Desecration and redemption

DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
7/20/2005



Throughout history, progressive societies projects to its people high virtues of courage, honesty, integrity, democracy, service to god and country, and valor among many other high values. A society without such would degenerate into barbarity. Virtue would be drowned out by the raucous pandemonium dishonesty, greed, deception, treachery and debauchery. I was reminded of this sorry state in the story of the desecration of the country’s highest military award, the Medal of Valor (MoV), designed to honor singular acts of uncommon bravery in battle in the service of our country.

Although I am told by retired military friends that this is not the first time there has been controversy over military medals and awards (the Marcos medals among them) the Medal of Valor seems to be an exception. Being the highest award and considered even sacred by military officers, this has always been given out with absolute care and fastidious standards. Its integrity is so guarded that a board to screen recommendations for the award exists to judge their merit, and in the board of five two MoV awardees specifically included to help in the evaluation.

The details of the MoV controversy has been reported in several newspapers so I need not go into the details, but the specific circumstances indicating its desecration needs to be reiterated. Medal of Valor awardee and member of the board Col. Arturo Ortiz and Col. Custodio Parcon questioned AFP CoS General Efren Abu’s recommendations and the subsequent approval of several MoV awards. The first instance is the MoV award to Army Lt. Col. Noel Buan and Sgt. Leopoldo Diokno for the “neutralization of Abu Sayyaf leader Hamsiraji Sali and some of his men in close-quarter battle in BAsilan on April 2004.”

Investigation shows claims for Col. Buan’s heroism to be questionable. There was no “close-quarter battle”; Hamsiraji Sali and men were unarmed, assured of their safety in the surrender terms. Buan’s defense argues that deception is part of military tactics, Col. Ortiz counters that “treachery” is not. The damage to the honorable conduct of war, particularly in the context of the strife in Mindanao may be irreparable because of this. Sgt. Diokno’s award is questioned the MoV terms is clear that it is given for “singular” acts of valor, in Gen. Abu’s hand the “singular” became “dual act of valor” coupled to Buan’s. A case of “constructive” interpretation?

The other cases involve two soldiers formerly under the command of Gen. Abu and recommended by him for the Gold Cross: Sgt. Felix Santos and former 1st Class Trainee Santiago Tenorio for operations in Lamitan town in Basilan way back in 1975.

General Abu upon becoming CoS recommended to have their Gold Cross upgraded to MoV, which raises the question: why only now. Why way back in 1975? Is this a case of favoritism in a dole out of the MoV? That such questions can be raised already cast doubt on Gen. Abu’s esteem for the award.

There is an unreported but crucial angle to this MoV controversy, a political angle springing from GMA’s penchant for publicity gimmicks. The impetuous and insistent grant of the MoV awards despite objections at the MoV Board was apparently prompted in one occasion by GMA’s instruction to find some reason to pin an MoV on someone to draw media interest to her attendance. This is what some in the AFP find appalling about Gen. Abu that his proclivity to sucking up to GMA had to lead to the cheapening of the Medal of Valor.

There are other details, such as how the Board of MoV rules were rewritten to reduce the required unanimous decision to 2/3 for the approval of an award, purportedly to ensure that MoV awardees in the board Col. Ortiz and Col. Custodio Parcon’s objections would be overruled. How the MoV Board disapproved the award to Sgt. Diokno but was also overruled when the case went to the Board of Generals where Gen. Abu could have his final say. In protest over these and more MoV issues the two MoV awardees on the board have honorably tendered their resignation from the board.

The sad saga for the AFP of the desecration of the Medal of Valor is redeemed only by the courageous moral fight put up by Col. Ortiz and Col. Parcon. I have met Col. Ortiz and been witness to his struggles with his conscience over this issue. He could not in conscience allow the desecration of the highest principles of honor and integrity pass without a fight to expose it and to restore the virtues in the MoV award process. Col. Ortiz considered resignation from the service itself. I hope his friends are successful in dissuading him; we need upright and untainted, courageous and honorable men like Col. Ortiz to restore hope in the AFP.

The MoV controversy is a microcosm of our society. Its what we see in our society: So-called leaders cheating and looting the nation, warlords calling for dismemberment of the country, calling for the Rule of Law to destroy the Law; churches making apologia for moral transgressions of leaders; money-lenders impoverishing and ruling over society; courts “constructively” interpretation the law and Constitution; ad nausea. We must all fight a Col. Ortiz fights to restore virtue to our land.

(Mon. to Fri. tune in to 1350AM, 7:30-8:30am; 1098AM, 6-7pm)