Protecting the rebels

By Rolo B. Cena
The Gulf Files
Dumaguete Star Informer
05 December 2010

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia – Recently, Pres. Aquino issued Presidential Proclamation No. 75 proposing to grant amnesty to the participants of the three failed coup during the Arroyo years. Briefly, three military uprisings were staged in separate episodes: The 2003 Oakwood Mutiny, 2006 Marine Barracks Standoff, and 2007 Manila Peninsula Siege. The controversial palace pronouncement is still under deliberation within the legislative houses and is expected to harvest a congressional nod shortly before Christmas.

The three aborted military uprisings produced 378 political and military actors each one playing different role under one artistically written screenplay that did not hit the Malacanang box office. For one, the military support of Arroyo was stronger than what these mutineers thought of; her own articles of war were unequalled and psychologically responsive to these unsung political artists’ tactical game plan.

Politically, the move is taking turns and raking in material amount of criticisms to date: For one, the grant undermines the legal process; two, it sends off an invitation for another military adventurism; and three, it upholds their erroneous orientation of being the “protectors of the country.”

What absolutely bothers the public is the act of the President that seems to undermine the legal process. Currently, an appropriate court hears the rebellion charges against these “men in uniform” that will soon promulgate a verdict. The President’s move only shows matter-of-factly the culpability of his administration. Surely, he has the constitutional right to grant amnesty but in a democratic parlance, amnesty, clemency or pardon can be better afforded after a decision has been promulgated by the judicial court. This would purport his statesmanship; it would be reflective of his respect to the judiciary; a proof for due process exercise. From that standpoint, he can endorse his program of amnesty based on petitions from a number of sectors of the society, if there really are.

Former Pres. Corazon Aquino granted Presidential Pardon to all participants of several coup attempts that threatened to overthrow her government. But her power, vested upon her by the people through a revolutionary government, was both executive and legislative. On the other hand, Former President now Pampanga Second District Representative Gloria Arroyo granted Executive Clemency to her predecessor veteran movie actor and EDSA 2 ousted Pres. Joseph Estrada. These two grants were made prior to promulgation of its respective verdict from appropriate judicial courts. Obviously, PP 75 was based on these.

One political analyst claims that the amnesty gives members of the military a signal to stage another adventurism in the future. They would have their philosophical and legal basis to believe that while these are criminally punishable by law, pardon is after all available at the end of the activity. Presumably, we cannot discount the possibility, if not proximate probability, that history will repeat itself. For what would stop those from doing if political discontent becomes the aggravating arm, as in those cases.

The amnesty upholds the academic orientation about the constitutional right these so-called “protectors of the country” steadfastly defend for: that the AFP has the right to determine if there’s cause for uprising. As ordinary citizens, these rebels have all the right provided for in the constitution but do not have the right to determine the cause of military uprising as losing senatorial candidate Danilo Lim claimed. The copy of the constitution he’s based his defense has been amended.

Surprisingly, these people forgot their obligation to protect the country from all forms of danger. They are duty bound to curb uprising and not to initiate it; they caused harm and danger to the government. These armed factionalists should not forget that they live in a democratic nation. Essentially, civilian authority takes supremacy over military rule.

Arguably though, this is the risk of running a democratic state, and this risk is triggered by a corruptible political system; the system that is powered by greed.

For as long as greed reigns over the land, there will be adventurism. For as long as greed controls Imperial Manila’s Palace of the Few, military adventurism will always be initiated by these extreme ideologists. For as along as greed rules and takes superiority over good governance, deviations like these will always surface.

Undoubtedly, these will always be the same plots the icons of military theater will stage; the same gist the icons of political literature will write about; the same twists and turns the icons of political entertainment will produce and brag about. All these are attributed to the same behavioral pattern: adventurism through post-modern commercialism geared towards obtaining a sixty-minute spotlight for personal political advantage like those of Trillanes and Lim.

What a corruptive way to fame and a destructive way to grab the power though!

If Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino can speak from his grave, do you think he would agree with his son?