another heroic combat soldier gone to waste?
-------------

MARINE Colonel Ariel Querubin, who led a band of mutineers in a standoff at a military camp for several hours on Sunday, is a military hero who received the Philippines' highest award for bravery in combat from President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

The powerfully built 49-year-old, a 1979 graduate of the elite Philippine Military Academy, found himself at the center of a deepening political crisis after supporting opposition calls for Arroyo to step down.

Querubin was sacked Friday as commander of the First Marine Brigade after telling his superior that he planned to lead his men, unarmed, to an opposition rally in Manila calling for Arroyo's resignation.

Hours later Arroyo declared a state of emergency, saying there was an imminent attempt by "military adventurists" in league with communists and the opposition to overthrow her.

On Sunday Querubin and at least 100 armed men made a defiant stand at the Marine headquarters in Manila in protest at the sacking of their commandant

Major-General Renato Miranda, who had apparently taken the heat for his subordinate's political actions.

"We're just showing solidarity with General Miranda," Querubin said. "We informed him that we would join the protest action [last Friday] to air our grievances. We wanted to march without arms."

However, "we were prevailed upon by General Miranda. So we followed the chain of command. So why are we being prosecuted?" he said before the standoff ended late Sunday when Querubin emerged with his new commandant, Brigadier-General Nelson Allaga, after several hours of talks.

"The Philippine Marine Corps is intact," Allaga told reporters. "We follow the chain of command. We follow the duly constituted authority."

Allaga would not spell out the punishment to be imposed on Querubin and his men.

Earlier, Querubin did not explain in detail how he lost his respect for Arroyo.

She survived an impeachment complaint in parliament last year arising from allegations she stole the May 2004 presidential election, as well as two attempts to overthrow her by force since replacing ousted leader Joseph Estrada in 2001.

That same year, Arroyo awarded the medal for valor to Querubin for "acts of conspicuous courage, gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty" as leader of a Marine battalion landing team in a 24-hour firefight with about 300 Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) gunmen on the southern island of Mindanao in 2000.

The capture of the MILF camp near the town of Kauswagan "resulted in the neutralization of the MILF's most strategic staging area for operations," the citation added.

During the awards ceremony Arroyo singled out Querubin for "his heroism."

The President added then: "He has done well in Mindanao and I personally asked him to come and join us in the Marine headquarters to do some work for the President of the Philippines."

Querubin, however, had been involved in one of the periodic eruptions of military unrest in recent decades.

As co-founder of a military fraternity called the Young Officers' Union (YOU), Querubin and his men joined about 3,000 rebel troops who seized Manila's financial district in a deadly standoff that drove the economy to its knees in 1989.

The participants did time in military prison but were pardoned and reinstated in the service in 1995, after retired general Fidel Ramos was elected president in 1992.

source

i saw Col. Querubin's farewell speech at Camp Ranao on TV, he was very emotional so were his officers and men, he is really well-respected in his area of command, a Muslim leader even presented him with a kris sword.

Sayang nga at mukhang di na magprosper ang career ni Col. Querubin sa PMC.

Again, careers of good men wasted after being made pawns by groups trying hard to get what they wanted. :bs:

I hope that the efforts of Col. Querubin will not go to waste. I hope that people will learn lessons from his actions and that it will open the eyes of our leaders that there is indeed a big problem that needs to be addressed properly. good luck sir!

Count me as one of those who will express a gesture of praise to the straight-forward Colonel Querubin.

His actions were signs that he is a real military man with guts even compromising his military career to support the people to exercise their freedom.

Although it did'nt materialize as everyone's expectation, he had shown his true colors as a military man who would not trade honest principles with juicy rewards out of "tuta-ism".

For the regime, he is a spoiled brat but for the freedom loving people he was still a hero, and a " laurel " should be added to his cap. :salute:

This is based upon the assumption that the only reason a person would choose NOT to join the rebellion is because of careerism.

What about men of principle who believe in fulfilling their duty to uphold the constitution?

It is not the military's job to change government. They are there to protect the status quo.

:exactly:
When the people or the AFP men themselves aren't solid about where to side with, it is better to DO THEIR SWORN DUTY to protect the constitution instead of becoming the ingredient to grab an UNCERTAIN CHOICE that may result to UNFAVORABLE or WORSE SITUATION.

The commies are riding the issue, remember?

Do you wanna risk our future with this power grab?

Let's analyze things further, guys.

Let's stop making things more confusing and let's just help the economy move on.

Don't be so alarmed about Gloria. She knows we all have our eyes watching her. She'd rather do things that will exonerate her than ruin our nation more.

