The Philippines Needs a Constructive Armed

Forces
*********************************************************
NOTE: Given the sad realities and dire straits of fellow Filipinos in the homeland, it is a rare
occasion that we see a few individuals who may give us hope that the lights are not completely
out.

(It is often frustrating and maddening to read or hear columnists, soldiers, politicians,
businessmen, churchmen, etc. automatically, like parrots, charge and label those who speak
out against the government and for the people as all "communists," etc. as if only communists
really care for the ordinary man. That's how regressive, anachronistic and stunted their thinking
is.)

Anyway, Here's an article by one of these few --obviously non-communist-- who speaks out; a
relatively, young ex-military (PMA/West Point Class 1986) officer.

UPDATE: I found this news shockingly sad and an enormous loss to the homeland: minutes after
posting this one, a relative emailed to say that former Captain Rene N. Jarque had a cardiac
arrest last August 19 in Jakarta (he was to turn 41 in October). We seem to have only a "few
good men" and for some reason, the homeland loses them. We wonder why them?

"Corruption is worse than prostitution. The latter might endanger the morals of an individual; the former invariably
endangers the morals of the entire country." - Karl Kraus, 1874-1936.

"I helped the poor and they called me a saint, I asked why they were poor and they called me a Communist" –
Brazilian Bishop Helder Camara

"The accomplish to the crime of corruption is frequently our own indifference." - Bess Myerson, 1924-present

"In all institutions from which the cold wind of open criticism is excluded, an innocent corruption begins to grow like
a mushroom - for example, in senates and learned societies." - Friedrich Nietzsche, 1844-1900

“Nations whose NATIONALISM is destroyed are subject to ruin.” - Colonel Muhammar Qaddafi, 1942-, Libyan
Political and Military Leader

*************************************************************

In this period of uncertainty, it is time for the armed forces, as the protector and defender of the
people, to play a constructive role so that the nation can alter course with the right leaders and
build a true democratic society so the people may have a firm hope in the future.
BY RENE N. JARQUE, Bulatlat

During the 1989 coup attempt I was a young lieutenant in the First Scout Ranger Regiment. After
that disaster, I asked myself this question:

The ideals of democracy state that the Army stands for the people and not just the privileged few.
However, political reality dictates that the Army is really of the constituted government. In our
country, the government is the privileged few and their network of relatives and patrons.
What then if the policies and actions of government do not coincide with the common aspirations
and general welfare of the people. Should soldiers be guided by their collective conscience or by
their strict military oath to obey their civilian leaders as embodied in the Constitution they have
sworn to defend, in the same way the Centurions obeyed their decadent emperors, the way the
Wermacht blindly obeyed Hitler? At this point, whose is the Army, the government’s or the
people’s? To whom does the Army now owe its allegiance? To whom does it rightfully or
conscientiously belong? (1)

Sixteen years after, that question is still very much relevant. Today, there is tremendous
disenchantment with government and the public is in a restive mood. The economy is hobbling
along burdened by poverty, foreign debt, high fuel prices, inflation, unemployment, budget deficit
and uncontrolled population growth. Peace and order is unsteady with insurgency, terrorism and
criminality. Corruption scandals plague the presidency and the military. Her Excellency is being
accused of cheating in the last election and her spin doctors are taking the people for a ride in a
circus of lies and deception. Our country today is being bamboozled by a discredited, crippled
and insecure government which does not seem to have a clue, cannot get its act together and
lacks the strength of character to lead the nation out of its misery. There is a crisis in national
leadership and the people are confused and demoralized.

Once again, we are careening into political turmoil that threatens our fragile democracy.
To some, the situation is ripe for a change in government and as such, there are calls for a
“revolutionary government” and rumors of destabilization plots and coup d’etat abound. In this
time of uncertainty and discontent, what should the military do? What should be its role? Should it
intervene as in 1986 and 2001? What should the armed forces do to ensure that the government
does not abuse its power, promote the welfare of the people while averting a civil revolution? Let
us together explore these and other questions in this paper which is divided into three parts:
I. Armed Forces and the Constitution
II. Armed Forces in Philippine Society
III. Challenges Ahead for the Armed Forces

I. ARMED FORCES AND THE CONSTITUTION

The 1987 Constitution contains several provisions directly referring to the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP). The most important of them and the subject of much debate is Article II,
Section 3 which states that “Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The
Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure
the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory.”

