|
|
||
Home | From the Soldiers | The Struggle for Change | Withdrawal of Support | The Armed Forces | The Nation | Issues and Concerns -------------------------------------------------- From the People | Soldiers of the People | About Us | Links --------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
================= Preventing Military Interventions ================= ================= ================= Civilian-Military Alliance for Reforms in Society ================= ================= ================= ================= ================= The Cavaliers, the PMA Alumni Association ================= ================= Young Officers Union of the New Generation (YOUNG) ================= ================= Rene Jarque . USMA West Point Class 1986 ================= Rene Jarque . USMA West Point Class 1986 ================= Message To The Filipino People Armed Forces of the Philippines ================= The Last RevolutionTowards A New Philippine Order================= Sen. & Lt. Col. Gregorio Honasan ================= Corruption in the Philippine Navy Procurement System ================= A Study of Corruption in the Philippine Navy ================= |
Preventing Military Interventions A Policy Issue Paper
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
The occupation of Oakwood Hotel by protesting junior officers and men last July 27, 2003 placed the issue of military interventions at the forefront of public policy analysis specifically, how best to prevent them from recurring. This policy issue paper reviews the present policies adopted by the Arroyo Administration to prevent military interventions, and assesses whether these should be pursued or not.
THE PROBLEM: MILITARY INTERVENTION
Military intervention is an act made by active members of the AFP, outside the conventions of the chain of command, with the intent of disrupting the political status quo, in the pursuit of their political cause.
Military interventions, not to mention its sometimes-bloody consequences, have debilitating effects on our economic and political stability. Given our present precarious social-economic-political state - we cannot afford another military intervention.
There were common/significant causes extracted from the nine major military interventions our country has so far experienced. These causes are categorized into two, internal and external. Internal causes are those attributable to or directly affecting the military organization; while, external causes are those attributable to factors external to the military. The internal causes were: (1) corruption in the AFP; (2) inept AFP leadership; (3) political patronage in promotions; (4) lack of logistical support for men in the field; (5) low pay; and (6) poor medical/health services. While the external causes were: (1) corruption in government; (2) incompetent leaders in the administration; (3) failure of the administration to deliver basic services; (4) widespread poverty; (5) state-sponsored terrorism; and (6) electoral fraud by the administration.
ASSESSMENT OF PRESENT EFFORTS TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM
The present policies being adopted by the Arroyo Administration to prevent military interventions are the recommendations made by the Feliciano Fact-Finding Commission (FFFC). Based on the evaluation using the criterion of political viability, most of the present policies were assessed to be unresponsive to the underlying causes of the Oakwood Incident and therefore, will not prevent future military interventions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Continue with the implementation of the following FFFC recommendations, which were found to be responsive or useful:
A. Creation of a cabinet-level agency (e.g. The Presidential Adviser on Military Affairs) directly under the Office of the President. It should have oversight powers and clear inter-department relationships with all concerned to prevent over-lapping of functions. This office will also conduct the appropriate policy researches to further flesh out the more complicated problems enumerated below as well as other internal causes not raised by this paper.
B. The propositions regarding the RSBS, Procurement System, AFP Modernization, AFP Medical Services, and AFP Housing.
2. Review the other FFFC recommendations as to their responsiveness to the causes of military interventions.
3. Conduct policy researches on the following:
A. Eradication of corruption in the AFP. B. Rehabilitation of RSBS. C. Strict application of meritocracy in the AFP promotions system. D. Uplifting of the standard of living of the AFP personnel through:
1) Salary increase or non-monetary benefits such as, tax reductions/exemptions, reduction of RSBS contributions, rice subsidy, C-130 flights or ship passes for soldiers going on R & R, etc. 2) Improvement of medical and health services. 3) Mass housing.
