The citizenry cannot be blamed if their initial reaction to this finding is, "Hello! Where have you guys been?" The members of the Lopez Panel are probably the last people in the country who’ve figured out that the leaders of last February’s non-starter were the same incorrigible and unrepentant putschists who’ve never abandoned their conviction that the government cannot be run by ignorant and corrupt trapos.
Not that their demands are totally without justification. Nor is their impatience unwarranted. In the Magdalo affair, the Feliciano Commission, while condemning the methods of the rebels, came up with damning conclusions about historical and deep-seated institutional corruption within the AFP. Remember the Commission’s findings on "conversion," the RSBS debacle, housing irregularities at Fort Bonifacio, serious shortcomings in combat equipment and field hospitals, and other anomalies?
Still, the consensus is that while the AFP leadership can be faulted for belittling these hardly new accusations, and for endless procrastination in effectively addressing them, coups d’etat cannot be the final solution to anything. The insight is fundamentally sound that this nation cannot be condemned to a perennial cycle of coups and counter-coups mounted by successive groups of young or allegedly idealistic officers who might think they have better ideas of how to run government.
Besides, the military probably knows by now that people simply cannot accept that a collective leadership or "junta’ will be merely a temporary and transitional government which will eventually give way to a democratically-elected civilian leadership. Forcing that notion down the throats of the populace will cause civil war to come crashing down upon this already troubled nation.
I do see one positive though in the otherwise unremarkable Lopez Report. I hope it finally wakes up our country’s political leadership to the futility, indeed the danger, of putting too much credence on coup leaders and participants who "recant" and supposedly turn against their comrades. If recent history has taught us anything, it is that traitors to the cause are to be trusted even less than those who remain firm and unmoved.
We should remember instead those lessons about taking one step backward, and two forward. Nor should we forget the purported advantage of strategic retreat, and of looking ahead to another day when the battle can be resumed under hopefully more favorable conditions. To true believers, setbacks are merely temporary inconveniences which must be tolerated, until complete victory is achieved.
True believers have an almost messianic commitment not only to the righteousness of their quest but also to the certainty of eventual victory. That conviction gives them the courage to withstand whatever defeats and physical trials they are forced to undergo. Dreams, it has been said, never die.
That too is what gives them the will and the power to survive and to persist, unlike careerist military leaders whose only dreams are of cushy retirement. Many of these careerists know the virtues of not rocking the boat, or upsetting the apple cart for "the boys" that will follow them in their lofty positions.
Those in the civilian and military leadership who have a longer view of the future would be well-advised to take eloquent words of contrition and re-enlightenment from those whom they have fought, and defeated, with an uncommonly large grain of salt. Words are cheap, but if words keep one in the playing field, hey, why not?
Specifically, I know how strongly military comrades yearn to welcome prodigal sons back to the folds of the corps. But does it really make sense to return them to sensitive positions of command, only to wonder later why these positions develop into their bases of tangible power?
In more cases than not, these "returnees" are more charismatic and, yes, let’s say it, more able leaders with proven performance in the battlefield. Given these qualities, do we really expect them to abandon deeply-held beliefs about the political role of the military so easily, and so soon? That, manifestly, would be wishful thinking of historically irresponsible proportions.
In the same broad category of not being too naïve about human motivations, I also marvel at the reported admission of Novaliches Bishop Antonio Tobias that he gave refuge and sanctuary to then fugitive Magdalo leader, First Lieutenant Lawrence San Juan.
I know all about the bishop’s "personal decision" to give aid and comfort to one whose only recourse might have been to go over to communist insurgents. But considering that Tobias had apparently sheltered San Juan for at least several weeks, the prelate’s action is susceptible to the interpretation that he was in sympathy with the escaped officer.
That is, of course, a most risky proposition. I do not know if Bishop Tobias’ giving aid to a fugitive from justice, as well as the "respect" Catholic Bishops of the Philippines president, Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, has shown for that "personal decision" of Tobias means that, from the point of view of the Catholic Church, Christian charity knows no bounds, not even legal bounds. This I truly doubt.
While both Tobias and Lagdameo are avowed critics of the incumbent President, their opinions can obviously not serve as bases for violating criminal laws. But whether any cleric has crossed the line is a decision Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales has to make after he determines the specific facts. In the circumstances, his is an unenviable burden.