The recent removal of Vice President Sara Duterte and former presidents of the Philippines from the National Security Council (NSC) by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has sparked significant discussion and intrigue across the country. Some agree with the decision, some partially agree, and others vehemently oppose it.
Currently, there are three former presidents still active in the political scene and who were previously members of the NSC, considering their experience as former commanders-in-chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines: former presidents Erap Estrada, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, and Rodrigo Duterte.
In fairness to President Marcos Jr., he holds broad authority to form his Cabinet and appoint individuals to key advisory positions, including the NSC. The NSC is a government body that advises the president on matters of national security, both internal and external. It is well within his prerogative to ensure that his national security team is composed of individuals who share his views.
Marcos may have felt that former President Duterte’s foreign policy did not align with his own. Additionally, threats against him, his wife Liza, and his cousin, Speaker Martin Romualdez, may have led him to distrust the Dutertes and feel uncomfortable with their continued presence in the council.
So, removing the Dutertes from the NSC for lack of trust and confidence is within the prerogative of PBBM. However, people cannot be blamed for asking the following inevitable questions: Is the decision really in the country’s best interest? Or is it only about his security? Is it purely political? If he does not trust the Dutertes, why drop the other two former presidents? Could it be that he is planning to declare martial law, as the pattern seems similar to what his father, Marcos Sr., did in 1972?
The history of NSC, dating back to the 1950’s during the presidency of Elpidio Quirino, includes the vice president as part of the NSC. It goes without saying that the second-highest official of the land should be privy to the matters of national security so that, in the event something happens to the president, the vice president can take over without creating a leadership vacuum especially in times of crises.
When former presidents are on board in the NSC, it is also very logical, as they are knowledgeable and well-experienced, having served as commanders-in-chief of the armed forces. They are credible enough to offer valuable advice to the incumbent president.
National security matters should be thoroughly discussed by independent-minded people within the council before the president makes any decisions that could affect the security of the country and its people. It is better to have diverse views in the council to ensure all angles are considered before any decisions are made.
For example, in decisions about going to war, it would be much better if the issue were discussed thoroughly. It would be beneficial to have council members who can play the devil’s advocate to ensure the safest decision for the country and its people.
It would not be desirable if all members of the council simply agreed with the president’s plans without being able to question them. What if the council members create a fabricated scenario to justify declaring martial law? What if Marcos Jr. follows his father’s steps in 1972? Was it true that Marcos Sr. purposely removed his vice president, Fernando Lopez, from the NSC and then shortly afterward declared martial law?
Without Vice President Duterte and the former presidents in the NSC, who among the council members will be able to stop Marcos Jr. if he decides to pursue such plans?