Fr. Joaquin Bernas calls the first provision the “civilian authority clause” and explains that civilian
authority is essentially the “supremacy of the law” and a soldier renounces political ambition when
he subordinates himself to civilian authority. He calls the second provision the “mark of
sovereignty” implying the professionalism which should be inherent in the armed forces as
guardians of the majesty of the law. The soldier is expected to divorce himself from politics
because he supposedly “finds nobility, dignity and honor in being the guardian of the
people and a legitimate government”.(2)

The two other important provisions are Article XVI, Section 5, paragraph 1: “All members of the
armed forces shall take an oath or affirmation to uphold and defend this Constitution” and
paragraph 3: “Professionalism in the armed forces and adequate remuneration and benefits of its
members shall be the prime concern of the State. 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.” This is supported by the AFP Code of Ethics in Article III,
section 2.8: “The AFP recognizes the sanctity of its insulation from politics. Its involvement in
politics shall be strictly limited to the exercise of its members’ rights of suffrage and in ensuring
delivery of ballots to the concerned government entities during election if and when deputized to
do so. The AFP therefore pledges not to interfere in any politically motivated activities.”

However, by declaring in Article II, Section 1 that “sovereignty resides in the people,“ the
Constitution silently condones rebellion as a means to change government. As this
democratic right was aptly described by former United States President Abraham Lincoln, “This
country, with its institutions, belong to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they grow weary of the
existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their
revolutionary right to dismember it.” Marcelo H. Del Pilar also said something to the same
effect: “Insurrection is the last remedy, especially when the people have acquired the belief
that peaceful means to secure remedies for evils prove futile”.

The AFP Code of Ethics in Article III, Section 2.12 also supports this: “The AFP adheres to the
principle of democracy that the government is of the people, by the people and for the people.
The real power and authority in the governance of the nation emanates from its citizens. The AFP
recognizes its role to protect the people and assert its rights to participate in democratic
processes in which it is legally allowed to do so, but it shall never allow itself to be used to subvert
the sovereign will of the majority neither would it lend its power to stifle the rights of the minority.”

I have a simple interpretation of these seemingly contradicting provisions: “The armed forces
shall follow the elected government for as long as the people are fine with it but once the
people revolt, the armed forces, being of the people, should go along with them.” Indeed,
what if the government turns out that it cheated in the elections? What if the supposedly
legitimate government no longer reflects the commonweal, is going against its own people and
uses the so-called majesty of the law to hide its corruption and flaunt its powers? If the armed
forces continues to protect such government, can we can say that the armed forces is no longer
acting as the guardian of the people? What if the armed forces no longer finds “nobility, dignity
and honor” in being the guardian?

Our experience in 2001 shows that the Constitution can be conveniently discarded to suit
the situation. In other words, the majesty of the law can be ignored to cater to those in power or
seeking power without the people’s mandate. In the end, the only justification for rebellion or the
extra-constitutional takeover of government is victory. If one fails, he is charged with rebellion and
sent to jail. From a constitutional point of view, the AFP leadership in EDSA Dos (i.e.,
people’s uprising in 2001) was clearly unprofessional. They mutinied against their
commander-in-chief who represented a great majority of the Filipino people and they gravely
undermined the Constitution. Consciously or unconsciously, the generals preserved the military’s
power using a loud and powerful minority as cover against the silent and weak majority. Since
there has been no real change in governance and only change in personalities, the action
of the AFP leadership in 2001 was misguided and self-serving. They were desperados who
merely enabled the trade of one set of crooks and nincompoops for another.

The military’s interventionism in government has created a three-way political power structure in
the classic Clausewitzian modelcomposed of people, government and the military. And today,
between an inept government and a corrupt military, the people are getting
screwed. Church activism in recent years has probably made it four-sided, adding a
confusing spiritual element. Though the armed forces is much more in the background today
as compared to the martial law period, it has the unobtrusive power to intervene in politics. A
strong and healthy democracy, however, hinges on a two-way structure anchored on a contract
between the government and the people as embodied in the Constitution. The military should
be under the government and not a separate power entity. (See Figure 1)

II. A CONSTRUCTIVE ARMED FORCES

The separation of politics and military is a notable feature of western democracies that was
rammed down our throats by the Americans. I think it is time that we question this framework and
look at alternative models of governance wherein the military plays a productive role in
government and in the development of Philippine democracy.
The power of the government is only as good as it is identified with the good of the polity.
What if the government has failed in promoting the common welfare and has committed illegal
acts? What if the country is heading towards disaster? Should the armed forces stand idle,
detached from politics, and allow the politicians to destroy the country? In a situation of political
uncertainty and chaos, what role should the military play? What should it do?