PGMA is doing that while the commies are taking their last card to ruin us all so that they can have their chance to finally win the seats of power.

Yes... and people who doesn't understands such, calls these men "LOYALIST" Who is then dividing the AFP?

Remember EDSA I how the Marines were branded as such? No wonder they erupted very hard during one of the coups.

People should understand the difference between protecting the Institution and the person running the institution.

:agree:

Are you upholding the constitution if you are subsugating the freedom of the people, or if you are an instrument to repressive actions ?

In a nutshell, it is unnecessary to raise the questiion on whether it is the military's job to change a regime because everybody knows that it is'nt. The issue to be raised is, Should the military defend people's rights that were trampled upon, including their own rights ? or act as a predatory spectator ? Where is the so-called upholding the constitution now ?

There is only one basic way of upholding the constitution, it is the respect of everybody's constitutional rights., and that is the sublime duty of the military, and not to protect the one's that deprived the citizens of their basic rights under the constitution.

The only way to uphold the consitution is to follow it. Otherwise it has no meaning.

The constitution, and the related RAs and IRRs, contains procedures for regime change. It also contains mechanisms that ensure a balance of power amongst the three branches of government to provide some measure of safety against usurpation of powers. None of those provisions and laws involve the military.

If one ignores these procedures, and resorts to extra constitutional measures, then one is ignoring the constitution.

Leverage these mechanisms to their fullest. If we are to survive as a country, we must strengthen our institutions. We can't do that by bypassing them. (Its times like this where I miss Fernan and Davide)

Are soldiers free to select which orders they follow? The mindset you espouse -- which is essentially creative interpretation of the constitution -- runs contrary to military discipline.

What would happen to the Philippines if every disgruntled group went to the streets to do their own version of "people power" every time they didn't get their way? What megalomaniac won't hide his/her personal ambitions under the cloak of "the good of the people". Hell, even Hitler claimed that what he was doing was for the good of the people of his country.

What would happen to the military if generals were now approved by the commission on appointments based on their perceived willingness to support coup plans of people on the committee? Do you really want to give birth to a caste of political mercenaries in the AFP?

Again i agree. Remember guys that during the Marcos regime it was a different scenario. The military was Marcos' tool in implementing his grand plan to stay in power. That time the military was feared more than respected. Its duty was to protect the constitution which is really the rights of every Filipino but what really happened? The military was used to suppress the very constitution that they were to protect and uphold. At present, GMA's regime is trampling on the constitutional rights of the Filipinos, the right to the truth and the right to have a clean election, the right to have a government that is not corrupt. GMA supporters are saying that she was exonerated because she survived the impeachment process. Are the people running the process trully represent the people and its convictions? Who's gonna fight for the people, the corrupt politicians who is either under the belt of the administration or are to concerend about their political career and their pockets? No one is left but the military and the PNP. Again it is not a choice for the AFP/PNP to protect the people's constitution but it is their duty.

I agree, this also applies to GMA. But the "hello Garci" tapes shows she is not and being the president she should be the forerunner in protecting the constitution.

Sir Adroth, I cannot or did not create my own constitutional rights nor I believe that the military has it's own and exclusive rule above the law that it can promulgate or instill discipline among it's men that can be derogatory to the fundamental law of the land. We cannot find this fact even in the " Book of Giants".

Since you are citing Hitler as an example to support your argument in a topic that deals with freedom and human rights, then I may not go further to discuss with you for I believe we do not belong to the same ideology.

What Col. Querubin did ranks as stupidity and katangahan. He knows fully well that the members of the AFP can't participate in politics except the right to vote.

As commander-in-chief, PGMA has every right to replace Gen. Miranda.

Kung serious talaga si Col. Querubin about his "struggle", dapat magsimula siya sa AFP, specifically sa Marines.

A few years ago, there was a scandal involving the PMC when they purchased defective Kevlar (kuno) helmets from China. Where was Col. Querubin that time? We never heard his voice about that issue.

To Gen. Lim and Col. Querubin, how about the graft and corruption sa AFP? Bakit hindi sila magsimula rito? I am not saying PGMA is without sin but how many presidents have come and gone pero nariyan pa rin ang bulok at baho sa AFP!

:headbang:

that's not the only thing he compromised......

you may not be aware of this, but hitler frequently used issues on "freedom and (human) rights".... specifically of the "oppressed germanic people" and the "humiliated post-ww1 german nation" to get sympathy......

so hitler is an excellent counter argument against those who espouse "fighting for the oppressed" when in fact they are now acting as borderline demagogues....

dem·a·gogue also dem·a·gog (dĕm'ə-gôg', -gŏg') - n. A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.

