Inordinate use of political power over the AFP

I

CANNOT think of any occupation where it is a prerequisite for applicants to surrender their personal liberties and agree to follow the orders of their employer without hesitation or mental reservation, except that one offered by the military. It is a vocation where many are called, a few decide to heed, and fewer are chosen. As I wrote in my previous article, joining the profession of arms is a difficult choice to make. It takes a great toll on one’s freedom, which, to many, is too difficult and too precious to give up.

“[M]en who adopt the profession of arms submit their own free will to a law of perpetual constraint of their own accord. x x x. From the moment they become soldiers, it needs but an order to settle them in this place, to move them to that, to separate from them their families and to dislocate their normal lives…” These excerpts from “Military Professionalism” by the late French general and president Charles de Gaulle encapsulate how orders impact the lives of those who embrace soldiery as a profession.

Military orders

Orders — oral or written — in the military realm is sacred and inviolable. The order to “charge!” an entrenched enemy, for example, is followed unquestioningly, notwithstanding clear and present peril to the lives and limbs of the soldiers being ordered. Reassignment orders transferring soldiers from one post to another are followed within a prescribed time frame. Orders relieving or designating leaders and commanders from the lowest unit to the highest post in the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) are held sacrosanct, so much so that no one assumes or relinquishes command and authority unless orders to that effect are issued.

The experience of a major general who was set to take over the helm of an area command the next day underscores the inviolability of military orders. As the story was told, everything was set for the change-of-command ceremony: the venue, stage, banners heralding the momentous event, and members of the family and guests had arrived for the occasion when, for an unknown reason, the designation order was withdrawn. The ceremony was canceled, and the guests woke up in shock! But only for a while. In no time, the venue props, stage decors and tarpaulins were removed, carpets were rolled and stored, and that was it.

The appointing authority was not sued by the aggrieved party. Had it happened somewhere else, the injured party could have brought the offending party to court in a bid to recover actual, moral and exemplary damages for the wounded feelings, sleepless nights and besmirched reputation that the former suffered. But the institution treats the incident as one of those episodes of reliefs and designations gone wrong.

Floating status

For officers, especially ranking senior ones, to be relieved of their commands unceremoniously could be worse. But to be divested of such authority and position and be placed on “floating status” — receiving pay and allowances from the AFP for doing nothing — is the worst. They could have wished they be charged before court-martial, where the accused officers or enlisted personnel could stand trial, their sides heard, and evidence adduced to their defense for alleged violation(s) of the Articles of War (AW). But may commanders be removed from their posts without due process — i.e., hears before it condemns, proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial [Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward. 17 US 518 (1819)]?

The commander in chief and, by extension, the duly constituted authorities in the AFP hierarchy have the prerogative of removing military personnel from a position of command for cause or lack of confidence. The exercise of such prerogative, however, should be done only to prevent damage to men and machines or sully to the honor and reputation of the unit entrusted to an officer’s command. In short, the removal should be for the good of the service and not for the whim or caprice of higher authorities exercising such power to appoint or to remove.

To my knowledge, there are now two major generals, three brigadier generals and a colonel — all relieved from their posts unceremoniously — who are not occupying positions in the AFP’s Table of Organization. Except for a brigadier general who was indicted for a crime, all the others who were hurled to the “freezer” were not facing any tribunal or investigative body for violations of the AW or infractions of regulations. One of those brigadier generals would have been “floating” for 16 months by February 28 and would be separated from the ser