Withdrawing support from a commander-in-chief is not a remarkable feat in the military. Many have done so in militaries worldwide. In the Philippines, it sparked a revolution twice; while in other cases, it simply failed.

Yet what Philippine Army Col. Audie Mongao did should not be so troubling as to test the very core of loyalty within the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).

Mongao’s relief from his command following his public rejection of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. was expected. Concerns about individual rights within the military may be misplaced, as the military operates under a rigid system: you either want to be part of it or you want out.

Such a system highlights a broader conflict between personal convictions and allegiance to authority, but that’s the way it is.

His statement — ”It’s too much, enough already” — was not just a critique aimed at a single leader; it was also directed at his commander-in-chief.

This action may reflect a sentiment shared by many Filipinos who seek transparency, accountability, and moral leadership from those in power. However, before taking such steps, dissenters should consider taking off their uniforms.

Inciting leadership change requires not only loud talk, courage, and charisma but also overwhelming support from top leaders within the ranks, enough to stage a coup. If you do not have those, leave the military institution.

Or perhaps this was his intended exit strategy from the very beginning — gambling on inciting a third revolution that is unlikely to happen. Why is this the case? Unlike previous leaders, the President’s character and speaking style are not confrontational enough to easily provoke anger among the populace. In fact, his demeanor is quite the opposite.

Mongao’s discharge upholds the military’s limitations on free expression and raises questions about whether dissent can ever be tolerated when it conflicts with expectations of loyalty and obedience. This principle is ingrained early in military academies.

AFP spokesperson Col. Francel Margareth Padilla assured the public that there are no plans for loyalty checks among the troops, emphasizing professionalism and unity. However, having covered the military under four different AFP chiefs in the past, I have observed that reality often contradicts this claim, albeit discreetly.

Can a military that claims to be united and professional overlook the voices of those who dare to speak out against perceived injustices? Let the people speak, and let civilian supremacy over the military prevail.

The ongoing investigation into Mongao’s case is crucial. The challenge for the AFP is to address this incident without suppressing genuine discourse. The expectations placed on military leaders should reflect good governance: accountability, integrity, and, most importantly, a commitment to serve the people rather than personal interests.

As the investigation unfolds, the AFP must assure its personnel and the public that due process will be strictly followed. A transparent approach will not only build trust within the ranks but also encourage those who feel compelled to voice their disappointments to do so peacefully.

(For feedback, text to 09451450681 or email at cynchdb@gmail.com)