Let me attempt to answer these questions by first drawing a simple, rough model showing the
relationship of three variables: government, military professionalism and level of intervention.
Let’s call this the GPI graph.
a. There is a direct relationship between how good government is to the level of
professionalism in the military. Good government means a professional military and
conversely, a professional military implies good government.
b. There is an inverse relationship between the level of professionalism and the level of
military intervention. As professionalism increases, the inclination to intervene decreases.
c. There is also an inverse relationship between how good government is and the level of
military intervention. As government gets better, the likelihood of intervention decreases.

From these relationships, I see three kinds of roles for the armed forces – passive, constructive
and interventionist – depending on the political and military situation.
Role
Environment / Government
Armed Forces
(Not able to reproduce the chart in this blog - Bert)

1. Passive
(Constitutional)
Government is firmly established and robust. Democratic institutions are strong and steady.
General political situation is stable
Armed Forces is highly professional. It totally stays away from politics and subordinates itself to
civilian authority. It focuses on its defense roles and improving its capabilities

2. Constructive
Government is unstable. Democratic institutions existing but not strong. General political situation
is filled with uncertainty.
Armed Forces is semi-professional or undergoing reforms. It prudently intervenes in government
but does not take over. It acts as a guardian of the people by being a deterrent to bad
government and helps build democratic institutions.

3. Interventionist
Government is weak or illegitimate. Democratic institutions are weak. Peace and order has
broken down and violence may have erupted. General political situation is volatile.
Armed Forces is unprofessional or professionalism is low. It takes over government and takes a
direct role in politics through a military government, a military-sponsored government or a civilian
government that is beholden to the military.

For the situation today, I believe the armed forces should play the constructive role. It is a
balanced role wherein it does not stand idle or directly take over government. It is neither
indifferent nor destructive. In this role, the armed forces acts within the framework of the
Constitution and as a counterweight to an ineffective government of unruly and corrupt politicians
to achieve political stability. Further, it acts as catalyst for improving governance and a force for
nation-building. If war is too complex to be left to the generals, governance is even more complex
to be left alone to the politicians, especially the irresponsible and corrupt.

As a crucial stakeholder in governance and society, the armed forces should use its
powers and capabilities for the common good, to deter bad government and promote
democracy and development. If the AFP can use its intelligence capabilities to monitor the
movements of rebel groups, it can use the same to monitor the activities of corrupt politicians and
generals. If it can keep an eye on suspected destabilizers, why can it not check a President or
any politician who is cheating an election?
Our soldiers are actually very experienced in this constructive role. The military strategy against
insurgency calls for winning the hearts and minds of the people in the countryside. In doing so,
the soldiers become involved in the political, economic and social life of the community. When I
was the commander of a remote detachment in San Mariano, Isabela, a major part of our
counter-insurgency effort was community projects. My soldiers and I were involved in backyard
beautification and cleanliness, medical civic action and building toilets and classrooms. I advised
the barangay leaders on how to manage the village. Before my unit was transferred, we were
talking about cooperatives, markets and farm-to-market roads. Through this exposure to the
community and seeing the failure of government, our soldiers undergo a subtle process of
politicization that has made them sensitive to the political life of the nation. The participation of
junior officers in the coup attempts and in the mutiny at Oakwood in 2004 is largely
because of this politicized view.

This constructive role can be elevated to a higher level wherein the armed forces strengthens
governance and democratic institutions. In the 2004 elections, for example, I wrote to the AFP
Chief of Staff exhorting him to play this constructive role by disallowing and evicting all
organizations that use military camps for their political pronouncements and sending a public
warning to politicians, including the President, that any violence, cheating or fraud will not be
tolerated by the AFP and that candidates cannot use AFP personnel, equipment and funds for the
campaign. It was, of course, too much to expect.

