If she seeks unity and peace, the President must not approve acts of betrayal

Not wanting to sound melodramatic about it, let me spell it out plainly. I won’t mince words. I suspect her official "negotiators" didn’t tell President Macapagal-Arroyo, after all she’s the commander-in-chief, everything. For if she were told what pledges were made to the mutineers during the four hours of formal negotiation inside the Oakwood Premier luxury hotel, then she would be a party to the betrayal and doublecross now ongoing.

As this writer has already said more than once in earlier columns, including the frontpage "inside story" last July 29, actually written on the evening of Monday, a day after the surrender of the Oakwood "rebels", I hadn’t gone to the Oakwood to join the negotiating team – but ended up, with the President’s own permission, one of the impromptu negotiators. The President has flattered me indeed by twice publicly calling me her Henry Kissinger, and I thank her for this unsolicited praise. In the same breath, let me say I believe – not doubting her sincerity – that several of her underlings are doing her a disservice.

Some of her Cabinet members (led in full cry by Defense Secretary Angelo T. Reyes – whose removal, after all, the putschists had demanded, so he’s definitely not impartial) are calling, literally, for blood. Interior and Local Government Secretary Jose Lina who sounds even more bloodthirsty – strangely enough – has filed cases against the mutineers in the Regional Trial Court.

This was not the deal.

I wonder why Ambassador (retired Armed Forces Chief of Staff) Roy A. Cimatu hasn’t corrected this, since he, after all, was head of the Palace’s authorized negotiating panel. The other officers and government officials in the panel haven’t raised a peep about it, either perhaps because they’re still serving in the government while, those in uniform, remain under the discipline and chain of command of the military – in which, by the way, Reyes retains a major hold.

It’s possible Lina is extremely enthusiastic about strenuously prosecuting the surrendered 296 officers and men, plus two dozen others (some 321 have been charged), because it takes the heat off him regarding the disgraceful pseudo-escape from the custody of his policemen of Jemaah Islamiyah terrorist Fathur Rohman al-Ghozi and two Abu Sayyaf terrorists.

Does anybody remember in the heat of today’s events that as DILG Secretary Joey Lina has the police under his department, and, moreover, was already shaky in his present Cabinet position? Now that the Cabinet has been placed on "war footing" by virtue of President GMA’s "state of rebellion", Lina has become the most zealous and vociferous rebel-catcher.

* * *

Hints are even being made that at least five lawmakers are now under surveillance as suspected supporters or even the main plotters behind the Sunday kudeta attempt – two senators and three members of the House of Representatives – and had been proposed by the conspirators to form the ruling junta if GMA were deposed.

Sanamagan. This reminds us of The Terror launched after the triumph of the French Revolution of July 14 (the fourteenth Thermidor), 1789, which began with the storming of the Bastille – which comically enough yielded only seven prisoners – and the more important seizure by another mob of 8,000 "citizens" of the Hotel des Invalides (not an Oakwood-type hotel but a military bastion) in which the revolutionaries were able to arm themselves with 32,000 captured muskets, gunpowder, and seven pieces of artillery. King Louis XVI, uninformed of these momentous events, had returned to his Palace at Versailles after a day of hunting. The Duc de la Rochefoucauld-Liancourt, arriving from Paris, told him about the assault on the Bastille.

"Why," the King exclaimed, "this is a revolt!"

"No, Sire," replied the Duke, "it is a Revolution!"

The King along with his Queen, Marie Antoinette, as everybody recalls, eventually lost his head to the Guillotine – plus tens of thousands of nobles, aristocrats, common citizens (the latter maliciously accused), and eventually, the leaders of the Revolution itself, including Maximilien de Robespierre, one of the firebrands whose words and leadership had ignited it. This was the denouement of the cruel and vicious aftermath of the Revolution which saw the heads of the nobility lopped off and exhibited on pikes, and is still known to history as "The Terror". During The Terror, even the most innocent could be denounced by any members of the citizens’ committees or cockade-wearing revolutionary committees which sprouted everywhere. After a drumhead trial or kangaroo court proceeding, those hapless accused were brought on tumbrils to the Guillotines which were set up almost everywhere, with the central and most important one established in the beautiful square now admired by tourists as the Place de la Concorde.

I trust this is not the kind of "Concord" GMA‘s pursuivants are cooking – by terrifying everyone during the "state of rebellion." People are subliminally being bullied into agreeing to what’s going on, lest they be accused themselves.

