Who should head the defense department?


Let me start off by saying that to appoint a civilian as head of the Department of National Defense is a big historical mistake we should not repeat. Secretary Juan Ponce Enrile, a civilian, gave us EDSA 1. Secretary Orly Mercado, another civilian placed in the defense post, gave us EDSA 2. Can we afford an upcoming EDSA 3 by putting at the helm of the defense establishment a civilian, again?

Why is it an issue who to appoint to head DND? Dr. Carolina Hernandez, known expert in military affairs, my teacher, warns against a military man because of the “mistah” culture that it might perpetuate. In other words, there is something wrong with such a culture that it would be better headed bv a civilian insulated from this ‘cultural bug’, so to speak.

If we take a careful look at the organizational structure of DND, it is the umbrella organization for the entire armed services – the Philippine Army, the Philippine Air Force, and the Philippine Navy (under it, the Philippine Marines). This is in so far as the whole military superstructure is concerned. By way of so-called civilian counterpart, the National Police Commission is the umbrella organization for the entire Philippine National Police that again, includes all the police services. This police organization is supposed-to-be the citizens’ police – myth or reality.

With that, the DND should produce its own leader, in this case, a former military man. The NAPOLCOM should likewise produce its own leader, a former policeman, if we may call it that. A civilian appointee would be a stranger and deemed not qualified, all things being equal, to manage the affairs of the organization of the DND. It is only logical that it should be headed by a military man himself.

Most, if not all, who were former military men who headed the DND include FVR. Senator Rodolfo Biazon, General Renato de Villa, General Fortunato Abat and the like. In their watch, none of them were party to an EDSA uprising and this is because the military culture has its own set of advantages in a society like ours. Having said that, it seems that the choice on whether to appoint a civilian or a military man to head DND is not so much as to who is perceived as best qualified for the job than who can assure there will not be another EDSA.

And for keen observers of trends, it is said that if we do EDSA on a fairly periodic basis, social reconstruction would prove very difficult. A society prone to vicious attacks of its primary institutions is not the vision of any right-thinking president in this country. It would be well-advised that the president appoints one from the ranks of the military itself if a more ideal management of military and defense affairs is really sought.

Some quarters still debate on the wrong issue of the military man being of a military mind while a civilian of civilian-supremacy mindset. Come to think of it, the military mind, if there is such a thing, is better than the ordinary civilian worldview. What is important is that a desired sense of morality is bred to the bone. Let us appoint a military man to head the defense department to insure not another EDSA is in the offing.