E. Streamlining of the AFP bureaucracy.
4. Practice good governance to address the external causes of military intervention.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AdMU - Ateneo de Manila University AFP - Armed Forces of the Philippines AO - Administrative Order C-in-C - Commander-in-Chief CMF - centrally-managed funds CPP - Communist Party of the Philippines CSAFP - Chief of Staff Armed Forces of the Philippines DND - Department of National Defense DOJ - Department of Justice EDSA - Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue FFFC - Feliciano Fact-Finding Commission GCFI - Guardian Center Foundation Inc. GHQ - General Headquarters HQ - headquarters ISAFP - Intelligence Service Armed Forces of the Philippines JUSMAG - Joint United States Military Assistance Group MAB - Mactan Air Base MBD - Makati Business District NICA - National Intelligence Coordinating Agency NOVAI - Navy Officers’ Village Association Inc. NPA - New People’s Army NSC - National Security Council NUC - National Unification Commission PAF - Philippine Air Force PMA - Philippine Military Academy PN - Philippine Navy RA - Republic Act RAM - Reform the Armed Forces Movement R&R - rest and recreation RSBS - Retirement Separation Benefit System SND - Secretary of National Defense UNDP - United Nations Development Programme
PREVENTING MILITARY INTERVENTIONS
BACKGROUND: THE OAKWOOD INCIDENT
On July 27, 2003, the Filipino Nation became a witness to another socio-political phenomenon – the Oakwood Incident. More than 300 officers and men of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) holed themselves up in a posh hotel in Makati to protest against the Arroyo Administration for massive corruption; selling of arms and ammunition to the enemies of the state; state-sponsored terrorist acts; and widespread poverty.
This incident is the latest among numerous military interventions experienced by our country since the first one happened in December 1970, when then 1Lt Victor N Corpus raided the armory of the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) en route to his eventual defection to the New People’s Army. The Oakwood Incident also happened two and a half years after EDSA II and almost fourteen years after the bloody 1989 coup attempt. With the latest incident, a question now lingers in the minds of a lot of Filipinos – “Is our country forever condemned to have these military interventions?”
This policy issue paper reviews the present policies adopted by the Arroyo Administration to prevent military interventions, and assesses whether these should be pursued or not.
SCOPE AND SEVERITY OF THE PROBLEM
The effects of military interventions to our country, not to mention its sometimes-bloody consequences, are debilitating to our economy and gravely affect our country’s political stability. During the 1989 coup attempt alone, in addition to the human casualties, the combined financial losses suffered by the economy ranged from P800 million to P 1 billion (Davide, 1990: 378 and according to Sec. Manuel A. Roxas II, it “brought down our economy to nearly zero growth” (PDI, 2003: 1). Davide further wrote, “the loss of lives, loss of confidence and damage to our international image are worth far more than the financial losses” (Davide, 1990: 378).
As for the Oakwood Incident, just four days after, the peso fell to a new four-month low while stocks also fell to its lowest level within the past four weeks thereby reflecting investors concerns over political and economic uncertainties (PDI Editorial, 2003: 8). According to columnist Armando Doronilla, it “unleashed a new blizzard of uncertainty over the economic and political horizons” (Doronilla, 2003: 9). Although the incident was brief with no bloodshed or damage to property, “it contributed to the projection of the Philippines as an unsafe, unstable and crisis-prone country” (Feliciano, 2003: Introduction).
While it is also true that history had been kind to two successful military interventions (EDSA I and II), the conditions that followed these exercises were not marked with peace and progress either. On the contrary, post-EDSA I and II were remembered for the attempts to restore the toppled administrations such as the Manila Hotel Incident; the GMA-7 coup attempt; and the Black Saturday Mutiny to restore Pres Marcos, and the EDSA III Incident (although not a military intervention) to restore Pres Estrada. So, whether it is successful or not, a military intervention will produce a climate of political and economic instability which retards the country’s growth and will sow division among the people.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM
The problem addressed in this paper is how best to prevent military interventions. While the issue addressed is whether to pursue the policies presently being adopted by the Arroyo Administration to prevent military interventions.
In addressing this issue we will extract the root causes of past interventions in the Philippines and we will compare these with the present policies to determine if they are, indeed, responsive. If not, alternatives will be proposed to fill-up policy gaps and come up with a more responsive and, ultimately, a more effective policy.
ACTORS/STAKEHOLDERS
The following are the actors/stakeholders of this policy:
1. Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
The essence of any military intervention is obviously the military, in this case, the AFP. Thus, in this policy, the AFP and its personnel are the main recipients.
