Gudani’s dismissal
Two military officials had recently found themselves in a tight spot after defying an order from their Commander-in-Chief.
Brig. Gen. Francisco Gudani (who retired last Oct. 4) and Lt. Col. Alexander Balutan instantly drew media attention when they appeared at the Senate hearing last Sept. 28 on the military’s involvement in the alleged fraud in the 2004 elections. Gudani and Balutan’s move, the reports noted, prompted Armed Forces Chief Generoso Senga to relieve them from their posts. The next day, the news landed on the front pages of the majority of the Manila-based newspapers.
Impact in the military
The dismissal of Gudani and Balutan could have had serious consequences not only to the military—but also to the Arroyo administration—since the military played an important role in the downfall of the Marcos and Estrada regimes. Unfortunately, the media failed to provide analysis on the trouble hounding the two military officials.
But to the media’s credit, it had sought the opposing views on the issue. Reports quoted retired generals—led by former Defense secretary Fortunato Abat, who called for the President’s ouster early this year—as saying that the sacking had caused restlessness and demoralization among the junior officers. A report in Malaya on Sept. 30 raised the possibility of another coup d’état similar to the Oakwood Mutiny in July 2003.
On the other hand, the Armed Forces officials’ comment that the dismissal would not cause military uprising were also reported.
An editorial in The Philippine Star said that the “punishment” of the two military officials “should serve as a lesson in military discipline and the consequences for soldiers of dabbling in partisan political activities.” (“Lessons for the Filipino soldier,” Oct.1).
Ninez Cacho-Olivares viewed the issue with pessimism. In her column, she said that with Mrs. Arroyo’s treatment to Gudani, “there is no longer any hope at all for the military establishment to reform itself and be rid of partisan politics” (“Time for military reflection,” The Daily Tribune, Sept. 30).
Media generally sympathetic
Although Gudani and Balutan failed to elicit sympathy from the military, the two got favorable treatment from the media. Most of the stories focused on the moral support given to them by militant groups and retired generals.
Likewise, columns and editorials commended the two military officials for testifying at the Senate hearing even if the President prohibited them from doing so.
The media went as far as portraying Gudani as a religious and a family person. The public saw an emotional Gudani in the Sept. 29 newscasts of ABS-CBN 2 and GMA-7, which gave him a chance to deny the allegations hurled against him. The Philippine Daily Inquirer as well featured Gudani’s life and gave comprehensive background on the embattled general (“Gudani described as a man of honor, religious, dead shot,” Sept. 29 and “’If I didn’t take the risk, where’s the sacrifice in that?’” Oct. 2).
Very few stories appeared to discredit Gudani. An article in the Star, for instance, reported Malacañang’s allegation that Gudani helped the opposition campaign during the elections last year (“’Gudani distributed cash for opposition,’” Sept. 30).
The drawback with the media’s sympathy was that it could not restrain itself from editorializing. For example, a headline of a front-page story said: “AFP violates Gudani, Balutan’s rights; Senga’s court martial threat empty” (Tribune, Oct. 4). This claim was not attributed to any source in the story itself. #
There are many who will give us mass interpretation and speculation that the average man can never find it, that the average man can’t understand. Sometimes they fill their pages with learnedly prolix that we could no longer discern what was the point of Gudani’s courage and values that is significant to many of us.