In relation to the corruption case filed against Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia, the Chief of Staff can
order the AFP finance office to open all documentary evidence. For the jueteng (an illegal
numbers game) scandal, military intelligence is more than capable of gathering evidence to
confirm the claims of the witnesses in the Senate hearing. As to Gloriagate (allegedly wiretapped
conversations between the President and an Election Commissioner), the AFP has the resources
to confirm the authenticity of the purported wiretapped conversation.Indeed, if the AFP is
convinced that the President has committed improper or illegal acts, it can quietly send
her a message to do what is right for the good of the country or lose its support.

Two factors will inhibit the effectiveness of a constructive role: lack of credibility and a
generally anti-people armed forces.First, the AFP has lost so much credibility with the
corruption scandals involving active and retired officers. The Oakwood mutiny showed a deep
crack in the system, a fault line in the AFP leadership. It does not have credible and trustworthy
leaders, not even among the ex-generals who may use the armed forces for their own ends. The
Officer Corps has lost its moral compass and is fragmented. Second, having been a pacification
army since colonial times, the armed forces has become an “alien force” defending the
interests of the ruling elite against the masses.(3)

The masses do not trust the armed forces. If a million squatters today hold a people power at the
EDSA Shrine, I doubt if the generals will drop their support for the President and join the
masses. National Artist F. Sionil Jose described it best: “This officer corps and the Armed
Forces are willing instruments of the oligarchy and worse, when the officers
become generals, they also become as rapacious as the members of the oligarchy they
serve. In fact,they have themselves become the oligarchs.”(4)

Two inherent risks of this constructive role are the potential abuse of power and
unwarranted intervention. Power tends to feed on itself, if uncontrolled, until it becomes so
corrupted that a turn-around is very difficult. The experience during martial law all too clearly
showed the ill-effects of an overreaching military which has lost touch with itself and the people. It
became greedy, corrupt and abusive. To protect itself and perpetuate its power, the armed forces
can needlessly intervene using convenient even contrived excuses. To minimize these risks, the
armed forces should seek a balance with the people and must always analyze the overarching
implications of its actions to society and act with the common good in mind.

But let’s be honest. The armed forces can take over government anytime it chooses and
we cannot really do much about it. Sure, there will be condemnation from certain groups and
the international community. There will be protests and demonstrations but in the end, if the
armed forces persists and it is united, there is not much the people can do against guns and
tanks. If it intervenes in a time of political uncertainty, such intervention will most likely be gladly
accepted by the people. How long the people can tolerate a military or military-sponsored
government will depend on how it is able to govern and fulfills people’s expectations. If
unable to do so, there are already existing insurgent organizations throughout the country
that can serve as a nucleus for armed rebellion.

Military intervention is a mere power-grab if it only results in a change of personalities in

government and there is no real structural change in society, particularly in the equitable
distribution of political and economic power. If the intent is really to make society better, then
the military government or military-sponsored government should focus on 1) establishing a
competent and honest government, 2) building the economy, 3) professionalizing the military; and
4) rebuilding democratic institutions. Of the last one, an important task is to prepare the people for
an election and then hold an election as soon as possible. “Preparing” would include disciplining
wayward and corrupt government officials; setting up democratic institutions such as political
parties and peoples organizations; educating the people about their rights and responsibilities as
citizens; and fixing the electoral system.

III. CHALLENGES AHEAD FOR THE ARMED FORCES

A constructive, professional armed forces serves as a buttress to democracy and the
Constitution. It serves as the guardian of democratic processes while ensuring that it does not
abuse its own power. It uplifts democracy by strengthening the pillars of governance. It will not
allow an irresponsible and corrupt government to govern. By being professional, it can pull or
catalyze the government and the bureaucracy to become better. Truly, the crucial challenge for
the armed forces is how to rebuild itself to a professional and mature organization.

The first imperative is professionalizing the Officer Corps which is the foundation of
professionalism in the AFP and the driving force for sustained reform. Among the younger
members of the corps, there is an inherent desire to change. Professionalization efforts
should nurture this desire by opening up channels for constructive criticism and initiating
affirmative action. There must be an organized effort mobilizing the Officer Corps to awaken the
generals from their collective self-denial that nothing is wrong with the AFP and to push the chain
of command to initiate painful but necessary changes, especially the creation of a performance
and merit-based system in promotions and assignments which will ensure that only those who
are competent and honest go up. Another key target is the non-commissioned officer corps.

