GOVERNANCE MATTERS
Former Vice President Jejomar Binay
A day after the termination of the accord between the University of the Philippines (UP) and the Department of National Defense (DND), a social media post appeared in the Facebook pages of several military units listing the names of UP graduates who have allegedly joined the New People’s Army (NPA), have been captured, or have died in encounters with government forces.
Oddly, the list included the names of established academics, lawyers, artists, journalists, former members of Congress, and senior government officials – among them a former chair of the government peace panel – who are very much alive. In separate statements, they denied the military’s claim that they had joined the NPA. They all expressed shock and concern. And they have good reason to be fearful. Of late, the release of “lists,” whether of alleged drug lords or communists, is usually followed either by arrests or killings.
The erroneous list, however, was a major embarrassment for the military, and undermined the credibility of its claims against the State University. The post has been taken down, the intelligence chief relieved, and two senior officers of the civilian-military relations unit of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) suspended pending the outcome of an investigation ordered by the defense secretary.
This incident exposed serious shortcomings in the military’s intelligence work. And it can be described as a cautionary tale. It revealed how the draconian power to detain persons suspected of terrorism without charges – a feature of the Anti-Terrorism Law – could be abused.
This is purely hypothetical. But imagine if the law was invoked to justify the arrests of persons named in a government list that would later be exposed as erroneous. It would have far-reaching consequences beyond public shaming, although that is damaging in itself. It would have led to unjustly depriving a person of his or her rights and liberty on the basis of spurious, if not outrightly false, information.
But there are larger issues involved, among them the state of professionalism of our intelligence units and integrity in intelligence gathering under the present dispensation.
Practitioners will advise that intelligence gathering, in principle, should focus on information that is not only accessible, but verifiable. It should be of value to superiors, and help them arrive at accurate decisions.
This means that information gathered by intelligence agents and units must be subjected to intensive review and validation. Wrong intelligence leads to faulty decisions. False intelligence results in spurious and unjustifiable actions.
It remains a puzzle why the concerned military units, given the tools and resources at their disposal, did not attempt to verify the information that warranted the inclusion of the personalities in the list. It’s as if intelligence operatives simply leafed through the college yearbooks and past issues of the Philippine Collegian, UP’s student publication, and randomly selected names for inclusion. This is sloppy and unprofessional work.
This damning incident should prompt a reappraisal of what may be described as the “politicized" nature of recent military efforts aimed at supposedly ending the communist insurgency. But perhaps “politicized" is not accurate.
This is not an example of the “politicized” military of the Marcos period, when disgruntled officers organized a military uprising in February, 1986, that would have crumbled had it not been for the call of Cardinal Sin for people’ support. This is also not the “politicized” military of the early years post-Marcos, with their coup attempts against a democratically elected authority.
Sadly, this may be interpreted as segments of the military engaging in politicking, an example of political sycophancy. It is skewing intelligence to suit the wishes or designs of political authorities. And when this happens, it not only undermines the integrity of the intelligence profession, but the image and credibility of the institution.
This politicking must stop. In the end, it endangers the very democracy that the military has sworn to defend and protect.