It is a safe assumption that no soldier in the AFP entered the service to become a rebel, much less a troublemaker who would want to drag his own country down. Obviously, the motivation to break away from the system is nurtured in the course of his career based on what he has witnessed or experienced. There are different motivations or causes cited by previous participants and some have been common to the different interventions. This is where a responsive policy comes in and hopefully, addresses these causes so that the confusion about their roles never arises even under different circumstances.
2. President
The President is solely responsible for the implementation of this policy. As such, he is required to have a clear vision of what he wants his country to be. He also needs to have a high level of political will, unquestionable moral integrity, and an honest desire to serve the people.
The failure to implement this policy will open up his administration to interventionists and maybe rightly so, for he had failed to fulfill his mandate to serve, protect and uplift the lives of the people. But as what was discussed above regarding the dire economic consequences should this happen, the President, through the different government agencies, must ensure that this policy gets implemented.
Ultimately, the survival of not only his administration is at stake, but, more importantly, that of the State and Democracy itself. In fact, if we are to go by the events of the ’87 and ’89 coup attempts, even the President’s own life is at risk.
3. Business Sector
One of the biggest losers in any military intervention (both successful and failed) is the business sector. That is why it should be highly interested in any move to eradicate the problem. It should also be more participative in overseeing that this policy gets the necessary support it needs to be implemented properly. And since the business sector itself is a party to the prevailing social injustice being experienced by the people, it must start subscribing to certain business ethics that will encourage benevolence within the sector and will also do away with the exploitation of the masses.
4. The People
At the end of the day, it is the Filipino people in general that stand to lose most from the failure of this policy. Aside, from the direct losses to lives and property that they may absorb as collateral damage, they also stand to lose much should the economy falter as a result of a failed military intervention.
Generally, the public have grown apathetic regarding this issue because they feel that, either way, they would still have to contend with the harsh realities of daily living. This was proven to them by both the successful and failed interventions.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVE
The goals of this policy are: (1) to maintain political and economic stability in our country; (2) to promote social justice to our people; and (3) to breed a truly professional AFP. While, the objective of this policy is to directly address both the internal and external causes of military intervention to prevent its recurrence.
MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS
This policy proposes the prevention of military interventions; therefore, the ultimate measure of effectiveness can only be the non-recurrence of such activities in the future. But since the future is infinite, this policy is time-bound within the term of the administration that chooses to implement it. Ideally, it should be implemented for as long as Democracy exists in our country. But given the kind of public administration and politics we have, it is very rare that a policy, even a good one, gets institutionalized.
EVALUATION CRITERION
It can be deduced from the discussions above that any effort to prevent military interventions should address all its direct causes. The rationale being, if there were no more causes to justify military intervention then, this will be prevented from recurring. Considering the psyche of AFP officers and men, and the environment from which they operate, the cause is very important, for this is what they will risk everything, even their lives, for.
The potential interventionists in the AFP ranks are no mercenaries. Neither would a soldier join just for the fun of it. Therefore, without a valid cause, it is highly improbable that a military intervention could be launched. This, in theory, is the approach in preventing military interventions.
From the description of the approach to the problem, it is very clear that the sole evaluating criterion applicable is political viability specifically, responsiveness. As defined by Patton and Sawicki: “Responsiveness is related to acceptability and appropriateness and involves the target group’s perception of whether the policy or program will meet its needs” (Patton, 1993: 216). It is with this criterion that the present efforts to solve the problem will be evaluated on. Likewise, if necessary, responsiveness will also be the basis in the formulation of other alternatives.
It is worth noting however, that based on the precedents set by EDSA I & II, the potential solutions should not prevent future military interventions that may be necessary, in only extreme cases (e.g. oppressive, corrupt and inept administrations and administrations that resort to electoral fraud to stay in power), to protect the people and the state, as stated in the 1987 Constitution.
MILITARY INTERVENTIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES
THE ROLE OF THE AFP
In discussing military interventions, we must first know the specific limitations of the AFP and its defined role in the state. The role of modern armed forces is primarily to subdue or prepare to subdue the enemies of the state, particularly external aggressors. But since the Philippines is a third world country, the AFP has other equally important roles: (1) providing stability to the political status quo, demonstrated through its role in the maintenance of law and order, and counter-insurgency; and (2) assisting in national development efforts (Davide, 1990: 10-11). According to Conrado de Quiros: “the Army combined defense and police functions, mandated as it was to secure the state against external and internal attacks and to maintain peace and order” (de Quiros, 1990:26).
