AFP vs THE CONSTITUTION
By Rob Rances
The AFP is about to face the biggest test of its constitutional loyalty.
For weeks now, may mga bulong-bulungan ng “transition council,” “caretaker government,” at “Resign All” movement na malinaw na sumusubok umiwas, lumihis, o lumagpas sa constitutional line of succession. And with the November 30 protests being framed by certain political factions as a way to “reconfigure” leadership outside the VP, the danger becomes obvious: Some actors want an unconstitutional shortcut.
But the 1987 Constitution is unambiguous: If the President resigns, becomes permanently disabled, or is removed—the Vice President automatically becomes President.
No committee.
No junta.
No transition council.
No caretaker group.
No political negotiating table.
Automatic. Self-executing. Non-negotiable.
This means only one thing…
The AFP must protect the constitutional succession—not the wishes of politicians or political groups terrified of a Sara Duterte presidency.
Because under Article II, Section 3, the AFP is the “protector of the people and the State,” not the protector of politicians, business interests, or power blocs trying to rewrite the Constitution by street pressure.
At wala ring ambiguity under Article VII, Section 18. The AFP must follow lawful civilian authority—which, upon a presidential resignation or removal, is the Vice President, like it or not.
That is their mandate. Their oath. Their duty.
So now…
Is the AFP loyal to the Constitution or to the factions pressuring them to bypass it?
Will they uphold the line of succession?
Or will they tolerate attempts to install an extraconstitutional “transition council”, a caretaker junta, or any structure na hindi pinag-utos ng Konstitusyon?
Because November 30 will reveal something deeper than protest attendance. It will reveal where the armed forces truly stand.
Are they protectors of the Republic? Or protectors of the fearful few?
Filipinos expect, demand, and deserve only one answer: UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. Protect the succession. Defend the Republic, not the ambitions of those who fear the rightful successor.
Will AFP choose the side of the law?
The country is watching.
••••
OPINION | ROB RANCES
Disclaimer: This commentary reflects my personal analysis as a citizen interpreting publicly available constitutional provisions and current events. It is not legal advice, nor does it allege wrongdoing by any specific individual or institution. Readers are encouraged to review the Constitution and seek formal legal guidance for precise interpretation.
