Fixed term
Fixed term
Updated 10:11pm (Mla time) Oct 25, 2004
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A12 of the October 26, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
LAST week President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo announced the appointment of Lt. Gen. Efren Abu, the commander of the troops that quelled the Oakwood mutiny last year, as the successor of Gen. Narciso Abaya as chief of staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). Abaya will retire on Friday when he reaches the mandatory retirement age of 56.
Abaya is reported to be in a hurry to leave an AFP whose reputation is in tatters because of the corruption case involving Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia, suspended AFP comptroller. Abu must be having mixed emotions, because while promotion to AFP chief of staff is a great honor, he probably would prefer to have been elevated to the post under more auspicious circumstances.
Abu is not going to stay long in the AFP chief's post; he will retire on June 24 next year, just about eight months from now. We hope Abu's appointment will not mark the start of another round of "musical chairs" involving the highest post in the military. During President Arroyo's first term, the one where she served out the unexpired tenure of deposed President Joseph Estrada, she appointed six AFP chiefs of staff. They were Generals Diomedio Villanueva (14 months), Roy Cimatu (less than four months), Benjamin Defensor (the shortest term at 80 days although technically he was supposed to serve only 48 hours), Dionisio Santiago (less than five months) and Narciso Abaya (more than 18 months).
This game of musical chairs may have been politically justifiable then because she had to insure the loyalty of the generals who had a big role in ousting Estrada. But, then as now, the practice of appointing AFP chiefs for very short periods is not logically justifiable. It may even give rise to periods of political instability instead of promoting political security. The AFP chief's post is not supposed to be used like a lollipop to be dangled and given to certain generals to keep them contented and pacified.
We believe that the generals would like to be treated like professional soldiers who will abide by the decision of their commander in chief on all matters, including the appointment of the AFP chief of staff. Seniority, of course, is a big factor in appointments but it is not the only factor. There have been instances when a president practiced what is called "deep selection," appointing a junior general over the heads of senior ones. That is part of the prerogatives of a commander in chief.
The Constitution says that the tour of duty of the AFP chief of staff shall not exceed three years. In times of war or other national emergency declared by Congress, the president may extend his tour of duty. But what we have seen during the first term of Ms Arroyo, and what we're seeing now, is that the AFP chiefs of staff have been serving short terms.
A short term for the AFP chief of staff is not conducive to long-term planning for the AFP. It does not promote continuity of programs and policies. And ultimately, it is expensive for the country, for the AFP chief of staff has to be given the retirement pay of a four-star general when he retires. If an AFP chief of staff serves out the full three-year term, the government pays the retirement pay of only one general in three years, instead of three or four if that many generals are made AFP chief during the same period of time.
To repeat, the game of musical chairs may have made political sense during the President's first term when she had to think of insurance against coups and other disturbances from a restive military. But now that she has won an electoral mandate, there is no longer any need to ensure the loyalty of the military -- or is there? The President can now appoint an AFP chief who will enjoy a three-year tour of duty instead of one who will soon be saying his goodbyes shortly after he has warmed his seat.
Congress ought to seriously consider a proposal made by a legislator to fix the term of the AFP chief of staff at three years. This could be done by legislation and may not need a constitutional amendment since the Constitution says that the AFP chief's tour of duty "shall not exceed three years." Then the President would not feel bound by politics or feelings of gratitude to appoint generals who will retire in a few months to the top military post. Then she can choose the most qualified among them so that he can carry out reforms within a longer period and promote stability in an institution that has been intermittently experiencing instability since the EDSA People Power uprising in 1986.
Updated 10:11pm (Mla time) Oct 25, 2004
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A12 of the October 26, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
LAST week President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo announced the appointment of Lt. Gen. Efren Abu, the commander of the troops that quelled the Oakwood mutiny last year, as the successor of Gen. Narciso Abaya as chief of staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). Abaya will retire on Friday when he reaches the mandatory retirement age of 56.
Abaya is reported to be in a hurry to leave an AFP whose reputation is in tatters because of the corruption case involving Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia, suspended AFP comptroller. Abu must be having mixed emotions, because while promotion to AFP chief of staff is a great honor, he probably would prefer to have been elevated to the post under more auspicious circumstances.
Abu is not going to stay long in the AFP chief's post; he will retire on June 24 next year, just about eight months from now. We hope Abu's appointment will not mark the start of another round of "musical chairs" involving the highest post in the military. During President Arroyo's first term, the one where she served out the unexpired tenure of deposed President Joseph Estrada, she appointed six AFP chiefs of staff. They were Generals Diomedio Villanueva (14 months), Roy Cimatu (less than four months), Benjamin Defensor (the shortest term at 80 days although technically he was supposed to serve only 48 hours), Dionisio Santiago (less than five months) and Narciso Abaya (more than 18 months).
This game of musical chairs may have been politically justifiable then because she had to insure the loyalty of the generals who had a big role in ousting Estrada. But, then as now, the practice of appointing AFP chiefs for very short periods is not logically justifiable. It may even give rise to periods of political instability instead of promoting political security. The AFP chief's post is not supposed to be used like a lollipop to be dangled and given to certain generals to keep them contented and pacified.
We believe that the generals would like to be treated like professional soldiers who will abide by the decision of their commander in chief on all matters, including the appointment of the AFP chief of staff. Seniority, of course, is a big factor in appointments but it is not the only factor. There have been instances when a president practiced what is called "deep selection," appointing a junior general over the heads of senior ones. That is part of the prerogatives of a commander in chief.
The Constitution says that the tour of duty of the AFP chief of staff shall not exceed three years. In times of war or other national emergency declared by Congress, the president may extend his tour of duty. But what we have seen during the first term of Ms Arroyo, and what we're seeing now, is that the AFP chiefs of staff have been serving short terms.
A short term for the AFP chief of staff is not conducive to long-term planning for the AFP. It does not promote continuity of programs and policies. And ultimately, it is expensive for the country, for the AFP chief of staff has to be given the retirement pay of a four-star general when he retires. If an AFP chief of staff serves out the full three-year term, the government pays the retirement pay of only one general in three years, instead of three or four if that many generals are made AFP chief during the same period of time.
To repeat, the game of musical chairs may have made political sense during the President's first term when she had to think of insurance against coups and other disturbances from a restive military. But now that she has won an electoral mandate, there is no longer any need to ensure the loyalty of the military -- or is there? The President can now appoint an AFP chief who will enjoy a three-year tour of duty instead of one who will soon be saying his goodbyes shortly after he has warmed his seat.
Congress ought to seriously consider a proposal made by a legislator to fix the term of the AFP chief of staff at three years. This could be done by legislation and may not need a constitutional amendment since the Constitution says that the AFP chief's tour of duty "shall not exceed three years." Then the President would not feel bound by politics or feelings of gratitude to appoint generals who will retire in a few months to the top military post. Then she can choose the most qualified among them so that he can carry out reforms within a longer period and promote stability in an institution that has been intermittently experiencing instability since the EDSA People Power uprising in 1986.
posted by Dante at 7:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home