To appreciate the bounds within which the AFP is allowed to operate, we shall refer to its mandate as defined in the 1987 Constitution. As stated in Sec.3 of Art. II of the Constitution: “The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and State.” The intention and spirit of this provision is to give constitutional mandate to the AFP to subvert an oppressive, corrupt and inept government, which is detrimental to the safety of the people and the survival of the state. Apparently, the framers of the 1987 Constitution deliberately inserted this because they were aware of the crucial role of the AFP in overthrowing Pres Ferdinand Marcos.
The delicate part however, is the subjective interpretation of this constitutional clause. As Davide wrote: “In essence, it is not the mission that pushes the military to intervene. Rather, it is how the officer corps defines and interprets the mission of the armed forces, which may give rise to the phenomenon of military interference in the political arena (Davide, 1990: 11).”According to Navy Capt Proceso Maligalig PN (Ret.), a participant in the 1989 coup attempt: “The military or ‘warrior’ class must step in to preserve and protect the State if and when the civilian counterpart fails or abdicates the responsibility for credible governance” (Coronel, 1990: 55).
All doubts about the interpretation, however, were clarified during EDSA II, when then AFP Chief of Staff Gen Angelo Reyes broke the chain of command and withdrew support from his Commander-in-Chief Pres Joseph Estrada citing this same constitutional provision. With the Supreme Court ruling and global recognition that followed, formally legitimizing the Arroyo Administration, military intervention is now justified, in extreme cases, as a means to change a democratically-elected administration. Intellectual honesty dictates that this is a historical fact and a legal precedent. Hence, the parameters that applied during the decision of then Gen Reyes must also be applicable throughout time unless, this provision is changed or removed from the Constitution.
Another constitutional provision defining the role of the AFP is Art. XVI, Sec. 5 (1), where it states: “All members of the armed forces shall take an oath or affirmation to uphold and defend this Constitution.” Again, this has been interpreted both ways. Those in the administration often recite this line to tame the AFP and make it do their bidding. On the other hand, the interventionists in the AFP use this line to call on the others to join them in invoking the Art II, Sec. 3 provision as stated above.
But again this has been clarified by the legitimization by the Supreme Court and the international community of the actions of then Gen Reyes.
MILITARY INTERVENTION DEFINED
Military intervention is defined as an act made by active members of the AFP, outside the conventions of the chain of command, with the intent of disrupting the political status quo, in the pursuit of their political cause. According to an AdMU paper: “The term ‘military intervention’ is habitually associated with a coup d’etat or a cuartelazo or a golpe de estado. These are, however, only types of military intervention – albeit the most extreme form” (AdMU, 2001). Military intervention can come in various forms: coup d’etat, rebellion, mutiny, sedition, protest action (e.g. the Oakwood Incident), and even through a simple press statement, as in the case of the Kawal Incident.
From this definition, we can delineate military intervention from other incidents involving the military. For example, a large group of AFP personnel who protested against their commander for his autocratic style of leadership is not a form of military intervention in the sense that it was done for purely professional reasons. Martial Law is also not a form of military intervention since the military under this political set-up is still operating under the AFP chain of command.
CAUSES OF MILITARY INTERVENTIONS
According to Davide: “Motives for military intervention are varied and complicated. No single factor can easily be pointed out as the sole cause for intervention. It is oftentimes a conjunction of motives” (Davide, 1990: 4). Thus, in extracting the causes that motivated some members of the AFP to intervene in Philippine politics, we will categorize them into two - internal and external. Internal causes are those attributable to or directly affecting the military organization; while, external causes are those attributable to factors external to the military (Davide 1990: 9).
1. December 1970 PMA Armory Raid
In December 1970, 1Lt Victor N. Corpus led NPA rebels in a raid of an armory inside the Philippine Military Academy (Corpus, 1989: write-up). They carted away hundreds of infantry weapons before disappearing into the communist underground (McCoy 1999: 198). He eventually surrendered to the government in 1976 (Corpus, 1989: write-up).
INTERNAL CAUSES:
A. The misuse of the AFP by politicians against the interests of the people (Corpus, 1989: write-up). B. Graft and corruption in the AFP (McCoy, 1999: 197).
