Nonong speaks! Anyone listening?

It may not have been his finest hour. That’s for historians to judge. But it was arguably a fine speech, one that should warm the cockles of the hearts of those worried about military takeovers of civilian government or transitional juntas. Still, the relatively sparse news coverage of the speech was puzzling.

If Defense Secretary Avelino "Nonong" Cruz meant that speech to be a pronouncement of enduring policy, rather than the knee-jerk response of a beleaguered government, then there is basis for optimism that the AFP has finally learned lessons in the folly of military interference in political affairs. It would also relegate "adventurism" such as Operation Hackle, and aging and irrelevant adventurers like El Gringo (according to his non-admirers), to an inglorious but irretrievable past.

The fact that the speech was delivered at the 109th Philippine Army Day early this week, and closely followed a recent five-point statement by Armed Forces Chief of Staff Generoso Senga clarifying the "role of the armed forces at (sic) these trying times," makes it conceivable that we may now have a newly-enlightened AFP.

Let’s start with excerpts from Sec. Cruz’s speech, as well as from Gen. Senga’s statement which was "prepared" by the AFP Judge Advocate General:

Gen. Senga reminded the entire AFP "to ensure, at all times, strict adherence to the supremacy of civilian authority over the military. The AFP’s constitutional role as protector of the people and the state "is not a license comfortably used to wrest leadership of the Government from public officials duly elected by the people on the basis of perceived imperfections in governance." These imperfections, he said, should be dealt with "in accordance with the rule of law and constitutional processes."

Soldiers, he added, "do not enjoy an unbridled license to engage in partisan politics or publicly speak our minds against the government." The military, Gen. Senga noted, shouldn’t be regarded as a "potent military force to be used by politicians in the furtherance of their vested interests." The AFP "must remain apolitical."

For his part, Secretary Cruz underscored the "fundamental principle" that the military must be "insulated from partisan politics." However, in a "poisoned political climate," this principle continues to be challenged. In times of political conflict, he lamented, "there are self-proclaimed messiahs who seduce the soldier by presenting themselves – if not the entire military organization itself – as saviors of our nation."

These self-proclaimed messiahs "attempt to draw a distinction between the state and the government in power and encourage military intervention in the resolution of what are purely political disputes."

"Never again," he thundered, "should the soldier be used to advance the self-serving agenda of anyone." Thus, he "recommended" – he didn’t say to whom – that the AFP not be allowed to perform election duties, except in case of serious and direct threats that are beyond the capability of the police and other law enforcement agencies to handle.

Specifically, canvassing of votes should not be allowed in military camps. Soldiers should not be assigned as security escorts of candidates, or to count votes or transport ballot boxes and other election paraphernalia and election results. Secretary Cruz disclosed that the AFP has begun to recall soldiers serving as bodyguards for civilians and politicians, a practice which, albeit sanctioned by Republic Act No. 6975, makes it difficult to insulate the military from politics.

Nonong declared, forthrightly and unambiguously: "Political contests must be resolved in the political arena, in accordance with constitutional processes and under the rule of law, without any intervention from the military."

In a speech before the Philippine Constitution Association the other day, Gen. Senga echoed the "Never Again" theme, vowing that, "Never again will the AFP be used for ulterior motives." He added that the military is neither "king nor kingmaker," and will reject any move to use the military in a "transition government."

These words are, I am sure, music to most ears. If we can take them to mean a solemn oath made by the AFP, it’s pretty clear that actions such as then AFP chief Angie Reyes’ "withdrawal of support" from the government in 2001 cannot happen again. In a political conflict like that which eventually unseated Erap Estrada, the rule of law and the Constitution would be observed by all, "messiahs" in the AFP included.

So, can we now rest easy? Can we trust the military to henceforth stay in their barracks and shun the importuning of ambitious politicians? Well, let’s examine those ostensibly lofty statements a little more closely.

First of all, let’s bring out one glaring fact: Not one of the statements made by either Sec. Cruz or Gen. Senga suggests an original idea. The concept of civilian supremacy over the military, the fundamental principle that the military must be insulated from partisan politics, the mandate that no member of the military may engage directly or indirectly in any partisan activity, except to vote, have all been long enshrined in our Constitution (Article II, Section 3; Art. XVI, Sec. 5(3)).

The reassertion of these familiar principles at this time, by no less than than the government’s two highest officials in the military structure, is an admission that they have been blatantly ignored. Indeed, that historical fact is demonstrable and indubitable.

Secondly, the speeches of Sec. Cruz and Gen. Senga illustrate the reality of a persistent clash in the principle of civilian supremacy and the notion that civilians must cease their meddling in purely military affairs. Supremacy entails control, but control institutionalizes meddling in such things as military appropriations, promotions to star rank, area command postings, major service command designations, and appointment to the plum position of AFP Chief of Staff, all of which are executive prerogatives.

This institutionalized meddling, which often sets aside hallowed rules such as seniority and proven competence as bases for promotion, are among the real reasons why the lofty rhetoric often does not reflect the real situation "on the ground." Whatever the Constitution says, no matter how sincere temporary top honchos like Nonong and Senga might sound, politics lurks in the shadows like a ghost that refuses to accept it is dead.

Does this mean the ideals of civilian supremacy and a non-partisan military are pipe dreams? Not at all. We explore this next time.