to run the country short of funds. It is wrong to insist on a huge 2004 budget that can only aggravate the country’s deficit. So why take it against congressmen, mayors and governors who came to make sure the 35 local bills were passed by the Senate? It’s the typical gridlock in a bicameral legislature.

Take the case of Abdala Bucaram, the actor-comedian, who became president of Ecuador on the backs of the poor. Like Erap and FPJ if he becomes President, his popularity waned when he began to govern. Within six months Bucaram’s administration was widely unpopular. Two million citizens took part in a general strike in February 1997, and more than ten thousand surrounded the Congress building to force his impeachment. This would never have been done by Congress without military support lurking in the background. On February 6 the National Congress voted to remove Bucaram for "mental incapacity". Reading through the detailed proposal of Gen. Abat, that seems to be the tack he wishes the military to take with constitutional reform if it continues to be frustrated by self-serving politicians.

It is unfortunate if the recent attempts by military adventurists to destabilize the Arroyo government cloud the issue of the role of the military. The timing could not have been worse for more responsible members of the military. There is a whale of a difference between military adventurists allowing themselves to be used by political partisans and the military, as an institution in a democratic framework.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]