July 29, 2003	Tuesday	Jumadi-ul-Awwal 28, 1424

MANILA: Going by past coup attempts in this South-east Asian country, Sunday’s rebellion was shortlived and did not pose a serious threat to the Philippine government. By the day’s end it was no longer even called a takeover attempt, but a mutiny.

But whatever history finally calls Sunday’s move by 296 soldiers — which occurred 14 years after the last coup attempt by the military against an incumbent Philippine government — it will be some time before the Philippines comes to terms with this latest episode of military adventurism.

Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, whose political stock was boosted at the end of the 20-hour siege in the capital’s financial district, called the episode a rebellion over organisational matters instead of “ideology”.

Opening the session of Congress on Monday, Arroyo announced that an independent inquiry would look into “the roots of the mutiny and the provocations that inspired it”.

She called the mutiny, which involved 70 junior officers, “deplorable” and said it would be “met with the full force of the law”, referring to rules under which the mutineers can face a court-martial and expelled from the military.

A leader of the rebellious soldiers, Lt Senior Grade Antonio Trillanes, says they took up arms because of grievances ranging from corruption in the military leadership— including their selling of arms to Muslim separatist and communist rebels — and the government’s staging of bomb attacks to get more support from the US government.

“This was how to do it. This was how to be an officer,” Trillanes was quoted as saying by the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper on Monday.

Before they agreed to surrender and return to barracks late on Sunday, the soldiers also asked for the resignation of Arroyo, who came to power in 2001 after the ouster of her predecessor, Joseph Estrada, on corruption charges.

The siege also occurs in a politically charged environment in the country ahead of next year’s presidential elections — prompting many Filipinos to wonder if that was all there is to it or whether it is just a precursor to more troubled times ahead.

“The papers today bannered that the crisis is over, but I think it’s too early to announce an end to the crisis,” Paulynn Sicam, a political analyst and editor of an alternative website on Philippines issues, said in an interview.

“What does this say about Philippine society? My question is what does it say about our military? How are our officers trained? Why does the coup culture persist in the military 17 years after the People Power revolt?” she asked.

The military played a key role in the 1986 bloodless “People Power” revolt that ousted the dictator Ferdinand Marcos after 21 years in power. At the time, the armed forces’ switching of loyalties, combined with a civilian uprising, brought millions into the streets in support of Corazon Aquino, widow of a slain opposition leader who became president from 1986 to 1992.

In the years since, the Philippine military — or parts of it — have made several forays into the political sphere.

There were all of seven coup attempts, including by elements of the military that were key in the 1986 revolt, against the Aquino administration in the eighties.

The 1989 coup attempt was particularly bloody, led by Gregorio Honasan, a man who has since been elected senator - and has now been implicated by government officials in Sunday’s mutiny.

Just this month, Aquino herself recalled in a speech that “the majority of the military opted for professionalism over adventurism” after 1989. But the military, too, played a key role in the 2001 uprising against Estrada, who was ousted after his armed forces chief, Angelo Reyes, withheld the military’s support.

Reyes has since been rewarded with the defence portfolio by Arroyo — and is the subject of the many gripes aired by the rebellious junior officers about low pay, bad working conditions and low morale because of corruption at high levels.

“Had they (mutinous soldiers) won, Gloria (Arroyo) would have been the biggest loser, but they could not have won,” Sicam added.

The Inquirer added: “The failure to take public support into consideration was especially telling.”

“For all practical purposes, rebellious captains and lieutenants just cannot expect senior offices to follow them. So they really must have relief on the politicians to provide with the support they needed,” Sicam explained.

Speculation is rife about who might have been behind the mutiny. Was the mutiny just by a band of soldiers who mistakenly thought, or were made to think, that they would get popular support? Was it a staged event, to score political points for Arroyo amid a growing belief that she will go back on a promise not to run in the 2004 polls? Was it backed or funded by opposition figures who wanted to undermine Arroyo? On Monday, government officials were focusing on two “connections” to the siege.

One led to Honasan, who was reported to have been talking to junior officers in recent months and the other to a former aide to Estrada, Ramon Cardenas, in whose house was supposedly found weapons, ammunitions and the same red armbands the mutinous soldiers were using.

Rebellion charges would be filed against Honasan, according to Local Government Secretary Jose Lina who said that Honasan’s involvement was “clear as day” although he did not give evidence. “It’s clear that the soldiers did not act alone.”

“I don’t know what to believe, but I think there’s some bigger force behind it,” said Anna Miranda, an employee at the Makati financial district. “But all I know is the country does not need a mess like this now.”

“I think the soldiers’ cause — against corruption — is right,” added Ronnie Olalia, a communications strategist. “The fact that someone up there is selling arms to the rebels means that their fellow soldiers are dying because of those weapons.”

Arroyo herself acknowledged that the mutiny signals “an underlying problem that we must address”.

Among others, the soldiers said the Arroyo government and the military staged a bomb attack in the southern Philippines this year and then blamed it on terrorists in order to get extra assistance from the US government. —Dawn/InterPress News Service.