By Adolfo Quizon Paglinawan

 

Part 7: Is it worth saving an incompetent and corrupt President?   

Armed Forces Chief of Staff Romeo Brawner Jr. disowns his own megaphones’ gobbledygook.

In his October 22 column at the Philippines Daily Inquirer, Brawner wrote “Another wave of disinformation is making the rounds online — this time claiming that President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. has “threatened to remove the AFP pension” of retirees. Many have shared it out of concern or confusion, and that is understandable.”

Wait a minute.

It was his spokesperson Col. Francel Margareth Padilla who started the ball rolling. She announced in a news forum last October 18 that the AFP is reviewing the military pension system and the possibility of trying retirees under court martial amid reports that some retired officers had called on the military to withdraw its support from President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

When I first heard what Padilla said, it hit me that the military is peddling the false narrative that withdrawal of support is inciting to sedition, especially because after begging the question, Padilla ventures on a stupid escape route, “If the legal channel determines that this is so, then we will follow.”

That proved that the logic did not emanate from the Judge Advocate General’s office but some political minds twiddling the “destabilization”discourse. We have a military that professes to be professional, and yet it acts on the basis of mere hypothesis.

Another dumb officer joined the discussion. Exposing his pea brain, Philippine Navy Rear Admiral Roy Vincent Trinidad said in the vernacular “When you receive a pension from the government, it follows that you must be responsible for what you receive, so this is included in the study of AFP legal officers.”

While it is true that retired military personnel are subject to court martial, their benefits are protected by the due process clause. The Supreme Court has affirmed that retirement benefits are a protected property interest, or “earned right” citing cases like GSIS v De Leon (G.R. No. 186560) and GSIS v Saunar (G.R. No. 186502). In these rulings, while they are not an absolute privilege, they are not subject to arbitrary removal by government whims or mere allegations.

“Ang problema ngayon, pati mga retired, pilit binabago ang katotohanan. Hahaluhan ng mali, fake news para guluhin ang kaisipan ng kasundaluhan. Kung ang problema ay corruption, ang sagot doon ay higpitan ang project management, hindi umaklas ang militar,” he added. (The problem now is even with retirees, they are trying to change the truth. They will spread falsehoods and fake news to confuse the minds of the military. If the problem is corruption, the answer to that is to tighten project management, not to revolt against the military.)

Trinidad has even gone to town with this broken reasoning. Three days after, on October 21, he accused the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) of orchestrating a disinformation campaign or malign influence operation aimed at agitating retired military and uniformed personnel (MUP) amid discussions on the possible suspension of pensions for those found spreading false or seditious information against the government.

Brawner intervenes

Which brings us to why AFP Chief of Staff Romeo Brawner Jr. issued a disclaimer the following day, in that President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. did not issue a policy or directive suggesting the removal of military retirement benefits, dismissing such to be baseless, malicious and intended to mislead, despite talk of destabilization allegedly coming from their ranks. But this was only after Padilla and Trinidad’s narrative started going south as it had stirred a hornet’s nest in social media.

Atty. Raul Lambino, chairman of the Association of Philippine-China Understanding, dismissed allegations linking China to any effort to influence or destabilize the Philippines, saying that retired officers would not easily be swayed by foreign powers.

Coming to the defense our uniformed personnel against being pictured by two high-ranking military officers as unthinking robots, he said “Do not belittle the intelligence of our retired military, police officers, and enlisted personnel. They are very bright people, among the most highly educated, trained, and disciplined individuals. They would not easily be influenced by any foreign power, especially since they have dedicated their lives, blood, and even the welfare of their families in service to the nation for many years.”

“It doesn’t make sense. Honestly, this is just another round of anti-China propaganda,” Lambino added.

Asked about the pension angle, he dealt with it from a lawyer’s expert opinion, “It is unconstitutional to threaten to withhold the pensions of retired military and police personnel over their political views or public statements. These pensions are contributions made over the years while they were in service. (Pera nila ‘yan.) These are already their property, and the Constitution guarantees the right to property. You cannot just deprive them of that without due process of law.”

I was in the press conference where Lambino spoke.

I could not help but share with the press why Trinidad has been red-tagging personalities, especially after PCG Commodore Jay Tarriela and he travelled to Taipei last July 2 to meet and join a “thumbs-up” training on security and geopolitics including discussions on countering Chinese hybrid warfare strategies, with Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te,

In strongly worded letters which have not been previously reported, the Philippine Foreign Secretary Theresa P. Lazaro said the two traveling officials had not acted prudently.

Lazaro has confirmed the damage dealt to our good standing with China saying, “These actions cause severe diplomatic complications that could derail current efforts, under the guidance of the President, to stabilize our bilateral relations with China.”

The letter dated July 4, were sent to the heads of the Department of National Defense and the Philippine Coast guard, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, proof-positive that their travel was not cleared and coordinated with the DFA.

AFP knows more about corruption than the public

As military officers, I am sure someone higher ordered Trinidad and Padilla to float “the pension and sedition narrative” to put off fires that have already rapidly spread among the AFP rank and file. Afterall. It is but reasonable for enlisted men to look forward to their retirement benefits after years of service and offering one’s life, family and safety to the country.

What is so fake about the news about unprecedented corruption that has stalled the Marcos administration? It was the president who has provided gruesome details after his July State of the Nation Address, on how the executive and the legislative branches have conspired under his watch with private contractors to defraud trillions in infrastructure funds.

