THEN AND NOW Manuel L. Quezon III
WHEN the Rector Magnificus of the Royal and Pontifical
University of Santo Tomas speaks, people listen. And the head
of Asia’s oldest university has come out strongly against
continuing with the military training course for college
students—the ROTC (Reserve Officers Training Corps).
What is striking about this declaration made in the wake of
the tragic death of a UST student is that UST was one of the
first institutions of learning to enthusiastically adopt the
ROTC program when it was created before World War II. Along
with the students of other colleges and universities, young
men from UST unhesitatingly answered their country’s call to
the colors in 1941 and fought and died in Bataan. But now UST
has declared itself in favor of the abolition of the ROTC
requirement, joining a chorus of protest emanating from many
institutions, including the Manuel L. Quezon University.
The Armed Forces has reacted to the outcry with the sort of
horror friars used to display when confronted with heresy.
Impossible, the AFP says; the requirement for military
training is in the Constitution. And besides, the National
Defense Act is in place and has not been touched by any
administration.
I have proposed many a time, and I propose again, that
there is no incompatibility between the duty of a citizen to
render national service and be on call for national defense,
as mandated by the Constitution and the National Defense Act,
and the need for reforms that will make the ROTC relevant,
useful and a means for building character instead of
instilling cruelty, crookedness and a callous attitude toward
students.
The most basic reform is to eliminate the military training
requirement at the high-school level (Citizens Army Training
or CAT) and make ROTC optional on the collegiate level. We
have to face the fact that not everyone is cut out to be
either an officer or a plain soldier. Let those who want to be
one or the other undertake military training, preparatory to
either entering active service, or being placed in the AFP
reserves.
As far as I know, the Americans have a similar program in
which students electing to enter the ROTC are given loans,
which they pay off by enlisting in the armed forces after
college, or by being enrolled in the reserves or national
guard, making them liable to be called to duty in an
emergency.
If the State mandates the obligation of every citizen to
render service to it—an obligation I do not question—it also
has the corresponding duty to require service that is
reasonable and which takes the realities of our economic and
social life into account. Students and their parents spend a
lot of money for uniforms and other accouterments of military
training while the AFP, swamped with millions of students, can
only give them the most basic and outdated training.
War and warfare—the very nature of military training and
tactics—in the modern world calls for smaller, more cohesive,
highly trained forces and not the big citizen armies that
fought in World War II. It is in the interest of the AFP to
weed out the students who have no inclination to render
military service and concentrate its resources on those who,
by temperament or desire, would make better soldiers and
officers.
This is not to say, however, that the reforms I am
suggesting should result in letting the vast majority of
students who, I am sure, if given the chance, would decline to
take up ROTC or any form of military training. Nothing like
that.
A further reform is needed that would concentrate on civics
and active participation in the bureaucratic and political
life of the country. I know of cases where students taking up
computer-related courses do their practicums in government
offices. Why, then, should their practicums not be considered
as being the equivalent of military service? They are often
not paid at all; or if they are, they are given a measly
allowance. And yet they help the government and themselves by
working in offices that need manpower but which have to
operate under tight budgets.
College students should be offered loans or scholarships in
exchange for a definite commitment to rendering national
service for a period of time after they finish school. Those
taking education-related courses, for example, could be given
loans and pay off their loans by teaching after they graduate;
engineering students could be assigned to municipalities to
help out; medical students and nurses could be assisted with
their tuition and required to assist in government hospitals
either during their period of residency or in an national
emergency. College students could be trained and required to
learn electoral laws and regulations and assist school-
teachers during elections; statistics majors could be required
to help during the national census, and so on and so forth.
I suspect that the resistance by the AFP to the demands
that the ROTC requirement be scrapped stems from a legitimate
skepticism about the motives of some of those calling for the
abolition of the military service requirement. The duties and
obligations of citizenship have been spelled out and
recognized since 1935, and there is no compelling reason to
let the current generation of students off the hook. But for
the AFP to dig in its heels is for it to stick its head in the
sand and ignore equally legitimate criticisms of the abuses
and futility of military service requirements as they exist at
present.
It all boils down to everyone agreeing on one thing: that
citizenship must entail service; but that service must be of
the useful kind, when rendered. And that there are many,
equally important ways to render service and, in turn, build
the character of young men and women.
As always I may be reached at mlq3@info.com.ph. Reactions
are always welcome.