Marcos’ pacification campaign

Dear Editor,

I read with disbelief the statement of Defense spokesperson Arsenio Andolong that the multi-year salary increase for soldiers and police officers “is not a bribe.”

I doubt many Filipinos share his confidence. The problem with official denials like Andolong’s is that they must at least resemble reality, and this one does not. The context makes the intent plain enough.

The salary hike is divided into three tranches that end in 2028, which also happens to be the end of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s term. If this were simply a matter of correcting a long-neglected obligation, as the DND claims, it could have been implemented sooner or in one sweep.

Instead, the government chose a staggered release. This creates an expectation among the uniformed services that future increases depend on the continuation of the current administration. That is not a routine adjustment, but leverage.

Andolong rejects talk of a bribe, but it was AFP chief, General Romeo Brawner Jr., who admitted there was “restiveness” among the men in uniform and that he had rejected overtures from retired officers urging intervention.

When the head of the Armed Forces himself confirms such conversations, it is pointless to pretend that the government is operating in ordinary times. You do not calm a restless military with sentiments or ceremonies, but with doleouts.

The timing also raises questions. The Tribune previously reported that Marcos’ approval rating had fallen to its lowest point, as the flood control scandal has damaged public trust and has not gone away.

Anyone who understands politics can see the sequence. You secure loyalty not by asking for it, but by attaching it to something people cannot afford to lose.

There is more. In October, the government released nearly P800,000,000 in performance-based bonuses. These were not for all uniformed personnel, but for selected agencies such as the Navy, the Air Force and the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency.

Why them, and why then? The staggered salary increases might be explained as budgetary prudence; the selective bonuses look more calculated. They reward groups that are central to internal security and regime stability. It is difficult to ignore the pattern.

History has shown that rulers who fear unrest try to preempt it not with threats, but with benefits spaced out over time. This keeps the recipients invested in the continuation of the government that grants them. The Marcos administration seems to have adopted that approach.

Of course, soldiers and policemen should be paid well. Their work is difficult and dangerous, and no one disputes that. The issue is not the pay itself but the political purpose it now appears to serve. If the government truly wanted to address longstanding concerns, it could have done so without tying the solution to the President’s remaining years in office.

When a measure benefits both the public servant and the administration in power, skepticism is not cynicism, but prudence. People do not accuse the government of bribery because they lack patriotism, they do so because the facts on the table point in only one direction.

Sincerely,

Alex B. Ahorro

Pasay City