AT FOUR in the afternoon of September 11, the nation watched as President Rodrigo Duterte directed a rare outburst towards the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). Known for his effusive praise of Philippine soldiers for their heroism in the fight against insurgency, Duterte made a swift pivot and challenged military officials to oust him during September’s broadcasted tête-à-tête.
“Go to Trillanes and stage a mutiny or revolution or whatever,” he said, likely provoked by criticism surrounding his proclamation to void the amnesty granted to Senator Antonio Trillanes IV. “You are free to do that. As a matter of fact, I am encouraging you to do that so it ends here,” he said.
In response, Trillanes was quick to point out how the President’s statements were expressions of insecurity about his office: “There should be no competition. He’s the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, and I’m a senator,” Trillanes reasoned in an interview with reporters after the tête-à-tête. “I help whenever I can, not only to soldiers, but to everyone—that’s how he should do things too” he said.
Speculations on whether there is truly dissent brewing within the AFP have understandably erupted after these comments. Still, the President’s affinity for the military is no secret. He is often seen with troops from the AFP and once visited 14 military camps in less than a month. This was even exhibited as early as Duterte’s 2016 presidential campaign, when he promised to raise the salaries of soldiers.
Military grievances
That commitment was one he saw through. Despite all this, Duterte’s recent public statements seem to imply that there is dissatisfaction within the AFP. While Duterte has fulfilled his promises of increasing wages for the military, his other policies may be causing grievances for them.
For instance, in contrast to the firm position taken by former president Benigno Aquino III in matters regarding the West Philippine Sea, Duterte’s administration has been criticized for adopting a weak and compliant stance toward China’s presence.
Last May, a Chinese Navy helicopter was reported to have harassed a Philippine Navy boat in a hotly contested area, which Manila claims as Ayungin Shoal. In spite of promises to assert and uphold the Hague ruling against China, the administration only offered muted responses to the altercation, with former foreign secretary Alan Peter Cayetano classifying it as a mere “incident” and Duterte having only expressed “great unease” over the matter during a closed cabinet meeting.
Aside from the territorial dispute with China, critics have slammed the administration for the Marawi crisis, which they say could have been prevented.
In a televised interview last year, former president Fidel V. Ramos said that the Battle of Marawi would not have transpired had the government made proper consultations and consensus with the relevant stakeholders. Responding to this statement, National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon conceded that more could have been done to prevent the siege, but said intelligence can only do so much.
“This is not an excuse. There is no such thing as complete intelligence,” he reasoned. “Otherwise, there would not be big incidents that we know [of] even in big countries.”
However, Singaporean Analyst for Security Affairs Rohan Gunaratna argued that it was not an “intelligence failure”, but rather an “operational” one. “It is a failure of government to act based on sound and timely intelligence,” he said.
Prior to the siege, the Philippine intelligence community received four reports on insurgent build-up in Marawi, the latest of which was published a month before the siege broke out. A conflict that burned a city down to ruins, the Marawi crisis took the lives of over a hundred soldiers last year.
Another source of grievance for the AFP might be the recent move to revoke Trillanes’ amnesty. An overlooked detail in the controversy is the fact that officials comprising present military leadership are actually amnesty grantees themselves.
Current Army Chief Lieutenant General Rolando Bautista and Current Chief of Staff Carlito Galvez Jr. played central roles in the December 1989 coup against former president Corazon Aquino, an attempt that left 99 people dead. Along with other members of the elite First Scout Ranger Regiment of the Army, Bautista and Galvez served years in detention at Fort Bonifacio.
In 1996, former president Fidel V. Ramos released Proclamation No. 723, which granted them amnesty “for the attainment of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace under the rule of law and in accordance with constitutional processes.”
In light of Trillanes’ case, such a history could pose a threat to the stability of military leadership, as its chief officials are also vulnerable to having their amnesty statuses revoked. It is also in this manner that Trillanes’ case becomes a dangerous precedent, one that may well serve to keep future dissent in check.
Lopsided relationship
This is not the first time dissatisfaction with the executive branch has been rumored to exist among AFP ranks.
Last year, the Patriotic and Democratic Movement (PADEM), an opposition group claiming to be composed of men and women from the AFP and the Philippine National Police (PNP), released a statement holding Duterte accountable for atrocities committed under his administration.
PADEM accused Duterte of treating the AFP and PNP as his private armies, allowing Chinese vessels to occupy some parts of the West Philippine Sea, and overlooking top illegal drug lords.
However, the statement barely fazed Duterte and his administration.
At the time, the AFP immediately dismissed the call for Duterte’s ouster as “unconstitutional” and “politically motivated,” and reaffirmed that they “stand by the Constitutionally mandated government and unequivocally support the Commander-in-Chief.”
Despite the multiple assurances of loyalty given by the AFP, Duterte seemed to remain wary and skeptical.
At an oath-taking of new career executive service officers last month, Duterte again spoke of dissent within the armed forces. “There are talks about coup d’état, mutiny; they want to oust me. The irony of it all is I really want to step down,” said Duterte, amidst rumors that a coalition of opposition groups are allegedly recruiting soldiers to oust him.
Evidently, the perceived tension between the Commander-in-Chief and the AFP is in danger of becoming cyclical. The President constantly questions the loyalty of the Philippine Army, regardless of its prompt denial whenever an accusation has been lobbied against them.
In the first place, it is rare for the military to receive direct statements assessing its loyalty. During the coup against her presidency, former president Arroyo simply addressed the military leaders behind the plot as “those conspiring against the country.”
She further addressed the issue by signing General Orders No.5, No.6, and Administrative Order 143. These orders directed the AFP to maintain public peace, order, safety, to suppress lawless violence, as well as to coordinate with the PNP and other security agencies in the implementation of the proclamation of a state of national emergency.
The fact that Duterte’s accusations against the military are visible to the public is also unusual. As Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, President Duterte has the means to communicate with the military without resorting to public statement, as coursing orders through the AFP’s chief of staff is the norm. If Duterte continues to stray from this convention, he risks feeding the opposition’s claims that he is on shaky ground with his own armed forces.
