EDITORIAL: Defending Democracy

WHISPERS of a “civil-military junta” have once again crept into the national conversation — a troubling reminder of how fragile public trust becomes in moments of political tension. That such an idea was even floated to Senator Panfilo Lacson, a former police chief and seasoned lawmaker, underscores the degree of frustration and cynicism that some groups feel toward government. But it also reveals a dangerous impatience that could imperil the constitutional order.

The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) acted swiftly and correctly in dismissing the possibility of any junta within its ranks. AFP spokesperson Colonel Francel Margareth Padilla could not have been more unequivocal: there is no military junta, and the AFP will never subscribe to any reset plot.

Her statement — “our Constitution has no cheat codes” — is a timely reminder that shortcuts in governance are often disguised as solutions, but invariably lead to crises far worse than the problems they seek to solve.

That retired military or police personnel allegedly forwarded such proposals to a sitting senator is alarming, not because it signals any real momentum toward a power grab, but because it reflects how misinformation, political fatigue, and systemic grievances can push some into entertaining illegal alternatives.

As Lacson himself explained, some individuals act “in their passion” to change what they perceive as a corrupted system. Passion, however, is not a license to subvert the democratic process.

Lacson’s broader observation — that several recent events appear “coordinated, orchestrated, and calibrated” — adds fuel to an already overheated political climate. The release of videos by resigned lawmaker Elizaldy Co, explosive allegations hurled even from within the President’s own family, and the attempt by a pro-Duterte group to piggyback on an Iglesia Ni Cristo rally all happened in close sequence.

Whether these were indeed connected or merely coincidental, the effect is the same: they deepen political distrust and provide fertile ground for destabilizing narratives.

In this precarious setting, calls for a “total reset” — one that skips the constitutional line of succession altogether — must be regarded for what they are: unconstitutional and potentially destabilizing. Safeguarding democracy requires steadfast insistence that change, however urgent or desired, must occur within legal and constitutional parameters.

Senate President Vicente Sotto III’s warning that the Philippines risks descending into a “banana republic” if mob rule or military adventurism takes hold is not hyperbole. History — ours and the world’s — is replete with examples of nations that abandoned institutions in moments of political anger, only to find themselves trapped in prolonged instability.

The public is right to demand accountability, transparency, and reforms. But these goals are attainable only when institutions remain intact, not when they are bypassed. It is precisely during turbulent times that commitment to the Constitution must be unwavering.

The AFP’s categorical rejection of any junta talk is reassuring. The challenge now is for all sectors — political figures, civil society, media, and the public — to resist the allure of drastic, unconstitutional alternatives.

Democracy may often be slow, frustrating, and imperfect. But it remains the only path that ensures both stability and genuine progress.

Discontent must never be allowed to evolve into destabilization. And political ambition must never masquerade as patriotism.