Military intervention

So far, military observers report, active duty soldiers are steering clear of partisan domestic politics, fueled in most part by the ongoing war of attrition between the Marcoses and the Dutertes.

Neither it seems are active duty soldiers engaging with civil society groups airing their discontent over the present regime’s overall quality of governance and who in recent days actively protested the blatant “pork barrel” provisions in the 2025 budget.

Yet, both these volatile political events have much to do with the military institution as with the general public.

In the Marcos-Duterte brawl, for instance, the survival-mode Dutertes are openly trying to “incite” the military to break the chain of command and oust the incumbent.

In the other case, despair over government institutions systematically squandering the nation’s human, economic and political resources is leading many to seriously consider the dangerous idea of extralegal measures, like a military uprising, being a viable solution.

Much may be said about both cases, but both practically resurrect the age-old issue of military intervention in our politics, indicating the issue still runs deep in our present political circumstances.

Moreover, in this issue, it seems the soldier nowadays is also quietly seeking pointers on how he can safely navigate the dangerous shoals of today’s politics, as retired Navy admiral and Ateneo professor Rommel Jude Ong intriguingly suggests in a significant think piece for a news website.

Ong — in his answer to the question on “a viable way forward for the Armed Forces to help pacify a disgruntled public, to quell the idea of extralegal measures from gaining traction, and the blunt potential interference by China in domestic politics” — advises the military to “conform to the guard rails placed upon it by the Constitution.”

(Ong mentions China because he fears China stands to benefit should the military be distracted by domestic politics.)

Adhering to the Constitution, of course, is how the military brass often rhetorically answer any questions regarding their views on current politics.

This, largely because the idea of “constitutionalism” had been successfully inculcated into the ranks by generations of military constitutionalists bent on properly defining the historically highly politicized military’s outsized role in our country.

So much so, by all accounts “military constitutionalism” presently acts as a bulwark against the military intervening in our rambunctious politics.

Yet, as eminent Filipino political scientist Felipe Miranda observed long ago, the core of “military constitutionalism” goes hand-in-hand with how civilians generally regard and protect “constitutionalism,” especially by civilians running the government.

Which now brings us to what is more weighty in the recent calls for military intervention: the Dutertes’ call or the fecklessness of civilian authorities irreparably shattering the public’s confidence in democratic processes which makes the citizenry open to untried alternative regimes, whether they be democratic or not.

As it is, despite their openly expressed disgust over ill-governance, civil society groups haven’t openly called for military intervention, unlike the Dutertes.

It could be because such groups, including probably even the soldiers, are aghast that a proven ruthless political leader has the selfish gall to co-opt the military to ensure his and his family’s political survival.

Which now leaves us only with the conclusion that something dramatic must be done about the growing public unease over ill-governance.

As such, civilian authorities must abhor the thought that clinging to the status quo will magically solve many urgent pressing issues.

And, they quickly need to do so too, in the face of the stark fact that present-day overall reluctance about experimenting with an actual military government can change at anytime.