If the officers are the brain, the corporals and sergeants form the workforce or backbone of the
armed forces. Besides people, the armed forces should develop efficient, effective and ethical
management systems in personnel, procurement, logistics and finance incorporating best
practices and new information technology. Corruption through conversion, construction and
commissions should be eradicated.It should formulate doctrine – how it should fight – and not
use foreign, especially American, formulations which are alien to us.

Part of rebuilding is upgrading capabilities to become a multifunctional force capable of dealing

with a variety of military and non-military missions (search and rescue during natural disasters;
evacuation of non-combatants like OFWs from disaster or war zones; and developmental
activities such as building roads and bridges). Procurement should look into multi-functional
platforms, i.e., planes the provide close air support in battle and also deliver emergency medical
supplies to remote areas, patrol boats that can also provide medical services to coastal
barangays, trucks that can provide covering fire and also evacuate people during floods.

Rebuilding will not be easy and it becomes even more difficult as the armed forces has to also
deal with security threats and concerns. Besides political necessity, the security environment is
another important reason why the armed forces must rebuild and professionalize. Allow me to
divert a bit and briefly explain these security challenges so we can appreciate the enormous
challenge facing the armed faces as it struggles to reform as well as perform.

Internally, insurgency is still the major security concern – Communist Party of the
Philippines-New People’s Army (CPP-NPA) and the Mindanao separatist and terrorist
groups. The communist insurgency is tied to political and economic realities that continue to fuel
popular discontent compounded by government neglect and military abuse. On the other hand,
the Muslim groups are now linked with other Islamic fundamentalist groups in the region thus
broadening the problem. The military approach to the insurgency has been described as
a “conflict trap” with “the rebels too weak to defeat the AFP and the AFP too inept to defeat the
rebels”.(5)

To get out of this trap, the AFP has to break out of its Martial Law/Cold War mentality with
its outmoded approaches. Against the left for example, the Anti-Subversion Law has been
repealedand the left organizations have entered mainstream politics with party-list groups in
Congress. The military should now learn to deal with them in a different way, one which does not
violate its own code of ethics“not to stifle dissent or label principled critique and/or cause-
oriented groups as threats to national security and/or enemies of the state as dissent and
opposition are important features to ensure a healthy and dynamic democracy”. (Art III, Section
2.20 of the AFP Code of Ethics)

Instead of alienating the insurgents, the government should reach out and engage them,
understand their plight, initiate confidence- and trust-building measures and resolve the
matter peacefully. The approach must be holistic as a major factor in insurgency is the absence
of government in the remote areas where the rebels are strong. All government agencies should
be involved in delivering basic services to the people. However, in my experience,there is
this “plan-implementation gap” and government services are non-existent or not felt very
much in the countryside. The military alone is not capable and its main task is to contain the
violence and make the area peaceful and secure so that government can deliver the services to
the people.

Externally, global economic integration has changed the rules of international politics and
diplomacy and is creating a new international security order between those who are
connected to the globalization process and those who are not. Inter-state conflicts have
given way to non-state actors, organizations and individuals engaging in terrorism and
asymmetric warfare.(6) With the U.S. as the only superpower, the bipolar structure of the cold
war is gone and a more “intrusive America” is expected.(7)

In Asia, China’s emergence as an economic and military power alongside Japan is changing the
regional security landscape. Likewise, old flashpoints still exist – territorial claims, tensions in the
Taiwan straits and Korean peninsula. Erstwhile security concerns like maritime piracy, trafficking
of drugs and humans and money laundering have become more sophisticated because of global
interconnections and new technologies.

In this new environment, the armed forces should rethink its strategy and outlook of defense-
military alliances. We should perhaps explore closer defense and military links with
emerging powers such as China and India and strengthen relations with neighboring
countries in Southeast Asia. These alliances will provide the first line of defense and give us
breathing space as we rebuild our national defense. We should likewise develop a self-reliant
defense posture to design strategies and indigenous military technology so we can defend
ourselves using our limited resources and also maintain our national self-respect by not
depending too much on other countries for our defense requirements.

This twin challenge of rebuilding and dealing with security concerns will take a lot of the AFP’s
organizational strength. Change will question age-old perceptions and established norms. It
will pit people against one another with regard to ideas, concepts and approaches. There
will be tremendous resistance to change. The existing command structure and social order will
be disrupted and challenged. However, with the right combination of commitment, organization,
leadership and management, the challenge can be met. The armed forces must hold firm, stay
united and keep its eyes on the objectives in order to accomplish the mission to change.