As far as I know out there, nobody has fought a war for and in behalf of the oppressed. Those they called a handful of renegade elements of the AFP were not fighting for them, they were just displaying some simple solidarity to those like them who want to air their views to voice their accounts of what was going on that creates a paranoia to those who are expecting desenters to demostrate it collectively to be heard.

And these people are accused of staging a coup every time they congregate in the streets to protest.

These mentality are the main obstacles of the much sought reforms because people are always barred and gagged whenever they can smell foul odour of the leadership. Why institute repressive actions when it is not warranted ?

As for Hitler, I don't believe for a second that he was under the cloak of promoting human rights in his quest to conquer the whole of Europe. Human rights does'nt exist in the Nazi's vocabulary. Why would Hitler use this kind of ploy, when it was already at the peak of his leadership of Germany that he want to conquer Europe if not the whole world, and his first recruit according to history was Mussolinni, and when the latter started repression, he was betrayed by his own people, and he sank before Hitler's demise.

All these arguments have their merits and demerits I believe. Me I feel sorry for the fate of the good Colonel, but I guess he himself said it all that he was willing to take responsibility for his actions- that i doff my hat off and render a snappy salute to...

But ill have a few questions na sana someone can answer clearly and straightforwardly.

Does engaging in partisan politics by military men correct earlier engagement in partisan politics by other military men ( or is a mistake corrected by another mistake?)?

Are the actions of military personnel of heeding the call to suport political action similar to further politicizing the military, a statement generated by those who reject such yet espouse such.

Do actions like beeing seen to participate in activities with identified leftists speak louder than the words that the Red scare is but a scare?

Must internal problems within an organization be brought to the attention of a media known to capitalize on grandstanding and sensationalism? And to be specific in a military organization, must problems as mustering support for a person or an issue be brought out in the open for all to feast on and muddle?

Has there ever been a leftist, a rightist, a centrist and a militarist who had been able to work constructively for the good of any country after dividing the spoils of victory?

And if the actions generated last Sunday did lead to achievement of its eventual goal, who would lead the country, corollary to my previous question?

Honestly, these are my PERSONAL questions in the light of the recent events, more so, this particular topic, nothing personal here. A responsible and logical answer to these thoughts are what i seek...

The following text is from the Code of Conduct of a Filipino Soldier.

I think it speaks for itself as to what should be the priorities of our AFP.

The question of politicizing the military is moot and academic because by it's sense of order, it is already politicized in the very sense of the word in the first place. Proof of this is the promotion and appointment of the bigwigs in the military heirarchy that is done by the politicians in power. So, it generated a personal loyalty to the appointing power to be repayed by using the military as a tool for repression in case the regime is facing turbulence as a result of corruption and other deceptive undertakings contrary to the expectations of the masses that put them to power.

The question of what would happen had there been a success on that alleged coup, - the written constitution will come into play and let the provisions of succession do it's purpose to the effect.

Most questions that practically arise is who will be. Nobody can tell except the the written covenant of the fundamental law of the land.

Would you swallow the needles just because you don't know what to eat next ?

The question of politicizing the military is moot and academic because by it's sense of order, it is already politicized in the very sense of the word in the first place

yes, thats quite obvious, a poor legacy of not only from Marcos, but if we believe what is written or the analysis from PCIJ, even from Magsaysays time- but i think it was even from Quezons' time, see his own physician , Gen Basilio Valdes be made a CS. But does further politicizing correct earlier politicizing of the organization?


The question of what would happen had there been a success on that alleged coup, - the written constitution will come into play and let the provisions of succession do it's purpose to the effect.

but that is what the, to use the term of the government, "destabilizers" wish to usurp, and yet that is still what they will obey? and the leftists, who will be part of the transition government in more ways than one, overtly or covertly, are not beholden to follow the constitution for the have their own agenda. For me it only leads to a further question of had the alleged coup, or destabilization plot ( again to follow the government by-line) succeeded, whose law or what law to guide us would be in effect or prevail?

