An ongoing check-up on the military’s loyalty

The President’s rainy trip to Baguio to deliver a snap address to the cadets of the Philippine Military Academy can only be viewed as a "loyalty check" by the Commander-in-Chief on the country’s future officers.

GMA said the right things. She distanced herself from the "Jose Pidal" controversy, saying that "I am married to our country", meaning that the First Gentleman, Mike A., should paddle his own canoe and defend himself independently. She pledged to address the grievances of the Oakwood mutiny or putschist leaders belonging to the PMA’s "Marilag" class of 1995. They did wrong, of course, she added and would be dealt with by the administration of justified punishment.

She said that, despite criticisms that the PMA had become a breeding ground for troublemakers, she had no plans of abolishing the military academy.

All well and good. However, changes must still be made in the PMA. In addition, its exclusive "franchise" on securing the top leadership of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) must be revised. Even the Oakwood "core group" leaders, all PMA’yers themselves, had declared that this exclusivity and tradition of favoritism should be amended. That’s one of the things we heard from them on July 27 during the no-holds-barred gripe session which preceded the final "surrender" agreement.

From years of covering the military, both in the field and in their offices (and as their prisoner, for a short while as well), I’ve noticed the shortcomings of the PMA military tradition and its Cavalier sort of narrow-minded education. Sure, the PMA has produced brave officers and men, and many of its graduates have fought and died gallantly – but at times their mindset bothers me greatly. For one thing, the PMA’s brutal, almost bestial "hazing" system didn’t contrive to make plebes better men when they got to be upperclassmen themselves, but seemed to perpetuate this culture of barbarism by the previously-demeaned trying to inflict on those underneath their bootheel, the nobatos now at their mercy, even more cruel punishment plus months of more excruciating ordeal.

Instead of instilling an espirit de corps in some, lifelong hatreds appear to have been engendered.

* * *

I see that some of the PMA Class 1966 "classmates" of Defense Secretary Angelo T. Reyes persisted in publicizing a "manifesto" by PMA Sixty-sixers purportedly, supporting Reyes, despite the fact that perhaps only a dozen classmates had actually signed the supposed class "manifesto".

Oh, well. What does this say of class ’66?

In any event, I spoke with Rear Admiral (ret.) Ed Varona, the PMA ’66 class president, yesterday on another matter entirely. Admiral Varona had been Superintendent of the Philippine Military Academy in 1996-1997 and some of the mutineers belonging to PMA ’96 and ’97 had been cadets during his watch. In fact, it was in 1997 that the PMA graduated its first seven women cadets who were commissioned that year, including Captain Arlene Orejana, PMA ’97, now a member of the corps of professors there. She’s the wife of detained Mutiny leader and spokesman, Navy Lt. S.G. Antonio "Sonny" Trillanes.

Varona told me that he had attempted to abolish "hazing" just as some previous superintendents did, particularly his immediate predecessor, retired Admiral Billy Marcelo (whom he credited as the one who had pioneered in accepting women cadets for the first time in the Academy’s history). His opinion, on the other hand, was that it was not a propensity to bully younger cadets that was at fault for the fact that the culture of "hazing" has been so difficult to uproot. He recalled that he had taken a survey of the cadets under him, and psychological testing had elicited the information that 90 percent of them had been subjected to extremely stern parental treatment and even child abuse by elders when they were children! Now, that’s interesting.

Moreover, Admiral Varona pointed out, most PMA cadets came from lower middle class and "poor" families, most of them entering the PMA on the recommendation of congressmen and other politicians. Many of these kids, he noted, had competed for PMA scholarships as their only way of obtaining a college education.

"In short," he said, "my cadets didn’t come from the more famous ‘quality’ schools like the Ateneo, De la Salle, etc." I kidded him, of course, that the so-called "quality" schools hadn’t produced better quality leadership either, reminding the Admiral that Ateneo and La Salle had graduated some of our worst crooks, and certainly our most colorful ones.

However, what Varona told me merits some thought.

When we were young bucks a century ago, I remember, we used to be more than just a bit jealous of the erect posture of those dashing young PMA cadets, and their splendid dress uniforms, copied from West Point, which were always a hit with the girls. We ribbed them about their cheap after-shave scent, calling them the Mennen Skin Bracer boys and the Tancho Tic kids. (This is not to denigrate them of course: Being a poor kid myself, I used similar stuff – sanamagan, many of my shirts came from the "Good Earth Bazaar", while the Arrow trubenized shirt was the summum bonum of sartorial elegance.

