Assuming that the main objective of the Makati siege is to create a political noise that would resonate throughout the country and outside, its leaders succeeded. If it was meant to trigger yet another people power revolt against the Arroyo rule, it failed. Just the same, it left a message – of a regime that is despicable, and of an increasing number of people poised to challenge it no matter the risk to their lives.

The latest report is that the 36 alleged leaders and civilian supporters of what the justice secretary describes as a coup plot have been charged in court with rebellion. Among those charged were Brig. Gen. Danilo P. Lim and cashiered Navy Lieutenant now Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV. Both are detained and still facing trial for the February 2006 attempted coup and 2003 Oakwood mutiny, respectively. Along with other detained military officers, the two slipped from a Makati court to stage the takeover of the Peninsula Hotel in the financial district of Makati. Prominent civilians who have likewise been slapped with rebellion charges are former Vice President Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr., former University of the Philippines Francisco Nemenzo, Jr., Bishop Julio Labayen, and Catholic priest Robert P. Reyes. They trace their oppositionist and patriotic records to the struggle against the Marcos dictatorship, against foreign intervention, and now, against the Arroyo administration. Facing the wrath of those in power is not new to them.

The siege took place a day before Nov. 30 when multisectoral rallies marking the birth anniversary of revolutionary leader Andres Bonifacio were to be held throughout the country calling for the removal of Arroyo. It also came on the heels of a series of scandals exposing a regime festering with corruption as well as high-value bombings and a sharp decline in the popularity rating of Gloria M. Arroyo signifying the growing isolation and fragility of her presidency. Calls for the resignation or removal by impeachment and extra-constitutional means of Arroyo have been mounting since her takeover of the presidency on the crest of a second civilian uprising in January 2001. Two major events became pivotal in making the ground open for a tactical convergence of disparate political forces opposed to the Arroyo regime: the fraudulent 2004 presidential race and the fiscal crisis that followed. But the groundswell of protests that peaked with the call for Arroyo’s removal was stymied by differences on the matter of succession, centering on whether to allow a mediocre vice president to replace the besieged chief executive or going full steam with a seminal proposal for a transition governing council with some groups opting for a “revolutionary government” forged by civilian figures and mutinous military leaders.

Regime after regime

Previously, the military had figured preeminently in three coups that led to the formation of new regimes: the 1972 rightist coup pulled by President Ferdinand E. Marcos together with generals including Constabulary chief Gen. Fidel V. Ramos, which established a dictatorship until 1986; the February 1986 RAM-led coup attempt against Marcos, leading to Edsa I that enshrined Corazon C. Aquino as president; and at Edsa 2 in January 2001, the climactic withdrawal of support by then Defense Secretary Orlando Mercado and AFP chief Gen. Angelo Reyes that led to the toppling of Joseph E. Estrada and his replacement by then Vice President Arroyo.

Over the past 20 years, close to a dozen other coup attempts have been mounted against an incumbent president, with the last three of these taking place under Arroyo. The only time when no coup was attempted was during the presidency of Ramos (July 1992-June 1998) who had a long military career. The early coup attempts and mutinies were basically motivated by a grab for power, with many of these plotted or supported by ambitious politicians from the ruling elite aiming to install a civilian-military junta. It is said that these coup attempts unveiled a military institution that has become highly politicized. Politicization also opened cracks within the military, however. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) has evolved into a private army of sorts for presidents who, faced with political instabilities and extremely isolated from the people, court the support of generals to stay in power thus allowing corruption in the military as well as police institutions to dig in.

In recent years, military unrest particularly among junior officers has been fueled by issues of corruption plaguing not only the civilian bureaucracy but also the AFP’s top hierarchy, as well as on the constitutional legitimacy of Arroyo.

These issues would shed light on the launching of the alleged coup of February 2006 led by senior officers of the elite Scout Rangers and Marines, and likewise in the Nov. 29 hotel takeover. Recalling the almost successful 1989 coup against Aquino, Lim, a West Point graduate, was an Army captain who led the seven-week siege of Makati and he was with the Young Officers Union (YOU) that took an issue against U.S. intervention. Along with Trillanes, Lim in the latest siege also took aim against extra-judicial killings and against military orders that attacked civilian targets. In a press statement, Lim minced no words in saying that “the end of the corrupt and vicious government and its bogus leaders is long overdue” and vowed to “support the political and economic reforms that will be initiated by the new government.”

Trillanes IV, on the other hand, was elected senator with 11 million votes in the May polls this year. His continued detention all the more affirms his claim about Arroyo persecuting her political opponents and provoking them to use other political means in defense of their rights. A few of the websites of military rebel groups post the patriotic writings of Filipino revolutionaries and define the military’s role as “protector of the people” against tyrants and oppressors.

Idealism and the strength of convictions may as well be what drive Lim, Trillanes and other like-minded military officers to take a political gamble at the risk of losing their prime careers.

Divergent streams

These divergent streams from the conservative military institution have crossed paths with, and earned the respect of, some progressive politicians and prominent figures from the academe, NGO community, business, and the church. Reacting to rebellion charges as a result of the alleged February 2006 coup, Nemenzo, Jr., one of those accused, defended the soldiers who, he claimed, were “trying to redeem their profession from ignominy, by aligning themselves with the people. They seek to transform the armed services from a tool of elite rule and an instrument of deceitful politicians into a force for genuine democracy and social reforms.” The former UP president has since advocated for a “transitional revolutionary government” in place of Arroyo.

Objectively, the Nov. 29 hotel takeover was a test case for a viable partnership between a group of idealistic military officers and diverse political forces bound by a common objective of unseating what is popularly seen as an illegitimate president and founding a new government. The fact however that it was unable to inspire people into action evokes of a partnership yet to take shape along the broader fundamental interests of the people and the key role of organized masses.

In 1986, Marcos was toppled after several years of struggle by the underground national democratic forces and the people against the dictatorship culminating in gigantic waves of protests demanding the tyrant’s ouster that lasted for more than two years. Estrada’s removal in 2001 was preceded by build-up mobilizations spearheaded by the militant people’s organizations in conjunction with other forces backed no less by an aroused media, also for two years. In both instances, the military top brass intervened not because they were tired of the tyranny or the lack of moral ascendancy of their commanders-in-chief, but precisely in order to foil the growing influence of the Left that played a key role in these historic revolts. Always, the AFP acted as a powerbroker on behalf of the besieged state and in securing the turnover of power from one faction of the elite to another.

Objectively, the removal of any president seen to be corrupt and distrusted by the people should be a step toward building a viable political system and instituting fundamental social, economic, and political reforms. It should be a step in furtherance of governance where people’s genuine representatives play a decisive role. In short, the whole opus of crafting a new government and a new democratic political institution cannot be played by simply laying siege on Oakwood or Peninsula Hotel. It should be a program that is based on arousing, organizing and mobilizing the people in their hundreds of thousands and even millions. Any move that falls short of this will only end up as pure adventurism or, worse, in the rule by a civilian-military junta that will not last anyway.