EXTERNAL CAUSES:
A. The oligarchic structure of the Philippine society (McCoy, 1999: 197). B. The leftist influences on 1Lt Corpus by the communist youth group, Kabataan Makabayan, (which he joined after graduating from PMA) and its ideologue, Jose Ma. Sison (McCoy, 1999: 197).
2. February 1986 EDSA I Mutiny
On February 22, 1986, then Minister of National Defense Juan Ponce Enrile along with General Fidel Ramos and the members of the Reform the Armed Forces Movement (RAM) barricaded themselves inside the Ministry of National Defense building in Camp Aguinaldo and, thereafter, withdrew support from Pres Ferdinand Marcos. This triggered the so-called “people power”, which eventually toppled the Marcos Administration on Feb 26.
According to Escalante, while many wished “to perpetuate a romanticized, scented image of EDSA I”, it “never was a revolution. It was a pocket mutiny that grew into a localized revolt, drawing the participation, cumulatively, of perhaps no more than five percent of the population (Escalante, 2000: 1).”
EDSA I was the first successful military intervention in the history of our country.
INTERNAL CAUSES:
A. Graft and corruption in the AFP (Davide, 1990: 120; and Coronel 1990: 51). B. Political patronage in the AFP promotions system (Davide, 1990: 120; McCoy, 1999: 232; and Coronel, 1990: 56). C. Lack of logistical support for the officers and men in the field (Davide 1990: 120). D. Low pay of AFP personnel (Coronel, 1990: 51). E. The schism between the officers belonging to the camp of Gen. Fabian Ver and those who did not (Coronel, 1990:51 and de Quiros, 1990: 41).
EXTERNAL CAUSES:
A. The electoral fraud committed by Pres Marcos during the February 7, 1986 Snap Presidential Elections (Davide, 1990: 124). B. Corruption and inefficiency in government (de Quiros, 1990: 41, 44, 45). C. The alleged attempt to eliminate Enrile and RAM members by the forces of Gen Ver (de Quiros, 1990: 42; McCoy, 1999: 231; and Davide, 1990: 119, 122). D. The deteriorating political and economic conditions after the Ninoy Aquino assassination in 1983 (Davide, 1990: 122; and Escalante, 2000: 15). E. The consolidation of power by Pres Marcos through the subservience of the Batasang Pambansa; muzzling of the press; the weakening of the judiciary; and the total control of the military (Davide, 1990: 55 and de Quiros, 1990: 40). F. The widespread social unrest due to dire economic conditions (de Quiros, 1990: 38).
3. July 1986 Manila Hotel Incident
In July 1986, Marcos loyalists occupied Manila Hotel, the symbolic center of party politics, to proclaim former Senator Arturo Tolentino, Marcos’ vice-presidential running mate, as Acting President of the new government (McCoy, 1999: 266-267). At least 490 military officers and men, and some 5,000 civilian Marcos loyalists were involved in the rebellion. They surrendered 37 hours later (Davide, 1990: 135-141).
INTERNAL CAUSES:
A. Discriminatory treatment of AFP personnel connected with the Marcos regime (Davide, 1990: 204). B. The “soft-stance” of the Aquino Adminstration against the CPP-NPA (Davide, 1990: 136). C. The presence of leftists in the Aquino Cabinet (Davide, 1990: 136).
EXTERNAL CAUSES:
A. The counter-revolutionary fervor of Marcos loyalists (Davide, 1990: 137). B. Widespread social unrest (Davide, 1990: 136).
4. January 1987 GMA-7 Incident
On the early morning of January 27, 1987, AFP personnel loyal to deposed Pres Marcos struck various military and civilian targets that culminated in the siege of the GMA-7 compound in Quezon City (Davide, 1990: 158-165).
After almost three days, the rebels led by Col Oscar Canlas PAF agreed to lay down their arms. One rebel soldier died and thirty-five people were injured during the incident. GMA-7 was also estimated to have lost at least P3 million in direct damages (Davide, 1990: 161, 165).
