Defense chief: AFP won't heed calls to withdraw support for Marcos

Calls for the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to withdraw support from President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. are "futile" and will only lead to a "possible criminal investigation," Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr. said.

“The AFP is standing steadfast in upholding the Constitution under the leadership of the Commander in Chief President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. Calls for them to withdraw support will not amount to anything but to a possible criminal investigation,” Teodoro said in a statement.

“Any attempt to sway them away from this duty or to patronize them to support a partisan agenda is futile, particularly when this agenda dovetails with a foreign interest contrary to our own national interests,” he added.

Teodoro did not drop names, but Davao del Norte Representative Pantaleon Alvarez earlier called on the Armed Forces to peacefully withdraw support from Marcos.

Alvarez, a former Speaker, said that the Marcos administration's joint patrol policy with allies in the West Philippine Sea amid China’s continued aggression is stoking armed conflict, if not war, which puts the lives of Filipinos in danger.

Alvarez made the remarks during a rally with former President Rodrigo Duterte in Tagum City, Davao del Norte on Sunday.

In a separate statement Wednesday, National Security Adviser Eduardo Año said in a democratic society like the Philippines, the armed forces are neutral and apolitical, serving the interests of the nation as a whole.

"The AFP and PNP shall continue to remain above partisan, political, or personal interests. Rep. Alvarez, and others who may be similarly inclined, should not drag such respected institutions to serve their partisan agenda or self-interest, even if such calls are made, as he claimed, in a fit of emotion," he said.

He added any call of withdrawal of support when done by a public official, more so a high-ranking reservist officer, was not only irresponsible but also illegal and unconstitutional.

"Such utterances and actions can be construed as seditious or rebellious and they have no place in our society," he further said.

Año called on the Department of Justice to thoroughly review the matter and consider appropriate legal actions against Alvarez.

"His words and deeds are a disservice to our men and women in uniform who risk their lives daily to safeguard our nation's security, defend us from all manner of threats, and uphold the Constitution," he said.

Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla has ordered a probe into Alvarez’s statements, saying the former speaker’s comments already reached  "the level of sedition or even rebellion.” 

The Revised Penal Code states that the crime of inciting to sedition is committed by “any person who, without taking any direct part in the crime of sedition, incite others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons, banners, or other representations tending to the same end, or upon any person or persons who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the government, or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof."

Acts which constitute sedition also include “those which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the functions of his office, or which tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which lead or tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and order of the Government, or who shall knowingly conceal such evil practices."

Alvarez, however, maintained that there is nothing criminal with his statements. 

"Paano naging seditious o disorderly conduct 'yung sinabi ko eh peaceful nga at orderly. Meron dissatisfaction sa AFP," he said.

(How can my statement be considered seditious or disorderly when it was peaceful and orderly? There's dissatisfaction in the AFP.)

Alvarez also said that under the Constitution, the AFP "is the protector of the people and the State."

“Kung sasabihin man 'outside of legal' yung 'means,' bakit bawal ba mag-resign ang mga sundalo bilang withdrawal of support kung hindi na sila naniniwala sa direksyon ng liderato? Karapatan din nila 'yan, constitutionally protected rights 'yan," Alvarez added.

(When they say that the means is illegal, why can't soldiers resign as a show of withdrawal of support if they no longer believe in the direction of the leaders? That's their right and it is constitutionally protected.)

Under the Constitution, the Armed Forces' goal should be to secure the sovereignty of the state and the integrity of the national territory.—LDF/AOL, GMA Integrated News