Civilian supremacy

As expected, politicians are lambasting Armed Forces chief Gen. Generoso Senga for proposing to clip the powers of the Commission on Appointments (CA) over military officers.

In fact the proposal is not Senga’s alone. It is one of several proposed reforms in the National Defense Act that has been drawn up by the defense and military establishments for submission soon to Malacañang and then to Congress. The proposed law seeks to replace Commonwealth Act No. 1, the 70-year-old charter of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

AFP officials explained over the weekend that they wanted CA confirmation of military officers to be limited to the chief of staff and the heads of the major service commands. The proposal is one of several that aims to insulate the AFP from politics.

This will require an amendment of the Constitution, which provides under Section 16, Article 7 that the President "shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain…"

Is the AFP merely engaged in wishful thinking then?

Members of the House of Representatives, many of whom are determined to amend the Constitution, should not dismiss offhand this proposal. And they should study carefully the military reforms proposed in the National Defense Act.

That the AFP brass went public with the proposal to clip the CA’s powers, risking the ire of lawmakers with supersized egos, is but another indication of the military’s frustration with politicians using the AFP as a pawn in endless power plays.

The National Defense Act requires careful appreciation by lawmakers who understand the roles played by institutions in making a democracy strong.

* * *

Appreciation of those proposals cannot be left in the hands of people like Surigao del Sur Rep. Prospero Pichay, currently the CA vice chairman.

How many military officers have told friends, after going through the CA wringer, how much they have come to loathe politics and politicians?

There are lawmakers who think that the principle of civilian supremacy over the military gives civilian officials the license to subject AFP officers to insults and abuse.

There are those who expect the military brass to grovel at the feet of condescending lawmakers. There are politicians who see soldiers as nothing more than cannon fodder, expendable and not worthy of respect.

Last month’s aborted coup gave urgency to military reforms, particularly efforts to insulate the AFP from politics.

AFP and defense officials are doing their part, talking to the troops, discussing the role of the military in a democracy. Soldiers, including idealistic junior officers, can be educated about their proper role in free societies.

Can politicians be educated about the responsible exercise of civilian supremacy over the military?

Not when politicians equate the responsible use of power with emasculation.

* * *

People who have been working quietly for several years now on reforms in the AFP point out that the military institution in a democracy has a civilian component. This includes not just civilian officials in the Department of National Defense but also politicians who wield power or exercise some form of supervision over the AFP.

The toughest part of creating a professional military in this country is reforming that civilian component so that the AFP is not used for partisan politics or personal purposes.

Under the current system, a military officer will think twice before refusing to follow orders from higher-ups or civilian officials to become embroiled in partisan politics. Military officers also know that to get the promotions and assignments they want, they will need to curry favor with political patrons. When a military officer passes CA scrutiny, there are members of the commission who consider it the officer’s debt that must one day be repaid.

Patronage politics has contaminated even the AFP.

* * *

If civilians, from the commander-in-chief to lawmakers to local government executives, cannot reform themselves and exercise restraint in wielding power over the military, the proposed National Defense Act hopes to reduce opportunities for politicizing the AFP.

Patterned after military and diplomatic systems in several Western democracies, the proposed reforms lay down detailed criteria for career advancement in the military.

Officers need not turn to political patrons for promotions and assignments. Aware of the strict criteria, they will know if they are qualified for promotion or for a particular assignment, and understand why someone else might be chosen by a board of senior officers.

The reforms also include detailed proposals that will discourage the revolving-door policy in the selection of the AFP chief and the major service commanders.

For example, an officer cannot get his second star unless he has at least two and a half years left in the service. An officer aiming for a third star needs at least a year and a half. Anyone who fails to get a star in 30 years of service is forcibly retired.

Every officer must train an understudy, who will be in the best position to take over once the officer is promoted or reassigned.

Defense Secretary Avelino Cruz calls this a "succession matrix," which seeks to end the padrino system.

If certain military officers still try to put one over rivals by seeking political patrons for promotions or assignments, he will feel resentment from peers. Cruz said that since last year, this type of peer pressure has affected AFP promotions and assignments in a positive way.

The responsible exercise of civilian supremacy will be on display once Congress scrutinizes the proposed National Defense Act.

If the deliberations degenerate into the usual pettiness that characterizes Philippine politics, there is little hope for creating a professional, apolitical military in the near future.

There is little hope as well if the housecleaning in the AFP does not go hand in hand with housecleaning in all three branches of government.

To a certain extent, we can reform the military. Can we reform our politics? We have to keep trying.

In a democracy, the civilian component must enjoy supremacy over the military because it has earned the soldier’s respect.