The President vetoed the bill proposing a fixed three-year term for the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Chief of Staff. Undoubtedly, the President can veto any bill on any ground satisfactory to him. In this case, he cited the bill’s possible violation of the Constitution as
reason and returned the bill to our lawmakers so they can correct its infirmity.
Indeed, the Presidents’ action, based on valid legal grounds thus, deserves our full respect and support. Nevertheless, I submit that the innovative nature of the bill would have spurred improvements in the AFP’s capacity to carry out its mandate. Further, the bill’s propositions, which does not only fix the term of the AFP Chief of Staff but likewise those of the Major Service Commanders as well, would have addressed the revolving door policy issue often thrown by critics whenever a new Chief of Staff is designated.
Drawbacks of absence of a fixed term
At present, without an existing fixed term for the aforementioned AFP top officials, we see the organization constantly losing quite a number of good leaders equipped with the talent, experience and wisdom, honed and accumulated through years of dedicated service, at a point when they are still at the peak of their potential. These are the ones who have the aptitude to make a difference in the organization but whose terms are prematurely cut short. With a retirement scheme that mandates the compulsory retirement of AFP members at a relatively young age of 56, most of the AFP top leaders tend to hold their post for roughly only a year or even less.
Those who have the privilege to serve longer than the others are very few. Most often, retirement age catches up with the Chief of Staff as well as the Major Service Commanders too soon. This deprives the organization of their full potential.
With a fixed term though, the talents of those appointed to the top leadership would be optimized to the advantage of the whole AFP organization. Moreover, a fixed term would provide enough time for the AFP Chief and Major Service Commanders to introduce long term plans and major policy changes meant for the betterment of the organization.
After the veto, what’s next?
Definitely with the Presidential veto, there is now very little probability for the bill to become a law. All is not lost however, especially for its proponents in the legislature and those who share their views. Theoretically, there are still legal remedies and actions that may and can be done so that the spirit and intent of the bill can push through.
The proponents of the bill will now have to study the President’s objections contained in the veto message, and may contemplate in overriding the veto if they disagree with the President’s objections. Two thirds of the members of each House, is needed to override the veto and invalidate the President’s objections. When this happens the bill automatically gets enacted into law. However, if Congress agrees with the President’s objection, the bill may be revised to conform to his wishes and resubmit a modified version. Perhaps at this point, the President may approve the same.
If the hypothetical situations cited above do not materialize and the bill is totally turned down, perhaps the spirit and intent of the bill can still be put into effect within the organization. This can be done through the crafting of AFP policies which, in essence and substance, would contain the propositions espoused in the vetoed bill.
For instance, in the case of the AFP Chief of Staff, it can be made a policy that those recommended for appointment as AFP Chief of Staff should still have at least three more years of active service left prior to his compulsory retirement. In so doing, even though the bill is not approved, the AFP organization can still reap the benefit of having a Chief of Staff who will serve for a much longer period.
A similar policy can likewise be crafted and made applicable to the Major Service Commanders.
On another note, these proposed policies can likewise be incorporated to the bill as amendment thereto by Congress if it decides to make amendments and re submit the bill to the Chief Executive for approval.
The noble objectives and soundness of the proposed law are without question. It was crafted not only to shield the organization from external political influence but likewise afford stability and consistency in policies within the organizational structure. All these are meant to enable the AFP to meet the mandate expected of it by its primary stakeholder, which are the people.
At any rate, the Presidential veto should be regarded only as a temporary setback. For all intents and purposes, remedies through amendments can be set out on the proposed bill to make it conform to the requirements of the Constitution.
reason and returned the bill to our lawmakers so they can correct its infirmity.
Indeed, the Presidents’ action, based on valid legal grounds thus, deserves our full respect and support. Nevertheless, I submit that the innovative nature of the bill would have spurred improvements in the AFP’s capacity to carry out its mandate. Further, the bill’s propositions, which does not only fix the term of the AFP Chief of Staff but likewise those of the Major Service Commanders as well, would have addressed the revolving door policy issue often thrown by critics whenever a new Chief of Staff is designated.
Drawbacks of absence of a fixed term
At present, without an existing fixed term for the aforementioned AFP top officials, we see the organization constantly losing quite a number of good leaders equipped with the talent, experience and wisdom, honed and accumulated through years of dedicated service, at a point when they are still at the peak of their potential. These are the ones who have the aptitude to make a difference in the organization but whose terms are prematurely cut short. With a retirement scheme that mandates the compulsory retirement of AFP members at a relatively young age of 56, most of the AFP top leaders tend to hold their post for roughly only a year or even less.
Those who have the privilege to serve longer than the others are very few. Most often, retirement age catches up with the Chief of Staff as well as the Major Service Commanders too soon. This deprives the organization of their full potential.
With a fixed term though, the talents of those appointed to the top leadership would be optimized to the advantage of the whole AFP organization. Moreover, a fixed term would provide enough time for the AFP Chief and Major Service Commanders to introduce long term plans and major policy changes meant for the betterment of the organization.
After the veto, what’s next?
Definitely with the Presidential veto, there is now very little probability for the bill to become a law. All is not lost however, especially for its proponents in the legislature and those who share their views. Theoretically, there are still legal remedies and actions that may and can be done so that the spirit and intent of the bill can push through.
The proponents of the bill will now have to study the President’s objections contained in the veto message, and may contemplate in overriding the veto if they disagree with the President’s objections. Two thirds of the members of each House, is needed to override the veto and invalidate the President’s objections. When this happens the bill automatically gets enacted into law. However, if Congress agrees with the President’s objection, the bill may be revised to conform to his wishes and resubmit a modified version. Perhaps at this point, the President may approve the same.
If the hypothetical situations cited above do not materialize and the bill is totally turned down, perhaps the spirit and intent of the bill can still be put into effect within the organization. This can be done through the crafting of AFP policies which, in essence and substance, would contain the propositions espoused in the vetoed bill.
For instance, in the case of the AFP Chief of Staff, it can be made a policy that those recommended for appointment as AFP Chief of Staff should still have at least three more years of active service left prior to his compulsory retirement. In so doing, even though the bill is not approved, the AFP organization can still reap the benefit of having a Chief of Staff who will serve for a much longer period.
A similar policy can likewise be crafted and made applicable to the Major Service Commanders.
On another note, these proposed policies can likewise be incorporated to the bill as amendment thereto by Congress if it decides to make amendments and re submit the bill to the Chief Executive for approval.
The noble objectives and soundness of the proposed law are without question. It was crafted not only to shield the organization from external political influence but likewise afford stability and consistency in policies within the organizational structure. All these are meant to enable the AFP to meet the mandate expected of it by its primary stakeholder, which are the people.
At any rate, the Presidential veto should be regarded only as a temporary setback. For all intents and purposes, remedies through amendments can be set out on the proposed bill to make it conform to the requirements of the Constitution.
Comments
Post a Comment