That was long ago and far away, and sometimes we long for those simbler but happier days. Maybe the Mennen Skin Bracer generation even made better officers and civilians. Who knows?

* * *

If you ask me, the government’s "lifestyle check" on public officials has become more of a publicity stunt than a serious and sustained anti-graft drive to clean up the bureaucracy.

It is also beginning to appear like a cruel demolition job designed to subject "alleged" crooks to humiliation and public ridicule even if nothing has, as yet, been proven against them.

Don’t get me wrong. For years, I’ve been urging the implementation of res ipsa loquitur, the unmasking of corrupt government officials and bureaucrats by comparing their lifestyles and possessions with their legitimate incomes. However, this loud public pillorying before any suspects are confronted with hard evidence of their supposedly ill-gotten wealth is too much.

At first blush, I was inclined to condemn the threatened "resignation" of Customs Commissioner Antonio Bernardo, and his Deputies as mere grandstanding and an attempt to "blackmail" Malacañang into retracting its probe into the lifestyles and pelf of Customs biggies and personnel. In retrospect, Bernardo was right to deplore the manner the anti-graft drive at the Bureau of Customs is being carried out. As he declared, "we are already pictured as guilty even before we are charged in court."

Defending the government’s "lifestyle checks" on suspected officials and government employees, Presidential Spokesperson Ignacio "Toting" Bunye stated: "For those under investigation, the President would like to assure them that they would be given due process and their rights would be respected." Bunye added that "we will observe the rights of those under investigation and once done, these charges would be filed in proper legal venues."

Although Toting is a lawyer (an Ateneo law graduate), his concept of due process seems flawed. Due process in its simplest form means fair play and the right to be heard before being condemned. The trouble is that the allegedly "crooked" public officials are getting their pictures published, and their "wealth" or properties prominently listed and displayed in major dailies before even being indicted. By "publicity" they are already being damned in the so-called "court of public opinion". In sum, they’re being robbed of their dignity and their reputations tarnished beforehand – and this pain involves their families, as well. I’m sure their children have already been subjected to ridicule by some of their classmates in school.

This is not the way to curb corruption. To be ruthless in the pursuit of justice and a noble cause doesn’t mean that you must be unjust.

* * *

Almost 28 years ago, then Bureau of Internal Revenue Commissioner Efren Plana attempted to eradicate graft at that revenue agency and succeeded, at least, in getting rid of several scalawags in the BIR. Justice Plana who had been drafted to head the BIR from the Court of Appeals, did not resort to the same oppressive style as that currently being implemented by the present administration.

Plana had several notorious BIR subordinates discreetly "checked" with regard to their activities, lifestyle and possessions. While the inspection was rigid, he never exposed the suspects to public humiliation or ridicule. Instead, Plana summoned the offending revenue personnel, some of them really high up in the hierarchy, to his office. Confronting them with the detailed reports against them, he gave them the option to "retire" under the threat of administrative charges being filed against them if they refused to resign.

Justice Plana grew to be feared by his subordinates in the BIR. Those called to his office actually quaked in their shoes. In fact, one very "notorious" BIR man who had been summoned died of a heart attack before his "scheduled" meeting with Plana. Of fear, or of heart disease? Who can tell?

Plana was feared and respected because all BIR personnel knew him to be honest, diligent, and a man who himself lived a frugal life. He didn’t play favorites either. No one in his agency was immune from his scrutiny or his wrath when wrongdoing was unearthed. A Revenue Regional Director who regularly played tennis with him at the Agency’s tennis court was, when his skullduggery was discovered, included without hesitation in the list sent up to Malacañang for dismissal by the president.

* * *

Speaking of "loyalty checks" in our military, haven’t you noticed? Not only has the President herself gone to the PMA – AFP Chief of Staff Gen. Narciso Abaya is barnstorming the archipelago, visiting military units, and both sounding out and reassuring field commanders and their men.

Boots and other "necessities" are being issued to the soldiers. Housing plans are being facilitated. It’s an age-old reaction. There used to be an adage that all over the world "peasant rebellions" never really fail. Even those rebellions which are crushed, and their leaders executed, nudge the rulers into instituting some reforms. By the same token, mutinies, even those suspected of having been launched under the inducement of hidden kuyas with ulterior motives, never really fail. They provoke improvement and reforms.

Are the "mutineers" heroes? They committed a crime. But the government is right to pursue many of their grievances – which are real.