Most questions that practically arise is who will be. Nobody can tell except the the written covenant of the fundamental law of the land.

thats just it sir- with no clear agenda or platform of government and a leader to show the way for us, would we gamble, or as what is said in the military ( with which you are most probably familiar with sir), " take life'' the future and stability of our country? malabo ata yun sir, hindi lang slogans and semantics to rabble rouse the populace into garnering support to remove the incumbent siguro ang dapat


Would you swallow the needles just because you don't know what to eat next ?

oh no, definetely not sir! if i can live on water in lieu of needles i'd do that; and not knowing what to eat next would goad me into finding other more palatable treats that needles, siguro...

but then again, what about my other questons sir? i was really expecting you to reply to my query- to which you somehow did, and I am thankful sir; but the questions still linger and remains.

ill just read on if you or anyone does try to answer my questions at this point. but i have to admit these recent events in these interesting times do make interesting and tasty food for thought....

Well done, Jep, your questions about this ongoing political situation of the Phiippines is worth reckoning with but even the most clever and brilliant solutions cannot work with the breed of politicians we have at the moment or in the next generation to come.

Our present political system is acceptable enough without undue changes, but if it will be run by the same generics of politicians that has been, are at present, and the next generation, it will be as worst as it has been.

There are plenty of bright moves but to make it happen is next to impossible and the last recourse will be through prayer of divine intervention. May God bless our country.

Thank you sir for your reply and compliments.

I am but one of the many Filipinos who may have the same thoughts and questions in his or her mind. Inasmuch as you sir may know who or what the nature of my work is, i would rather ask these questions in forums like this and seek answers, and not just answers, but logical, responsible and credible answers to enlighten not only me but all wo read these forums as well...

So tuloy ang paghanap ng mga sagot sa ating mga katanungan...

Please clarify.

I used Hitler as an example of the lengths that people will go to apply a veneer of legitimacy to their causes. One should not buy a political tagline just because it says "for the good of the people".

Thank you Wushu. My sentiments exactly.

This is a matter that should be settled in the court of law, not through military action.

At times, the solution to an internal problem must come from an external source. The media is that fastest means of reaching external sources.

It is an imperfect medium. But better an exagerated version of the truth, then no information at all.

Lim and Querubin deserved their fate, they were given a second chance to redeem themselves after their participation in the 1989 coup.

When George Bush lied to the American people by claiming that Saddam has WMD in order to go to war in Iraq, did the US military launch a coup?

When General Mcarthur was dismissed by Pres Truman for insubordination did his loyal officers launch a coup against Pres Truman?

They claimed that they are fighting for good governance, morality, and transparency. And yet their conscience are not bothered by the more than a hundred people who died as a direct result of their coup attempt in 1989. You will not hear them apologizing for that.


once a coup plotter always a coup plotter, I am beginning to believe that these coup pals are just fighting for personal glory. They visualize themselves like those Roman gladiators fighting their fellow warriors.

Ya, you're right adroth! Good argument. Back to and stay at the barracks and do your job without disobeying the chain of command. Leave Arroyo alone. Bakit bihira akong makarinig ng kritisismo aimed at Sison. Laging si Arroyo. She is the lawful and legally ordained president. She submitted herself to and was acquitted in the impeachment process. What more do you want?

She submitted herself to and was acquitted in the impeachment process ???

Was she acquitted ??? I don't think so. Her political allies made sure that she won't be impeached ! Where did you get the news that she was acquitted ??? How sure are you. Think first before you write bro!

Mr. epigone, I just want to let you know that you have chosen the word "acquitted" in the impeachment proceedings against Mrs. Arroyo which is not appropriate. My apology if you have chosen the word according to the level of your academic intelligence.

Acquitted is a legal term for exoneration of an accused facing criminal proceedings in a court of law, while impeachment is not a criminal proceedings that can result to an acquittal or conviction".

Impeachment cannot determine your guilt based on the fraudulent issues presented to justify it because the outcome is pre-dominantly based on the votes of your political allies who themselves even knew that the issues presented were true.

This is the case of the flawed impeachment "ab initio" that purportedly abrogated the chances of Mrs. Arroyo being prevented from assuming office with a cloudy and murky legal basis.

I hope this will enlighten you on what really is the face value of that impeachment and it's difference from a criminal proceedings.

I stand to be corrected then. Bring it to the supreme court then if it is proper to question its legality or constitutionality. The fact is that she was absolved. Laws , judicial decisions and promulgations of congress (impeachment) form part of the law of the land. And the "law maybe harsh but that is the law". That the accused shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty. And that any deviation by way of questioning the legality or constitutionality of the impeachment or by way of labellling her a cheat inspite of the absolution in congress is slander or libel. Strictly apply the law, labelling her a cheat after her absolution ( id ont know the word so pardonme) is libelous. It doesn't matter if i got the wroong word. The important thing is that she passed through the impeachment process and that any remark calling her a cheat is slanderous or libelous. That is if you apply the law. Ask Justice Quisumbing my professor in UP Law in Constitutional law. Kalawang na ang alam ko sa batas, Sir. I haven't read any SCRA or Citators for 20 years now. I forgot my criminal law. But i still remember what libel or slander is.