INTERNAL CAUSES:
A. Discriminatory treatment of AFP personnel connected with the Marcos regime (Davide, 1990: 161, 204). B. The “soft-stance” of the Aquino Administration against the CPP-NPA (Davide, 1990: 161). C. The presence of leftists in the Aquino Cabinet (Davide, 1990: 164). D. The ill treatment of the AFP by the Aquino Administration (Davide, 1990: 163).
EXTERNAL CAUSES:
A. The counter-revolutionary fervor of Marcos loyalists (Davide, 1990: 164). B. The worsening political situation caused by the killing of protesting farmers in the so-called “Mendiola Massacre” on January 22, 1987 (Davide, 1990: 158).
5. April 1987 “Black Saturday” Incident
On 18 April 1987, 13 enlisted personnel, all members of the Guardian Brotherhood, led by TSgt Ernesto Librado, forced their entry through Fort Bonifacio and went straight to the military stockade to free 42 military detainees, most of whom participated in the January 27 GMA-7 incident. They then raided an armory before barricading themselves inside the Headquarters Philippine Army building in Fort Bonifacio (Davide, 1990: 168-169).
The siege lasted 20 hours before the rebels agreed to surrender leaving one rebel dead and seven wounded (Davide, 1990: 168-170).
INTERNAL CAUSES:
A. The “soft-stance” of the Aquino Administration against the CPP-NPA (Davide, 1990: 170). B. The presence of leftists in the Aquino Cabinet (Davide, 1990: 170).
EXTERNAL CAUSES:
A. The counter-revolutionary fervor of Marcos loyalists (Davide, 1990: 168). B. Corruption and inefficiency in government (Davide, 1990: 170). C. The volatility of the political situation brought about by the alarming power outages; water shortage; escalation of insurgency-related incidents; successive bombing incidents in Metro Manila; and the upcoming national and local elections (Davide, 1990: 167).
6. August 1987 Coup Attempt
On the early hours of August 28, 1987, more than 2,000 officers and men, spearheaded by then Col. Gregorio Honasan and the RAM, simultaneously attacked various military and civilian objectives around the country, including the Malacanang Palace, in a coup attempt against the Aquino Administration.
While most of the targets (except Malacanang) were initially occupied by the rebels, the failure of subsequent reinforcements to arrive; and the lack of support from the private sector forced them to capitulate (Davide, 1990: 175-200).
The bloody end of the coup attempt came 36 hours later leaving 53 people dead and more than 200 wounded (Coronel, 1990: 83). Damage to property surpassed millions of pesos, to include the burning of the General Headquarters building in Camp Aguinaldo (Davide, 1990: 200).
INTERNAL CAUSES:
A. Graft and corruption in the AFP (Coronel 1990: 52, 81). B. Political patronage in the AFP promotions system (Coronel, 1990: 51; and Davide, 1990: 204). C. Inept AFP leadership (Coronel, 1990: 52, 81). D. Lack of logistical support for the officers and men in the field (Davide 1990: 204). E. Low pay of AFP personnel (Coronel, 1990: 51, 80; Davide, 1990: 204; and Miranda, 1987: 1). F. The “soft-stance” of the Aquino Administration against the CPP-NPA (Coronel, 1990: 70; Davide, 1990: 205; and Miranda, 1987: 1). G. The presence of leftists in the Aquino Cabinet (Coronel, 1990: 52, 70, 80; and Davide, 1990: 205).
EXTERNAL CAUSES:
A. Corruption and incompetence in government (Coronel, 1990: 51, 70, 81). B. The political instability and social unrest brought about by the dim prospects of agrarian reform; the spate of bombings in Metro Manila; the 80-centavo increase in oil prices; the conduct of Welgang Bayan by militant labor groups and student organizations (Davide, 1990: 176). C. The failure of the government to deliver basic services especially in the rural areas (Davide, 1990: 470, 532).
7. December 1989 Coup Attempt*
On November 29, 1989, a dozen men of the 14th Scout Ranger Company led by Capt Jaime Junio prematurely attacked and destroyed a military communications facility in Tagaytay City (Yabes, 1991: 166-168) in what is to be the unofficial start of the biggest and bloodiest coup attempt in Philippine history.