* * *

What bothers me is that the mutineers or "rebels", whatever label may be tagged on them, are being doublecrossed. Nobody intends to glorify them as heroes, or justify their deed, certainly not this writer. But since I was in there with the negotiating group (as Ambassador Cimatu himself explained when he testified in Congress), I’ll have to speak out about what was agreed.

Our main aim, and I’m sure everyone on the government "side" will bear this out, was to listen to the mutineers’ complaints, then convince them to surrender without a fight. A great many commentators, from opinion writers to politicians and business leaders, are now saying – I’m not surprised since that is what often happens when danger has passed – that there should have been a fight: That the putschists or mutineers should have been crushed, wiped out even. Some are even piping up to chortle that the government was "weak" to have allowed the military mutineers to surrender. Others are sneering at the surrendered rebels as "wimps" for not having carried out their avowed aim to die fighting for their ideals – if only to send the country their message about the urgent need for reform.

Susmariosep. Instead of being grateful to God (and, if this doesn’t sound like sucking up to her, the patience of GMA), some buckaroos seem to be noisily disappointed. This same bunch will be even more disappointed, they’re now proclaiming, if those captured rebels are not sent to the Guillotine, or its local equivalent.

Sure, the President and the government must be "hard" on them, or "tough" with them. They must be punished for what they did. But we must not forget that they surrendered without bloodshed, without blowing up the Oakwood, the Glorietta, possibly even Rustan’s , Shoemart, and the next-door Inter-Continental Hotel.

Can you imagine what a government "victory" by force of arms would have looked like, not just on current worldwide television, but for the next two or three years? I’m referring to the probability that, aside from the dead and wounded on both sides, the population and foreign visitors, if there still were any, would be viewing the "ruins" of the Oakwood, the Glorietta shopping mall, the Inter-Con, etc., for at least two years – unless there were some way, Imeldific-style, of reconstructing those edifices super-fast, without the roof caving in as it did during the rush to erect the ill-starred Film Center building during the Marcos hegemony.

Would we have preferred that? The term pyrrhic victory is, admittedly, over-used – but it comes to mind.

The crux of the matter is that, when the final resolution was made of the negotiations, former General Cimatu had promised the encircled rebels "a return to the barracks" formula, with the mutineers finally surrendering their arms upon arrival, under military guard, at Fort Bonifacio. The mutineers surrendered on the condition – and this the government panel agreed to announce to the media and the public – that they do so under the Articles of War. It was, in fact, Cimatu and the admirals and other officers present who had vocalized the phrase, "the Articles of War," as an honorable means of surrender.

I remember thinking to myself: Do these young officers realize what those Articles of War could entail? I presumed they were not stupid, since one had been a PMA topnotcher, another a class president, and many of the rest were seasoned officers and soldiers with years of combat in the field, and several combat medals and decorations. (No, they weren’t armchair types, not even the most vocal of them, Navy Lieutenant Senior Grade Antonio Trillanes IV, whose academic record included graduate studies – with only five units lacking – for a master’s degree in public administration from the UP). Those Articles mean Court Martial, possibly years of imprisonment, and, in the extreme, "death by musketry" (firing squad).

This is what was agreed.

* * *

The Opinion Page editor mistakenly took out the "s" following my written "leaders", referring to the "Oakwood Five" thus creating the misimpression that Trillanes was the leader of the group. I repeat: He was one of the five leaders, or ringleaders if you prefer the pejorative word.

Most of the talking was, of course, done by Trillanes and Scout Ranger Captain Milo Maestrecampo (who was the most fiery of them all), and, though he did not say too much, Scout Ranger Captain Gerardo Gambala, whom I’ve already pointed out was the topnotcher of the PMA "Marilag" Class of 1995, the core group of the mutineers’ leadership.

The other two, Marine Capt. Garry Alejano and Navy Lt. Senior Grade James Layug (a weapons-and-demolition expert as an elite member of SWAG, the Special Warfare Group or Navy Seals) said almost nothing, except for a few sentences.

I also noticed they addressed each other as Bok, their fraternal greeting, used even by GMA’s military aide, their classmate, Captain Chris Magdangal, who was one of their peers and friends who went into the Oakwood earlier for vital back-channelling negotiations.