It's quite funny Mr. epigone of your mentioning the crime of libel in relevance to the alleged cheating in the last election. If that fantasy can be realized, more than half of the population who believed they were cheated will face the crime of libel.

Libel cannot be associated with questions on constitutional issues relating to redress of fundamental rights to freedom of expression.

I suggest that before intertwining criminal action with other areas of the law, better make it informative and with substance otherwise, refrain from doing it if you are not very sure what you are discussing about.

Then let the law take its course and consider half of the population committing alleged libel. How else then can you resolve the case of people calling her a cheat inspite of either her presumption of innocence or exculpation in the impeachment process. How the would redress the alleged wrong. If it takes 40 million criminal complaints of libel to redress of wrongs committed against her then so be it. If I were the president and then somebody told that i am corrupt without complaint decided against me for corruption, isn't it that libel or slander. If i were accused of corruption, and the law says "everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, isn't that slander or libel until i get convicted? "presumed innocent, remember? If i was convicted then that is the time that i cannot bring a case against somebody if he calls me a cheat or corrupt unless he makes a cartoon out of me being "sodomized by a horse" which is completely irrelevant. "Even the guilty person has rights"(Professor Ambion, Criminal Law professsor, UP)

It is either libel, slander or defamation, but only after you can prove your innocence in a court of law not thru legislative proceedings.

The law "will and can"always take it's own course if no political and fraudulent manipulations or other judicial malfeasance employed especially when the accused is the governing power.

If you try to project to the people that the AFP is a professional institution you cannot allow yourself and others to be used by the politicians be it administration and opposition for their own political gains and or agenda. Obvious reason why it is hard for the AFP to rid itself of the chains of the politicians, But by slowly converting it to a more professional institution from politicized it can happen.

It is easy for us to say but a hard thing for them to do, it is a deep rooted system that need be cut from the root to the tip so in the future the AFP will be free from the bind the ties them to useless politicking.

To lower the politicizing in the AFP, the promotions/appointments must not be done by politicians but within the AFP. What currently happens is that the Commission on Appointments is the one deciding on this, which furthers the politicizing of the AFP.

As I said "Every one is presumed innocent until proven guilty". It would go against the spirit of the laws if one passes personal judgment on anybody without a valid court judgment. To await for someone or the Prosecuting Attorney to file proper charges and convict the corrupt official before passing judgment is only proper. Any personal judgment passed derogarotory to the "corrupt" before conviction I consider libelous especially if the case is not resolved in court because of lack of interest or because of dismissal . As I said it would go against the spirit of the laws to judge in haste and put the burden of proof on the person involved without any charges filed at the instance of the Prosecutin Attorney or solicitor General or any private person.The burden of proof lies on the accuser. Sir, I am learning from you. Good!

Yes, the accused was the governing power. But she submitted herself voluntarily to the impeachment process. Any personal or emotional reactions one has on her is immaterial to the case especially if she is judged by surveys. You jump right away to statements like "judicial malfeasance employed" and "fraudelent manipulations" giving the presumption that she did it. What if her case was brought before the courts and she gets acquitted? Had or have that ever came into your mind? Absuwelto siya, kulong ka pa ! (With due respect) Whatever incidental matters like bribing the judge or partiality is immaterial lalo na kapag walang ebidensiya. The law does not bother with those matters. Eto ang ebidensiya. Absuwelto siya. Yari ako, kung ako ikaw. Libelous ako! Let us wait for a court judgment before we gossip or judge on her. Walang asulto. Walang personal na paghusga. Simple as that.

My comment was premised from the general perspective Mr. epigone, I did not mention any specific person or entity. Your mind was just too creative enough that you were the one's giving the subject whom I did'nt mention.

I repeated this for you to comprehend between the lines.

"What ifs"are not facts if you are really familiar with what is needed tosupport any argument relevant to any law or legal issues in court or any legal forum.

Why justify what Lim and Querubin have done? Just because they have seen the elephant doesn't divest them of the duty to act professionally as servicemembers of the AFP.

Matter of fact, by siding with people with an evil agenda, they have revealed themselves to be the lowest of mercenaries. Pathetic.

i saw col. Querubin once during a reunion of PMC families, he loked very kind and genial, sayang lang at na involve siya sa coup at dirty politics.