“Oh no! No, Madame…”
Gen. Hermogenes Esperon,
in his reaction when he was overwhelmed
by emotion upon hearing GMA’s decision
not to run for elections in 2004

As counsel for Maj. Jason Aquino, Lt. Col. Achilles Segumalian and Gen. Renato Miranda, I must appear at their court martial for the charge of mutiny, held every two weeks, in Daza Park, Camp Emilio Aguinaldo. On trial with my clients are 25 other Scout Rangers and Marines accused of participation in an alleged withdrawal of support in February 2006. Among the accused are Victorina’s candidate of choice, Gen. Danny Lim as well as the controversial Col. Ariel Querubin Philippine Navy, Marines. Medal of Valor awardee Col. Custodio Parcon of the Philippine Marines, is likewise among those who are accused.

As one can readily see, this is no ordinary group of accused.


Many are recognized for their bravery and uprightness and have the Gold Crosses and Medals of Merit to prove it. Yet their trial has been on going for three years and witness after witness for the prosecution has repeated the mantra or slyly or grudgingly admitted that there was no mutiny.

The Constitution says that the military is the protector of the people and the State. Since the State is composed of people, territory and sovereignty, the reiteration of the term “people” means that when the State itself acts against the people, the military is legally obligated to protect them.


The provision finds basis in the EDSA I uprising which began with a coup, that is, an attempted coup led by now still Senator Enrile and the man later recognized to be one of our more effective Presidents, Fidel Ramos. To this date, it is said that Cory Aquino’s resentment at Enrile and her contempt for his request for her yellow army to intercede when they were trapped in Camp Aguinaldo, nearly changed the course of history. Enrile, after all, was not only the architect of martial law, a period which saw hundreds of dissidents jailed or summarily disappeared, but also the Defense Minister who oversaw the military tribunals that held, tried and/or convicted even civilians such as Ninoy Aquino and Victorina contributor Mila Aguilar.

Since EDSA 1, therefore, the people have either looked for or expected military intervention. At the recent major rallies held in Makati in February 29 and December 12, 2008 the futile waiting allegedly “for the Marines to move,” led a frustrated crowd to disperse.

















This brings us to the seeming ambivalence by which we view the military’s role in Philippine society. Many subscribe to the view that in keeping with discipline, the military must be apolitical, as it is in any developed country – though there are cracks in the US. There, one officer refused to be deployed to Iraq citing that the US’ invasion was morally wrong and against his beliefs. That is they are against his political beliefs. The court martial ended in a mistrial, and the officer was reinstated in the service.

















There are others who look at the military as the country’s knight in shining armor, whose role is to save us from desperate villains like dictators, aging actors playing President and four foot nine economists. Still others are jaded. They speak with forked tongues saying that the military must be apolitical, but at the same time seek to use the services of shady officers willing to intervene in the election processes in exchange for promotions to, lets say, Chief of Staff or some such position, like negotiator for the MOA-AD. Others, like former superintendents of the Philippine Military Academy say that military interventions are wrong, however, the Constitution must first be amended to remove the protector clause in order to stop those who use it as a basis for any movement.

Even Senator Biazon has weighed in, in light of the controversies surrounding the proposal to amend the Constitution saying that Congress’ move will cause soldiers to take to the streets.

Clearly, the debates are still viewed within the historical lights of EDSA I, whose legacy is imprinted in the 1987 Constitution. The AFP is the protector of the people and the State. Like it or not, it may provide legal basis for military intervention and it is embodied in the highest law of the land.

















Meanwhile, at the hearing yesterday, 05 June 2006, my clients sat through trial stoically. Their actions – or in Jason Aquino’s case, non-actions – on February 2006 have been parsed, held under a microscope, subjected to endless scrutiny, shaken and stirred. Nope, no mutiny there and certainly no coup d’etat. But for political reasons, they must be detained. They did not take to the streets. They did not raise arms. They allegedly talked about protecting the rallyists who were gathering in the streets, moving in from provinces and cities alike. But they must be detained because these are principled officers. Who knows what they are capable of? Esperon, in the meantime was promoted to his level of incompetence -- MOA-AD, anyone?

And still the debate rages on.

by: Trixie Angeles