The Presidents power to call out the Armed Forces of the Philippines is predicated on the existence of factual circumstances as stated in Sec. 18, Art. VII, Constitution: The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion x x x x
Granting that Pres. Arroyo called out the armed forces and if so, she did in utter secrecy and absolute lack of transparency the Presidents decision is totally bereft of factual basis. Where is the lawless violence, invasion or rebellion or threats thereof in the urban areas? The Presidents officers in the Philippine National Police deny the necessity of such deployment. General Avelino Razon claimed that the police are on top of the situation. There is thus definitely no basis for calling out the armed forces. The Presidents exercise of such discretion if she really did is gravely abused because she has made no determination as to the necessity and factual basis for deploying the troops in urban areas.
III. The DEPLOYMENT of soldiers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines in residential barangays in urban Metro Manila to essentially engaging in partisan political activity by setting forth criteria to be used by voters in choosing their candidates for elective offices in the guise of voters education, or by out rightly campaigning against herein petitioners, or by intimidating, harassing or physically assaulting petitioners members, supporters and sympathizers and is therefore a gross violation of Sec. 5 (3), Art. XVI, Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code and various election rules.
Respondent Dolorfino, unrestrained so far in the deployment of troops in the capital despite the unpopularity of the move, pressed on further and announced publicly that the troops would conduct voters education in Metro Manila to ensure an honest and peaceful balloting.
General Benjamin Dolorfino admitted to the Philippine Star (April 27, 2007) that the soldiers would entice voters to vote for somebody who is God-fearing, who can give justice to the people, who is physically, morally and intellectually qualified. [Attached as Annex T is a copy of an article More ARMY troops in Metro Polls written by Jaime Laude, Philippine Star, dated April 27, 2007] This statement bespeaks a complete turn-around from his previous declaration that the soldiers will only be conducting alleged civil-military operations. Add to this fact the practice of the troops to campaign against petitioners and harass or intimidate their respective members, supporters and sympathizers as narrated above, the decision is not only injurious to petitioners but a violation of the Constitution.
This supposed advocacy is contrary to Sec. 5 (3), Art. XVI, Constitution: x x x The Armed Forces shall be insulated from partisan politics. No member of the military shall engage directly or indirectly in any partisan political activity, except to vote.
Under the Omnibus Election Code, election campaign or partisan political activity is defined as an act designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to a public office.8 Included in this definition is [d]irectly or indirectly soliciting votes, pledges or support for or against a candidate. At the very least, to state for the record that the Armed Forces of the Philippines would campaign for the election of a God-fearing individual already smacks of electioneering. This is because the Armed Forces of the Philippines immediately discriminates against one who is even perceived to believe otherwise. And the reference is quite clear the Armed Forces of the Philippines bogeyman, herein petitioners. Whether a candidate is God-fearing or not is beyond the business of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. It is beyond the competence of Respondents to draft and advertise its criteria of who are or are not qualified civilian leaders. This kind of thinking or belief is anathema to democracy because it predisposes the troops to obey, respect and follow only civilian leaders anointed by the powers-that-be in the Armed Forces of the Philippineswhether or not the leader is god-fearing. Hence as explained by this Honorable Court in Gudani v. Senga:9
The necessity of upholding the ability to restrain speech becomes even more imperative if the soldier desires to speak freely on political matters x x x x Certainly, no constitutional provision or military indoctrination will eliminate a soldiers ability to form a personal political opinion, yet it is vital that such opinions be kept out of the public eye. For one, political belief is a potential source of discord among people, and a military torn by political strife is incapable of fulfilling its constitutional function as protectors of the people and of the State. For another, it is ruinous to military discipline to foment an atmosphere that promotes an active dislike of or dissent against the President, the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Soldiers are constitutionally obliged to obey a President they may dislike or distrust. This fundamental principle averts the country from going the way of banana republics.
The statement of Gen. Dolorfino is more than sufficient for this Honorable Court to throw out the military from the residential barangays and admonish the AFP for its callous interventionism in civilian politics. After all, if a Muslim, an atheist or even a person who although baptized a Christian shows no fear of God runs for election, the military has no business campaigning against that person.
Secondly, how is the military, which is not actually known for being moral, to judge whether a candidate is moral and not moral. Gen. Esperon, who investigated Gen. Jovito Palparan by phone on his participation in extra-judicial killings, cannot be an expert on who among the candidates can give justice to the people. Respondent Esperon who evaded the issues against him in the Garci Tape scandal through EO 464, cannot claim to be an expert on morality, justice and what it really takes to be a good leader. Respondents are not only prohibited under the law to use government resources to engage in partisan political activity in the guise of coming up with criteria on who the people should vote, but are also, not even equipped to live up to their very own criteria.
The above contention is anchored on the well-grounded fact of the militarys supremacy in designating those that may exercise the right to espouse ideas in this country. This status of political order places in peril cherished liberties, fundamentally jeopardizing the peoples right to choose their leaders in a free market of ideas. The admission of Gen. Dolorfino alone is damning on the cause of respondents and exposes the unconstitutionality and illegality of urban militarization and the deception used to justify it. This very statement alone justifies the immediate dismantling of its detachments and the pull out of these troops from the metropolis.
2007 Elections
