(Convenor - Mandirigma laban sa mga Ganid, Mandaraya, at Abusado (MANDIRI GMA)
By: Ambassador Roy V. Señeres


It is deplorable that the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) is still unaffected in spite of the serial emergence of (as in “serial killer”) scandals in the country. These scandals have wreaked havoc to almost everything that the Filipinos hold dear namely democracy; good governance; morality; good customs and traditions such as delicadeza and amor propio; national pride; nation-building, and national unity.

The AFP either wittingly or unwittingly, is still clueless about what it means to be “Protector of the People of the Philippines.” It will serve them well to revisit two relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Philippines, to wit:

“Article II, Section 3 – 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 its National Territory.” And---

“Article VII, Section 18 – The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion.

The phrase “Protector of the People” is clear and unambiguous. Needless to say, we the Filipino people are the Protectorate of the Protector, not any single individual even if he or she is Commander-in Chief or President of the Philippines, especially so if that President is under the glare of a noon-day sun, sitting on top of a towering mountain of excreta comprised of the Hello Garci Scandal; the Norberto Gonzales Venable Scandal; the Jose Pidal Scandal; the JocJoc Bolante Fertilizer Fund Scam; the Nani Perez Scandal; the Vicky Toh Scandal; the Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard Scandal; the North Rail Scandal; the Mikey and Iggy Arroyo Jueteng Payola Scandal; the extra-judicial killings; the rampant violations of human rights; the unceasing smuggling especially at the SBMA; the Joey De Venecia III expose of the ZTE-NBN bribery and overpricing; the Malacanang bribery scandal and many others that judging from the serialization of these scandals, are just waiting to emerge or be unmasked. And more especially so that a vast number of Filipinos are of the opinion that the incumbent President cheated her way to the presidency in 2004. Moreover, reliable surveys show the trust rating of this incumbent occupant of Malacanang is virtually zero. “Public opinion,” according to Charles Dudley Warner “is stronger than the Legislature and nearly as strong as the Ten Commandments.”

For the Ladies and Gentlemen of the AFP to fully fathom the length and breadth of their role as “Protector of the People,” they must not only revisit the two provisions of the Constitution as above-quoted, they must also absorb into their minds the in-depth analysis of the Armed Forces’ role, by Father Joaquin G. Bernas S.J., on page 59 of his book entitled “The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, A Commentary,” published by the Rex Book Store, 1999 Edition, relevant portions of which are quoted as follows:

“2. Role of the armed forces.

“The second and third sentences of Section 3 originally discussed by the 1986 Constitutional Commission under the General Provision, are meant to express the philosophy that underlies the existence of armed forces.” (Underscoring mine.)

“The two sentences, however, also yield a meaning which was not articulated during the Commission debates. When one reads them in the light of the unsuccessful military coups of 1987 and the reasons given for them, and especially in the light of the successful and civilian-approved coup of February 1986 which became known as the February Revolution, one cannot escape the conclusion that the armed forces can be a legitimate instrument for the overthrow of a civilian government that has ceased to be a servant of the people.” (Underscoring mine)

“Civilian supremacy, in other words is, in the final analysis, not a guaranteed supremacy of civilian officers who are in power but of supremacy of the sovereign people. The Armed Forces, in this sense, is the Protector of the people and the State.” (Underscoring mine.)

It is clear from the foregoing that where there is a conflict between the Protector of the people clause and the Commander-in-Chief clause of the Constitution, the former must prevail.

Notwithstanding Father Bernas’ counsel that the armed forces can be “A legitimate instrument for the overthrow of a civilian government”, I am not asking the AFP to stage a rebellion or sedition or coup d’ etat. After all, there is a completely legitimate, peaceful and bloodless way of terminating the reign of a government that “has ceased to be a servant of the people”, and that is by way of withdrawal of support.

Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) defines rebellion as “rising publicly and taking up arms against the government xxx.” To withdraw support, the AFP does not have to rise publicly or take up arms against the government.