Starting in the early hours of December 1, almost 3,000 rebel forces led by at least 7 generals, 21 full colonels and 441 other officers (Davide, 1990: 439-440) simultaneously attacked Villamor Air Base, Fort Bonifacio, Camp Aguinaldo, PTV-4, North and South Harbors, Sangley Point, and Mactan Air Base (MAB) in Cebu. The Manila Domestic, Legazpi and Bacolod Airports were also briefly occupied by the rebels with the intent of flying in reinforcements. By daybreak, rebel T-28 Tora-Tora planes bombed/strafed Malacanang Palace and Camp Crame (Davide, 1990: 260-369).
But soon after the rebel air assets were destroyed and more government reinforcements arrived in Metro Manila, the tide began to turn. On December 2, the rebel Scout Rangers were forced to seek refuge at the Makati Business District (MBD) while the rebel Marine forces decided to leave Villamor Air Base to proceed and capture Camp Aguinaldo. However, after several futile attempts to penetrate the camp’s defenses, the battered rebel Marine forces were forced to surrender on December 3 (Davide, 1990: 260-369
By December 3, the positions previously occupied by the rebel forces were retaken by government troops until only the MBD and MAB in Cebu remained in rebels’ hands. Eventually, the Scout Rangers in MBD agreed to “return to barracks” on December 7, while the rebel forces in MAB led by Gen Jose Comendador surrendered on December 9 (Davide, 1990: 284, 368).
In all, the coup attempt claimed the lives of 99 persons, of which 31 were from government side, 17 from the rebel forces, and 51 civilians. 570 persons were also wounded in the skirmishes (Davide, 1990: 376).
INTERNAL CAUSES:
A. Graft and corruption in the AFP (Coronel 1990: 52, 81; Davide, 1990: 470; and Guingona, 1989: 27). B. Inept AFP leadership (Coronel, 1990: 52, 81). C. Political patronage in the AFP promotions system (Davide, 1990: 470; and Coronel, 1990: 51, 56). D. Lack of logistical support for the officers and men in the field (Davide 1990: 470). E. Low pay of AFP personnel (Coronel, 1990: 51, 80; Davide, 1990: 470; and Miranda, 1987: 1). F. The “soft-stance” of the Aquino Adminstration against the CPP-NPA (Coronel, 1990: 70; and Davide, 1990: 471). G. The presence of leftists in the Aquino Cabinet (Coronel, 1990: 52, 70, 80; and Davide, 1990: 471).
EXTERNAL CAUSES:
A. Graft and corruption in government (Coronel, 1990: 53; Davide, 1990: 470; Guingona, 1989: 27; and Salonga, 1989: 71). B. The failure of the government to deliver basic services especially in the rural areas (Coronel, 1990: 53; Davide, 1990: 470; and Salonga, 1989: 71). C. Widespread poverty (Davide, 1990: 470). D. Uneven treatment of human rights violations committed by the AFP and the CPP-NPA (Davide, 1990: 470). E. Absence of good government (Coronel, 1990: 52; and Davide, 1990: 471). F. The failure of the government to effectively address the economic problems of the country (Davide, 1990: 471). G. The lack of genuine reconciliation on the part of the government with the different sectors opposing it (Davide, 1990: 470). H. The failing economy under the Aquino Administration as shown by the double-digit inflation; high interest rates; severe transport crisis; power failures; fuel price increases; inadequate infrastructure; etc. (UP, 1989). I. Political instability (Davide, 1990: 221).
*Author’s Note: The Noble rebellion in Mindanao, which happened a few months later, is basically an extension of the 1989 coup attempt and, therefore, had the same internal and external causes. *Author’s Note: The Noble rebellion in Mindanao, which happened a few months later, is basically an extension of the 1989 coup attempt and, therefore, had the same internal and external causes.
8. January 2001 EDSA II Mutiny
On January 16, 2001, the members of the prosecution panel walked-out at the height of the impeachment trial of then Pres Joseph Estrada when they lost the Senate voting (11 to 10) to open the controversial “second envelope”. The prosecution had claimed that the said envelope contained vital pieces of evidence to link Pres Estrada to the charges of corruption.
This triggered massive protest actions along the EDSA-Ortigas area by civil society groups that eventually, on January 19, forced then Chief of Staff Gen Angelo Reyes, along with the commanders of the three branches of service of the AFP, to withdraw their support from their Commander-in-Chief (Estrada) and bestow it on then Vice Presi | |
