 |
|
|
Bu-lat-lat (boo-lat-lat) verb: to search, probe, investigate, inquire; to unearth facts Vol. IV, No. 25 July 25 - 31, 2004 Quezon City, Philippines |
|
|
|
Bu-lat-lat (boo-lat-lat) verb: to search, probe, investigate, inquire; to unearth facts Vol. IV, No. 25 July 25 - 31, 2004 Quezon City, Philippines |
Forum
Scores AFP Meddling in May Polls
The
Philippine Constitution clearly states that the military should not be
involved in partisan politics. But in the last national and local
elections, military intervention was evident, according to political
analysts and a senator. BY
RONALYN V. OLEA
|
|
Soldier inside polling precinct, Baguio City Photo by Nordis |
The Philippine Constitution clearly states that the military should not be involved in partisan politics. But in the last national and local elections, military intervention was evident, according to political analysts. One
of the analysts, Benito Lim, a professor at the University of the
Philippines and Ateneo University, said in a forum last July 21 that there
have been complaints about military involvement in the 2004 elections,
particularly in Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao and some areas in the Mountain
Province. Quoting
from Art. XVI, Sec. 4 of the 1987 Constitution, Lim stressed, “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.” |
Lim
said the question most observers raise about Malacañang’s use of the
military and police for partisan political activity in the name of
national security is whether it is allowed by the Constitution or not.
The
Constitution clearly stipulates that the President is the
commander-in-chief of all armed forces of the Philippines. “To escape
blame, they used this provision to justify surveillance and suppression of
the opposition. No doubt Malacañang assumes that the concept of commander
in chief is a blank check that provided the basis for the suppression of
rights of the citizens of the republic. The military is just a puppet
ordered around by the president,” Lim stressed.
Soldier
as protector
Speaking
in the same forum help at UP’s College of Mass Communication, Sen.
Rodolfo Biazon, former chief of staff of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP), stressed, “The soldier is the protector of the
people.”
According
to him, he has always emphasized that soldiers should be loyal to the
Constitution. “Their loyalty is to the institutions and not to
individuals. But we change our Constitution faster than we change our
underwear. Are we confusing our soldiers?” He then stressed the need
to rebuild the military institution.
Biazon
agreed with Lim that the military’s only political right is the right to
vote. “If you allow (a soldier) to participate in any partisan political
activity, you allow him to debate on issues,” he said.
The
senator added, “The right to judge the government (and) to replace that
government does not belong to the man with the gun. That right belongs to
(the people), but only through a Constitutional process.”
Forms
of military intervention
Neri
Colmenares, Bayan Muna legal counsel and member of the National Coalition
for International Criminal Court, on the other hand said, “Military
intervention to ensure victory of a losing candidate is a coup d’etat
by itself.”
Colmenares
identified three forms of military intervention in the elections.
“First, a retired military general joins the electoral struggle and
wields the power of his past office. Second, a ruling administration uses
certain factions of the AFP to stay in power. Third, which is insidious,
is the action of the military institution campaigning against political
parties in the name of national security.”
Colmenares
said that the AFP openly campaigned against Bayan Muna and five other
progressive party-list groups. “Hindi lang ibang party-list ang
kalaban namin. May dagdag pa, malaki, may pera at may armas.”(We had
to contend not only with other party-list groups, we also fought a bigger
enemy with a lot of money and arms.)
He
cited a forum sponsored by the AFP in the University of the Philippines in
Diliman during the campaign period. “I was part of the audience.
Undermining the intellect of the public, they campaigned against Bayan
Muna and other party-list groups in the name of national security,”
Colmenares said.
Colminares
said the military used government funds for the black propaganda against
his group on a nationwide scale.
Roots
For
his part, Retired Navy Capt. Dan Vizmanos said the military involvement in
the elections is benign at the beginning and has become malignant during
Marcos dictatorship.
Vizmanos
attributed to US indoctrination the “culture of puppetry” in the
military establishment.
Lim
accused the Macapagal-Arroyo regime as resembling that of Marcos.
“During the martial law years, few things were more ominous than the
president with the connivance of the military using the claim of
‘national security’ and so-called intelligence data as cover for
almost anything the executive wishes to do. It appears that the same
dictum is being used today for purposes of deception, harassment and
repression of popular sentiments.”
He
added, “It appears that the historical lessons drawn by the military and
police from the shadowy martial law years are refinements in the art of
crowd control, suppression of free speech and the brutal dispersion of
free assembly.”
Lim
said local ordinances particularly the “No Permit, No Rally” policy
cannot overturn the provisions in the Constitution.
He tagged as lawless violence the brutal dispersal of mass actions.
“The military and the police do not have the right to coerce
citizens,” he said.
The forum was organized by the Center for People Empowerment in Governance (CenPeg), the forum titled “The Role of the Military in the 2004 Elections.” Bulatlat
We want to know what you think of this article.
