In recent days, I've heard calls for the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police to "withdraw support" from civilian leadership. These messages spread quickly, online and in conversation, fueled by frustration and hope for something better. I understand the anger. Most of us demand the same things: integrity, transparency, accountability.
But precisely because we care, we must be careful which institutions we press. The AFP and PNP exist not to serve political waves, but to uphold the Constitution and protect every citizen, regardless of faction. That is their mandate.
Civilian supremacy is not a bureaucratic technicality. It is a stabilizing principle won through hard history. The Philippine Constitution explicitly declares civilian authority supreme over the military. Some will rightly point to past adventurism or politicized appointments and ask, "Haven't the uniformed services already been compromised?" That is exactly why we must hold the line now. Past failures are warnings, not licenses. The answer to politicization is not more politicization; it is to demand merit-based, professional leadership within the constitutional system, not invite the institution to choose sides in a political brawl.
When we call on the AFP or PNP to abandon their constitutional duty, even unintentionally, we place them in an impossible position: pressured by public emotion, yet bound by oath to protect the entire nation. That is not protest. It is destabilization disguised as patriotism. It weaponizes the very institution we claim to reform.
The Constitution is built for disagreement. It can withstand disappointment and uncertainty. But it hinges on its guardians remaining nonpartisan and bound by law, not shifting political loyalties.
Some will ask: what if civilian leadership itself becomes a clear and present danger to the nation? The Constitution already answers this. The uniformed services must refuse unlawful orders. That is a legal duty, not a political choice. It is fundamentally different from deciding on their own that civilian leadership is dangerous and withdrawing support based on that political judgment. The first is fidelity to law; the second is a coup by another name.
If we want accountability, we must pursue it through oversight bodies, the courts, the legislature. Urging the AFP or PNP to take political sides does not reform the institution; it exploits its weaknesses and erodes safeguards for both citizen and uniform. It replaces one legitimacy crisis with another.
I say this not to dismiss the anger. People speak this way because they love the country. But love without restraint becomes recklessness. Our passion must be anchored in the principles that keep the Republic standing.
We owe it to those who serve, and to the nation that depends on their discipline, to preserve the constitutional boundaries that let them work with integrity. Past wrongs do not justify new ones. They prove why neutrality is non-negotiable. They protect us by remaining neutral. We protect them by defending that neutrality.
The best way to serve the country in difficult times is to strengthen the institution, not exploit it. Demand merit in appointments. Demand accountability in courts. But keep politics out of their formation, funding, and mission. Let civilian leaders lead. Let the judiciary judge. And let our uniformed services serve the entire nation, undivided.
Our task is to fortify institutions, not inflame them. To voice concerns in ways that reinforce democracy's guardrails, not erode them. To advocate with courage and responsibility.
Patriotism, peace, transparency, accountability, and constitutional order should guide us. The path to a better country is paved not by pressuring institutions toward crisis, but by protecting the foundations that allow lawful, peaceful change for the good of all.