Brawner himself has confirmed that the AFP has been tasked to inspect 16,000 flood-control projects, and provided with the coordinates to check if they were physically existing. He qualified that military’s role is limited to verifying physical existence, not the quality of construction, and that the AFP has indeed uncovered dozens of “ghost” projects where the project was listed but did not physically exist.

So how can you keep the real story about corruption from enlisted men when the military has occupied the front seat in its verification? In fact, today as we speak, the military knows more details about how corruption presents a clear and present danger to our people and the State, than the general public and the AFP spokepersons?

Trinidad is naïve in saying tightening project management solve endemic graft and corruption? And he was using his rear, when he accused retired military officers were not calling for a revolt.

Withdrawal of support is not illegal

I first saw with my own eyes how the AFP withdrew support  from the sitting president when on February 25, 1986, I was among the first to rush to Malacanang, and see the Philippine marines orderly marching out of the premises as thousands of people entered the palace grounds when they heard that the Americans were evacuating the first family to safe ground, which turned out to be Clark Air Base.

Flying from Washington DC, I went straight to from NAIA to the EDSA to join about 20,000 fellow members of Couples for Christ who were first to show up at the People Power shrine on January 17, 2001. Three days after, the duly elected vice president was sworn to office as the new president.

Under our Constitution, a president can be removed from office through the impeachment process, which involves an impeachment complaint filed in the House of Representatives, followed by a trial in the Senate. The president can also be removed due to death, permanent disability, or resignation.

Actually, if his alleged addiction to cocaine were true, that would constitute permanent disability, but that is not my topic here today.

On January 19, 2001, Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief of Staff Angelo Reyes, seeing the political upheaval throughout the country, decided to “withdraw his support” of President Joseph Estrada, allowing the reign of government to “constitutionally” transfer to the duly-elected vice president, which at that time was Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

Reyes and the military did not seize political power. He stressed that the military should remember that the uprising against Estrada was the “unmistakable, very clear voice of the people,” adding that the troops should always rally behind the people.

The popular and bloodless uprising marked by massive street protests in Metro Manila and major cities nationwide was triggered by the collapse of an impeachment trial against Estrada, who was accused of bribery, graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution.

Reyes said he received reports that certain military groups were preparing to “act up,” while communist guerrillas were also headed for the metropolis for an unspecified purpose. Marine commandant Lt. Gen. Edgardo Espinosa confirmed that he was ready to mobilize some 300 soldiers armed with six tanks, a helicopter gunship and a fighter jet, but the plan was preempted by Reyes’ decision to withdraw support from Estrada.

Let us be precise here – Reyes did not remove Estrada by coup d’etat, but his withdrawal of support pushed the former president into what the Supreme Court later on termed as “constructive resignation”.

This jurisprudence is carved in stone in our history. A revolt or a coup led to a regime change of 1986, a withdrawal of support led to a constitutional succession in 2001.

Jurisprudence

In layman’s tongue, constructive resignation happens when an employee resigns because his employer has created such an intolerable, hostile, or unreasonable work environment that he feels he has  no choice but to leave. It doesn’t have to be truly voluntary choice.

The propelling action in case of a constructive resignation by President Estrada was people power – an explicit exercise by the people of their absolute sovereignty, enshrined in Article II, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution that states “Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them”.

Are you reading this Brawner, Trinidad and Padilla?

This means the power of the government is derived directly from the people, not the president because the president only enjoys derivative sovereignty, delegated by the people through an election. As absolute sovereign, the people has inherent recall power over all those it delegates authority to.

The legal basis supporting withdrawal of support is cast in stone in Supreme Court case Estrada vs Desierto which was decided on April 03, 2001 and recorded as G.R. Nos. 146710-15.

The highlights of the ruling were:

Due process: The Court rejected the argument that Estrada was denied due process, stating that he failed to prove actual prejudice from his claim of trial by publicity.

Admissibility of evidence: The Court ruled that the Angara diary was not hearsay, as it contained statements made by Estrada and was part of the case’s pleadings. It also held that newspaper accounts reflected well-established facts within judicial notice.

Resignation: The Court found that Estrada had resigned, noting that the validity of a resignation depends on the intent to resign and acts of relinquishment, not necessarily a formal written document. Evidence, such as his statements and actions that indicated a “dignified exit,” supported this conclusion.

Presidential immunity: The Court denied Estrada’s claim of immunity, as the immunity only applied during his term and did not cover post-presidency criminal prosecution. The Court also dismissed Estrada’s petitions to prohibit the Ombudsman’s investigation into corruption charges, finding that he was not immune from prosecution after leaving office.

Impeachment: The Court further determined that the impeachment proceedings were terminated by his resignation, negating his claim of double jeopardy.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court weighed people power as inducing a withdrawal of support leading to a constructive resignation as continuing action. While the Supreme Court’s ruling focused on the legal consequences of Estrada’s resignation, rather than a direct judgment on the legality of the military’s actions in withdrawing their support, the withdrawal of support was a key factor in the factual circumstances that led the court to conclude Estrada had resigned.

Suffice it to say that nowhere in the pleadings of Estrada was it alleged or in any of the court decision was it ruled, that the Reyes-led withdrawal of support was unconstitutional or extraconstitutional, illegal or seditious.

The trouble with Brawner, Padilla and Trinida is that they rationalizes  on within the narrow parochial confines of the AFP Code of Conduct and not with wisdom of the Philippine Constitution.#

To be continued.

   

Email: contact@asiancenturyph.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/asiancenturyph/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AsianCenturyPH

Substack:

Also read: