Defiant Marine officers get media sympathy

When media starts sympathizing with military officers who openly defy their commander in chief, can the end be near for the latter?

Two ranking Marines were the first casualties in the implementation of the controversial Executive Order 464, which requires officials of the executive department to seek the approval of the President before appearing in any congressional inquiry.

Brig. Gen. Francisco Gudani and Lt. Col. Alexander Balutan were immediately relieved by Armed Forces chief of staff Generoso Senga for testifying at the Senate hearing last Sept. 28 on the military’s involvement in the alleged fraud in Mindanao during the 2004 polls. They also face court martial proceedings for alleged willful disobedience of a lawful order of the commander in chief. Gudani and Balutan’s relief was front-page news in most of the Manila-based newspapers.

Because of the important role of the military in the downfall of the Marcos and Estrada administrations, the dismissal of Gudani and Balutan and the government’s handling of the issue are closely watched by different sectors.

Media 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 of the two officials of the Marines had caused restlessness and demoralization among the junior officers. A report in Malaya on Sept. 30 raised the possibility of another coup attempt similar to the Oakwood Mutiny in July 2003. As expected, the Armed Forces dismissed coup scenarios as hogwash.

Opinions about the administration’s treatment of the issue were contradictory. An editorial in The Philippine Star said 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 in her column said that because of Mrs. Arroyo’s treatment of the Gudani episode, “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).
Many columns and editorials, however, commended the two military officials for testifying at the Senate hearing even if the President prohibited them from doing so.

Generally sympathetic

Gudani and Balutan got favorable treatment from the media. Most of the reports focused on the expressions of support extended to the officials by militant groups and retired generals.

The media went as far as portraying Gudani as a religious family man. The public saw an emotional general in the Sept. 29 newscasts of ABS-CBN 2 and GMA-7, where Gudani denied all the allegations hurled against him. The Philippine Daily Inquirer’s feature on Gudani provided a comprehensive background on the life and career or the embattled general who retired last Oct. 4 (“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). The general’s retirement benefits from his 32 years in service have been put on hold.

There were a few stories that appeared to discredit the general. An article in the Star reported on Malacañang’s allegation that Gudani helped the opposition campaign during the last presidential elections (“‘Gudani distributed cash for opposition,’” Sept. 30). The report, however, did not say why the general was not reprimanded or punished for engaging in partisan politics.

On the whole, media were obviously sympathetic to the two Marines. Some outfits could not help themselves from editorializing. One newspaper headline screamed, “AFP violates Gudani, Balutan’s rights; Senga’s court martial threat empty” (Tribune, Oct. 4). This story line had no attribution.

Comments are closed.