CONCLUSION
We pride ourselves as a democratic nation. But our democracy is a sham as politicians
manipulate the system to perpetuate themselves in power. How can we even think that we
have a democracy when elections, the very soul of democracy, is being perverted by the very
public officials who should protect the sanctity of the ballot. Democracy is also not just all about
having elections or a Constitution. It is also about having the active and sustained participation of
the people through democratic institutions like barangay assemblies, people’s organizations,
trade unions and political parties. The armed forces can play a constructive role by safeguarding
the elections from fraud and by promoting peoples organizations rather than spying on them.

Democracy is also not just the freedom to vote or the freedom of speech or religious
freedom. It is also about being able to live with pride and dignity. It is also about economic
freedom enabling the practice of these rights. How can one vote if he cannot afford to go to
the polling station? How can one practice his religion when he cannot afford to go to church or
has to commit sin to feed his family? How can one practice free speech if he cannot even read
the newspaper? The government must be able to improve people’s lives so they can exercise
their freedoms. The armed forces can play a constructive role in preserving these freedoms by
educating the people of their rights and responsibilities as citizens for nation building and
engaging in developmental activities to support the national program for economic development.

Ngayon, nagtitimbang na naman ang mamamayan. Hindi natin alam kung saan talaga tutungo
ngunit nararamdaman natin na kailangang magbago ng landas para sa kapakanan na ating
bayan. Alam din natin na hindi nararapat ang mga tiwaling pinuno sa pamahalaan, na kapag
hinayaan natin sila ay wala tayong matatanaw na magandang kinabukasan. Alam natin na
kailangan ng ating bayan ng mga pinuno na magaling, matatag at mapagkakatiwalaan. Subalit
hindi na tayo nakakasiguro kung sino sa mga pinuno ngayon ang nararapat. (Now, the people are
weighing their options. We do not know where this will lead but we feel that there is a need to
change the direction for the welfare of the country. We also know that corrupt leaders should not
be in government, and that if we allow them to stay in power we will not have a bright future. We
know that country needs leaders who are competent, strong and trustworthy. But we are
uncertain as to the who among the leaders are deserving.)

In this period of uncertainty, it is time for the armed forces, as the protector and defender of the
people, to play a constructive role so that the nation can alter course with the right leaders and
build a true democratic society so the people may have a firm hope in the future.

(This paper was delivered at a meeting of the Philippine Constitutional Association [Philconsa]
last June 21,2005 at the Manila Polo Club. A former Philippine Army officer who served as
Special Assistant to the Secretary of National Defense, the author is now working abroad as an
executive for a conglomerate.)

Notes:
1. Jarque, Jose Rene, “Metamorphosis of Idealism”, Army Journal, June 1991.
2. Bernas, Joaquin, in a speech entitled “Supremacy of Law and Mark of Sovereignty”, delivered
during the Annual Convention and General Membership Meeting of the Philippine Military
Academy Alumni Association on 22 Jan 2005. Published in The Cavalier, March-April 2005.
3. David, Randy in a speech, “The Philippine Army Through the Years” delivered during the
Philippine Army Senior Leaders Conference, March 2005.
4. Cited in “Frankly Speaking”, Philippine Graphic, Dec 29, 2003 – January 5, 2004, Vol. 14, Nr
29/30
5. Morales, Ricardo Col., “Transforming, not Reforming the AFP”, Opinion/Columns, INQ7.net, 27
Oct 04
6. Barnett, Thomas P.M., The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the 21st Century, Berkley
Books, New York: 2004.
7. Almonte, Jose, former National Security Adviser, speaking at the Asia-Pacific Security
Conference, as reported in the Philippine Star, Feb 24, 2004.

© 2004 Bulatlat ■ Alipato Publications

Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are
properly credited.
http://bulatlat.com/news/5-21/5-21-constructive.htm

"I either want less corruption, or more chance to participate in it." - Ashleigh Brilliant, 1933"

"There is no higher RELIGION than human service. To work for the common good is the greatest creed.'' - Albert
Schweitzer, 1875-1965, German Born Medical Missionary, Theologian, Musician, and Philosopher