I repeat: Being charged by Lina and the Department of Justice in civilian court was rejected by the mutineers. They surrendered themselves to military justice, under the "Articles of War" — in sum, court martial. Whether this will turn out harsher in the end or not is not the case in point.

Military justice is what they were unanimously pledged by the government panelists – not prosecution in the regular justice system. Otherwise, they might not have surrendered. And you know the consequences of a firefight and the detonation of the explosives they had planted all over the place.

Was anything written down? A surrender agreement? Of course not. But we must consider that an individual’s "word of honor" is supposed to be as binding as a piece of paper. Palabra de honor was what was invoked in the end. General Cimatu pledged himself as an officer and a gentleman, and so did the rest of the government panel. Perhaps I wasn’t a gentleman, but I also pledged this to them.

Are rebels, putschists, or mutineers "scum", not worthy of being given such pledges? Nonsense. Word of honor binds those who give them, not the accused or the imprisoned. Cimatu and the government officers and officials involved should honor this deal.

No wonder the imprisoned officers and men are saying they feel "betrayed" and "doublecrossed". A number of them contacted me by smuggled cellphone or other means of communication.

Why is it so important for the President, and her government, to honor this commitment? Because if it is not upheld, who knows, what real trouble will be provoked among the far bigger numbers of men "outside" who did not participate in the so-called coup or mutiny? I kid thee not, they are there, waiting to see whether "reforms" are really instituted, and whether heads "upstairs" will roll. (They’re not going to roll – quite clearly – since the President has firmly backed up Reyes and PNP Director General Jun Ebdane, while the other object of their ire, Brig. Gen. Victor Corpus, left voluntarily – possibly the smartest, if not sneakiest, escape of all.)

The Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief must at least show sincerity by charging these men under what was stipulated in the final agreement, the Articles of War. What about Lina’s filing of cases? Perhaps this would even fall under "double jeopardy", not just a doublecross.

I repeat: The Oakwood Five leaders asked for leniency for their men, and even full reinstatement for their followers "without hitches". This was not conceded in the final public announcement. But the deal on the "Articles of War" was clearly and unequivocally announced to the media, and the general public.

Even if only to stave off a future, bigger "coup", this is what must be adhered to religiously and firmly by the GMA government, although GMA herself is furious with those "rogues" who mutinied and had demanded she "step down". (They precipitately withdrew that demand later, even if it can be said, they realized all was lost.)

The military is out there, watching. Are we indignant that the military is so politicized? It’s too late for tears. The truth is that the military was politicized by Marcos. (As Ninoy Aquino said when we were prisoners in the Fort Bonifacio stockade, "There’s no way the toothpaste can be squeezed back into the tube".) We’ll have to live for this generation with that stark reality.

Can a President’s pledges be believed? I remember the one made by the late Apo Ferdinand Marcos. He went on nationwide television, just weeks before the event, to say: "I have no intention of declaring martial law at this time!" His exact words. (Like a lawyer he had left "at this time" hanging.)

I know because he uttered them to our "Meet the Press" panel, on Television Channel 5, in which I was a panelist since Channel 5 was the sister channel of our newspaper then, The Manila Times, and I also represented the National Press Club.

On the same show, on national TV, he even promised to bestow on me (another act of flattery), the Legion of Honor. A few weeks afterwards, he did bestow on me the honor of being arrested in the first hours of martial law.

I’m sure that sort of history won’t repeat itself with GMA – or will it?

Allow me to conclude with the following reminder. As I’ve already written, the young officers who went into the Oakwood hours before the arrival of the "official" government panel of seniors, were instrumental in "softening" up their rebel classmates and peers, and perhaps even were the ones who convinced them to give up.

Since the President, in her MOPC speech last Thursday, already cited one her aides, Captain Magdangal, as having been one of the "back-channelists" who entered the Oakwood to entreat his PMA batchmates to surrender, I think we ought to mention some of the others. They were so modest, they had requested me not to identify them – but I think I must.

There were Scout Ranger Captain Dennis Eclarin (whom I identified a few days previously to his personal embarrassment, since he’s a low-key professional soldier), Major Teodoro A. Llamas, Major Antonio A. Nafarette, Major Corleto Vinluan, Major Ariel Felicidario, Captain Freddie dela Cruz, Captain James C. Sababan, Captain Tex Suderio, Captain Philip Alvarez, and Captain Jake Obligado. There were others, but these were the men I saw "in action" in dialogue with the mutineers.