Article II, Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution; and the AFP Modernization Program

Article II, Section 2 of the Philippine Constitution (Tagaloglang.com):

ARTIKULO II	ARTICLE II
PAHAYAG NG MGA SIMULAIN AT MGA PATAKARAN NG ESTADO	DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

MGA SIMULAIN

PRINCIPLES

SEKSYON 2. Itinatakwil ng Pilipinas ang digmaan bilang kasangkapan ng patakarang pambansa, tinatanggap bilang bahagi ng batas ng bansa ang mga simulain ng batas internasyonal nakinikilala ng lahat at umaayon sa patakaran ng kapayapaan, pagkakapantay-pantay, katarungan, kalayaan, pakikipagtulungan, at pakikipagkaibigan sa lahat ng mga bansa.

Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.

Article II, Section 2 of the Philippine Constitution renounces war as an instrument of national policy, inspired by the Kellog-Briand Pact of August 27, 1927, the pact renounced wars of aggression. 

However as a member of the United Nations (UN), the Philippines does not merely renounce wars, as a signatory to the United Nations (UN) the Philippines adheres to Article 2(4) of the UN charter which says:

"All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." 

"The Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land", customary law and treaties which have become part of customary law." The last part of Article II, Section 2 states that the Philippines; "adheres to the policy of peace, equity, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations."

Somehow Article II, Sections 2 of the Philippine Constitution allow the Philippine government from the waging of a defensive war, the Constitution also allows the President to declare a state of war with the concurrence of Congress (Article VI, Section 23 of the Philippine Constitution), which means in times of war we are just allowed to defend ourselves from foreign aggression, hostility, and or invasion.

By reasons of national policy and principle; we are not allowed to declare war and take offensive military actions and or operations (i.e. invade, conquer, attack) against another country/state, our only reason for establishing a strong, capable, and modern armed forces is national defense, and our only reason for continuing the push for a modern armed forces through the AFP modernization act (RA 10349) is minimum credible defense, I repeat, we renounce war as an instrument of national policy, that means we would not be attacking China anytime from now even if we acquire Frigates, Lead In Fighter Trainers (FA-50), Attack Helicopter, Submarines, Jet Fighters, and the like.

FA-50, John Chua, (AFP MT and PMMT have permission to use this photo)

The real issue

"The Philippines could not acquire aircraft carriers and destroyers because they are offensive type assets" (Not precisely accurate) -DND OPA/ DND PAS      

Years ago, somebody asked a question about that in a Facebook (FB) group where I belong, before, addressed to the officials of the "Public Affairs Service" of the Department of National Defense (DND), and that was the reply. 

All this time around I thought that that was the answer to the question, that the armed forces could not acquire Destroyers, Aircraft Carriers, Main Battle Tanks, Submarines (for that matter), etc, if we based it on Article II, Section 2 of the Philippine Constitution and from what "DND OPA" have said during those times, because of the fact that they are intended for offensive military operations (invading, conquering, attacking, etc) and acquiring such military assets/weapons could be useless for our country.. 

But, the real intention of the law is clear (Article II, Section 2 of the Philippine Constitution) therefore (just to make things clear) I conclude that we could acquire offensive type assets i.e. Destroyers, Aircraft Carriers, Main Battle Tanks, and Submarines if we like and if we could: 

Provided we would only use them for territorial, and national defense, in accordance with the Philippine Constitution.

The weapons that are mentioned above could be used defensively and offensively, but what we are looking over here is its primary usage or role, the reason why it is invented in the first place. For example a Aircraft Carrier is invented to transport jet fighters, helicopters, and personnel, it serves as a air base of various aircraft, to operate within hostile territory and to deliver air superiority/air denial/air threat within hostile territory/aircraft and to provide air support and air transportation to ground troops/operators through various aircraft that it carries.                    

The general public also needs to be educated regarding Article II, Section 2 of the Philippine Constitution, that is why I created this post. So if you encounter a troll who rants about going to war against China, please direct him to read and understand Article II, Section 2 of the Philippine Constitution.

AS-211, Philippine Armed Forces Images and Videos 

The problem 

The problem is, according to Joaquin Bernas the renouncing of war as an instrument of national policy by the Philippines under Article II, Section 2  of the Philippine Constitution is a political question by nature, that means it will all depend on the actions and decisions of the government specifically the executive department, if we would declare war, or Invade, Conquer, and or Attack another country/state. it all depends on him. But as far as the Philippine Constitution is concerned that is our principles and national policy. (Source, Joaquin Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A commentary) 

Like our Page
Join our Group