EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 81 series of 2024 issued by President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Jr. is causing a stir because it removed the Vice-President (VP) and past presidents from the National Security Council (NSC). According to Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin, “at the moment, the VP is not considered relevant to the responsibilities of membership in the NSC.”

This view seems to ignore presidential succession. The VP must be ready to assume the presidency at any given moment. This readiness is most crucial with regards to national security affairs. Therefore, it is only logical for the VP to be part of the NSC. Obviously, the scenario where the President and the VP are at opposite ends of politics is always possible. Still, national security is probably the single issue where they are expected to rise above partisanship.

While reorganizing the NSC is certainly part of executive power, public interest demands that the President exercise this authority with only the nation’s security in mind. Therefore, revamping the NSC must not be motivated by political considerations. Indeed, the only acceptable reason to exclude anyone from the NSC is if that person is determined to be a national security threat. Pertinently, a case can be made that the current VP, Sara Duterte, already fits this frame.

VP Duterte’s public threats against the life of President Marcos and his family can certainly be treated as a verified threat to the nation’s security. Some pundits would even consider her silence over Chinese aggression in the West Philippine Sea as enough reason not to trust her when it comes to defense and security matters. But arguably, it is her family’s overt attempts to undermine the loyalty of the military to the commander-in-chief that makes her presence in the NSC so untenable.

But neither President Marcos nor any of his official surrogates have categorically pronounced VP Duterte as a national security threat. For this reason, it is hard to dismiss the view that this move merely “reflects the intensifying power struggle between the country’s dominant political dynasties ahead of the midterm elections.” The administration’s caginess in this regard suggests that the removal of the VP from the NSC could really be politically motivated.

Admittedly, it is extremely challenging to keep politicking out of the national security discourse. Even critics of the administration are guilty of politicizing defense and security concerns. In some instances, they do it recklessly as well. Like suggesting that the NSC revamp is a sign of a rift within the security sector. To express such a ludicrous theory is borderline treasonous. It gets the proponent clicks and likes, but it only worsens the politicization of national security.

Of course, the brouhaha caused by EO No. 81 demonstrates once again the centrality of the President’s role in national security. According to the Supreme Court in Saguisag vs Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 212426, Jan. 12, 2016):

“The duty to protect the State and its people must be carried out earnestly and effectively throughout the whole territory of the Philippines in accordance with the constitutional provision on national territory. Hence, the President of the Philippines, as the sole repository of executive power, is the guardian of the Philippine archipelago, including all the islands and waters embraced therein and all other territories over which it has sovereignty or jurisdiction.”

The President being the “sole repository of executive power” and the “guardian of the Philippine archipelago” very clearly means that the buck stops with him. The President makes the final decision on national security matters. Therefore, it is vital that he gets timely and accurate information as well as sound counsel from his Cabinet and national security experts. Simply put, the President cannot perform this constitutional duty alone. Hence, the creation of the NSC as an advisory body.

The Cabinet provides the President with the nitty-gritty details that are necessary for policy-formation. But the NSC is the institution where multiple defense and security concerns are ventilated to help the President see the bigger picture. Opposing views are not necessarily wrong or counterproductive. All angles of an issue need to be considered. Such robustness in deliberation can only happen if the NSC is not filled with Yes-men and sycophants or blood relations. Independent minded public officials, indeed, even contrarian voices, will ultimately be beneficial to the President.

However, the President must ensure national security policy decisions and actions do not fall victim to partisan politics. There are many ways which this can be accomplished. And each President will proceed with this effort in his or her own way. But it starts with an unwavering commitment to keep national security a partisanship-free zone. This is easier said than done and most presidents have failed to do it. The removal of the VP from the NSC is the most recent example of this failure.

Finally, it is quite disturbing to hear public officials, journalists, and political commentators rationalize that EO No. 81 as merely an exercise of presidential prerogative as if executive power is akin to monarchical absolutism. In light of the impeachment drama in South Korea, this passage from the decision of the Constitutional Court of Korea in the Impeachment of the President Roh Moo-hyun is offered as a counterpoint, to wit:

“However, the President is not an institution that implements the policies of the ruling party, but instead, the President is the constitutional institution that is obligated to serve and realize the public interest as the head of the executive branch. The President is not the President merely for part of the population or a certain particular political faction that supported him or her at the past election, but he or she is the President of the entire community organized as the state and is the President for the entire constituents. The President is obligated to unify the social community by serving the entire population beyond that segment of the population supporting him or her.”

South Korea has influenced the Philippines in so many ways. This lesson on how Filipinos should relate to the President would indeed be a welcome addition.

Michael Henry Yusingco is a law lecturer, constitutionalist, and a senior research fellow at the Ateneo Policy Center.