Barangay heads have it, AFP chiefs of staff don’t

Calling the attention of Postmaster General Josefina de la Cruz. A letter from Camp Aguinaldo postmarked Jan. 18 was delivered to my residence in Cubao, Quezon City, on Jan. 27. It took the post office seven working days to move our mail across a distance of less than seven kilometers. That amounts to covering a distance of almost one kilometer per working day. Is this the best we can expect from our postal service these days?

The problem with the ongoing Corona impeachment trial is that it detracts the attention from that which we should be focusing on: the improvement of basic services needed by the community. The average citizen is not really too concerned about whether Chief Justice Renato Corona is acquitted or convicted. His life will not be affected dramatically one way or another, but he feels frustrated and angry when he realizes that his mail moves at the rate of one kilometer per day, at times causing him to miss important events in his life. The rich and the affluent can afford to rely on couriers and private delivery outfits. The ordinary citizen relies solely on the post office.

* * *

Did you know that our barangay heads have a fixed term of three years, as provided for by the Local Government Code? Yes, the lowest ranking leader in the community is given a fixed term of office so as to enable him to carry out his responsibilities and perform his functions in an effective manner. That is basically the idea of a fixed term. Of course, it doesn’t always work as well as we would like it to.

On the other hand, the AFP chief, the head of our 120,000-strong Armed Forces, does not enjoy a similar set period of service.

As I have mentioned frequently in the past, during the Arroyo administration, which covered a period of almost 10 years, we had 11 AFP chiefs of staff serving anywhere from two to 14 months. Before they could even warm their seats, they were already preparing for retirement, pondering what the future held for them rather than for the organization. How could anyone possibly carry out any meaningful planning or reforms under these circumstances? In place of innovation, creativity and vision, stagnation sets in with the tendency to rely on the same old practices and programs. Only the faces change. Courtesy calls, if any, on their counterparts in Asean member-countries are “hello and farewell” visits rather than “getting-to-know-you” opportunities.

When President Aquino assumed command of the Armed Forces, I was under the impression that he would change things under his watch. Two AFP chiefs, Gen. Ricardo David and Eduardo Oban, each served for less than a year. But with Congress preparing a bill providing for a fixed three-year term of office for the AFP chief of staff, this was the opportunity for the President to be different.

Last week, he announced that he had vetoed the bill ratified by Congress, providing for a fixed term of office for the chief of staff. To support his veto, the President cited Article 16, Sec. 5 of the Constitution, which states that “laws on retirement of military officers shall not allow extension of their services.”

For a better appreciation of this issue, allow me to backtrack a bit.

During the martial law years, one of the most serious abuses of the administration was the rampant and flagrant extension of the services of general officers beyond their mandatory retirement dates. The extensions were for periods of six months at a time. A story making the rounds then had to do with a regional unified commander who was extended for two six-month periods. By the time he retired, his two houses, one in the city and another in the province, were finished and furnished. There was no definite policy laid down for these extensions, and they were often viewed as a reward for loyalty or as a way out when the chief executive was confronted with a difficult choice. This was the case of Gen. Romeo Espino, who continued as chief of staff for almost 10 years because President Ferdinand Marcos had difficulty choosing between two close and trusted officers, Gen. Fabian Ver and Lt. Gen. Fidel Ramos. After a while, the term “extension” fell into disrepute and the issue became one of the many gripes affecting the morale of the officer corps.

When President Cory Aquino took over after Edsa, her first appointments were those of the military commanders. Ramos was designated chief of staff of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines (NAFP) and concurrent chief, Philippine Constabulary/Integrated National Police (PC/INP). My classmate Lt. Gen. Rodolfo Canieso took command of the Army; Comm. Serapio Martillano, the Navy; and I, the Air Force.

One of the first things I did upon assuming the post was to summon the senior commanders and announce that all officers on extended tours of duty were considered retired as of that day. Here I was reading them the riot act on extensions, not realizing that in a few weeks Canieso and I would become extendees ourselves. Because of the unusual circumstances at that time, characterized by an unstable and volatile political environment, we were both asked to stay on for a while after reaching our mandatory retirement dates.

During the term of President Fidel V. Ramos, AFP Chief of Staff Arturo Enrile was allowed to stay in office beyond age 56 but not exceeding a three-year term. This decision was based on position papers submitted by Presidential Legal Counsel Renato Cayetano and Justice Secretary Tito Guingona. Both papers pointed out that the records of the Constitutional Commission deliberations on Article 16 indicated that the intention of the framers of the Constitution was actually to allow the chief of staff to serve beyond age 56 but not exceeding three years in office. Some objections were raised but the threat to elevate the issue before the Supreme Court never materialized. Enrile completed 32 months in office, serving beyond the mandatory retirement age of 56. He later served as secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications.

When Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo became president, the pendulum swung in the opposite direction. Instead of extensions, the problem was a “revolving door” policy that resulted in the frequent turnover of AFP chiefs of staff. This situation led to some of the worst abuses in the history of our Armed Forces as the leadership focused on protecting the seat of power and its occupant rather than on preserving the integrity of the organization.

So now we are back to square one. Common sense has once again taken a back seat to political sense. The way things are moving we may not see any changes on this issue in our lifetime. All we can hope for is that the Armed Forces continues to carry out in a responsible manner its mandate as the protector of our people and the guardian of national sovereignty.