Article 134-A says, inter alia, that a coup d’ etat is a “swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation and threat, etc.” To withdraw support, the AFP does not have to swiftly attack anyone.

Article 139 says the crime of sedition is committed by persons who “rise publicly and tumultuously in order to attain by force, intimidation, etc.” To withdraw support, the AFP does not have to rise publicly and tumultuously.

Withdrawal of support is not a crime. Otherwise the Supreme Court would have said so. In the two landmark cases, the Supreme Court narrated the withdrawal of support from President Joseph E. Estrada of General Angelo Reyes, AFP Chief-of-Staff, and Director General Panfilo Lacson of the PNP. The high court repeated the phrase “withdrawal of support” 16 times but it did not say a word on whether or not it was improper, illegal, unconstitutional, or unacceptable. (Page 8, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34, “Joseph E. Estrada vs. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo G.R. No. 146738; and Joseph E. Estrada vs. Aniano Desierto et al., G.R. No. 146710-15)

It is noteworthy that Justice Jose C. Vitug even wrote a concurring opinion where, despite the withdrawal of support of Generals Reyes and Lacson, he declared: “The basic structures, the principles, the directions, the interests, and the spirit of the 1987 Constitution have been saved and preserved.” (Page 14, concurring opinion)

Sure of my thesis about the legality of withdrawal of support, I came out with a public statement in March 2006, that I was among those who personally advised General Danilo Lim to withdraw support from Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. After my public statement in support of General Lim, some of his comrades asked me to convince the others especially those who persistently goaded General Lim to withdraw support, to also come out with a public statement similar to mine as there was a great likelihood according to them, that thousands of soldiers might just come out of their barracks to come to the side of the detained General. I tried to convince some of them but to no avail. “Nag bahag buntot silang lahat,” according to General Lim’s comrades. The poor General Lim. He now suffers quietly in detention, abandoned by the men who inveigled him to do what he did that fateful morning of February 24, 2006. Indeed, there is truth to Kennedy’s woe: “Victory has so may fathers, defeat an orphan.”

General Danilo Lim did not commit any crime. He tried through the legitimate avenue of withdrawal of support, to unshackle the Filipinos from the grip of what he believed was and still is an illegitimate regime.

It is relevant to quote at this juncture Thomas Jefferson, circa 1787, thus :”I hold it that a little rebellion now and then, is a good thing and therefore, necessary in a political world as storms in the physical… it is a medicine for the sound health of government.”

The internationally respected Washington Sycip, appear to have agreed with Jefferson, when in a speech (published by the PDI on March 19, 2007) he said: “While western nations and financial institutions were critical about the last coup in Thailand, I, together with my Asian friends were glad that it took place. We saw that a coup, with the pre-approval of the King, would be bloodless and would enable the Thai government to correct the many abuses of the Thaksin government.” (Underscoring mine.)

I am sure Sycip and his friends also saw that Thaksin’s sins were not as numerous and humongous as those of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Thaksin was, comparatively, a juvenile delinquent.

But unlike Jefferson and Sycip, I am not asking the AFP to rebel or to stage a coup d’ etat. I reiterate, am only asking it to withdraw support.

Even before the emergence of this regime’s series of scandals starting mostly in 2006 with the Hello Garci revelations, F. Sionil Jose, national artist for literature, in 2004 already called for revolution. In an article he wrote for the Far Eastern Economic Review (December 2004 issue) entitled “A call for revolution in the Philippines,” he said:

“By what right do I have to urge revolution upon our people who will suffer from it? I have no such right, nor will I call it such. I call it duty, duty, duty, duty for all rooted in our soil who believe that freedom is our destiny xxx” “xxx look around us, at the thousands of Filipinos who are debased and hungry, who are denied justice. Be ashamed if you do not act.” (Underscoring mine.)
Protector of the People to the Philippines, be ashamed if you do not, at least, withdraw support.