AFPSAT AFP Knowledge — Articles of WarStudy Notes

The Articles of War are codified in Commonwealth Act No. 408 (1938), as amended, serving as the primary source of military criminal law in the Philippines. This separate military code exists because the civilian Penal Code cannot adequately address situations unique to military service, such as desertion during combat, disobedience to superior officers, or sleeping while on guard duty. The constitutional foundation rests on three key provisions: Article XVI, Section 4 establishes the AFP; Article VII, Section 18 designates the President as Commander-in-Chief with martial law limits; and Article II, Section 3 ensures civilian supremacy over the military.

Article 2 of the Articles of War defines who falls under military jurisdiction. All commissioned and enlisted personnel of the AFP, including regular forces, reserves, and trainees in active service, are subject to military law. This also includes cadets of the Philippine Military Academy, personnel of military prisons, and during wartime, all persons accompanying or serving with the AFP. Some prisoners of war also fall under certain provisions. Understanding this scope is essential because it determines when military rather than civilian courts have jurisdiction over offenses.

Military offenses fall into several categories, each addressing specific threats to military effectiveness. Offenses against discipline include disrespect to superior officers (Article 64), insubordination (Article 65), striking a superior (Article 66), and mutiny or sedition (Article 67). Offenses against duty cover misbehavior before the enemy (Article 75), desertion (Article 85), absence without leave or AWOL (Article 86), and being drunk on duty (Article 96). Property offenses involve captured property violations and looting. Personal offenses include murder, rape, and other crimes also punishable in civilian courts. The catch-all provisions include conduct unbecoming an officer (Article 96) and conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline (Article 97).

Several offenses deserve special attention due to their severity and impact on military effectiveness. Desertion (Article 85) involves leaving service with intent to remain away permanently and can be punishable by death in wartime. AWOL differs from desertion in that the person intends to return. Mutiny (Article 67) requires two or more persons joining to defy military authority and is capital in wartime. Misbehavior before the enemy (Article 75) includes abandoning post, casting away arms, or showing cowardice, also potentially capital in war. Sleeping on post as a sentinel is extremely serious because it endangers the entire unit. These offenses reflect the military's need for absolute reliability in life-or-death situations.

The military justice system operates through three types of courts-martial, each handling different severity levels of offenses. General Court-Martial (GCM) addresses the most serious offenses with at least 5 officers and can impose any sentence including death, subject to higher review. Special Court-Martial (SCM) handles intermediate offenses with at least 3 officers but cannot impose death or dismiss officers. Summary Court-Martial is composed of one officer handling minor offenses involving enlisted personnel with limited punishment authority. The convening authority varies by type, with the President or designated authority for GCM, senior commanders for SCM, and company commanders for Summary courts.

Military justice maintains fundamental due process rights similar to civilian courts but within the military framework. Accused personnel have the right to counsel (military or civilian), to be informed of charges, to present evidence and witnesses, and to confront accusers. Article 31 provides protection against self-incrimination, and accused persons have the right to remain silent and to appeal. The trial process includes pre-trial investigation, formal charges, hearings, trial proceedings with prosecution and defense, member deliberation, and post-trial review by the convening authority and Judge Advocate General's Office. Death sentences require presidential confirmation, ensuring multiple levels of review for the most serious cases.

Military punishments range from administrative actions to capital punishment, depending on offense severity and circumstances. The death penalty applies only to specific grave offenses and requires presidential confirmation. Other punishments include dishonorable discharge for enlisted personnel, dismissal from service for officers, confinement at hard labor, forfeiture of pay and allowances, reduction in rank, reprimands, restriction to specified limits, and confinement to barracks. Article 105 allows commanders to impose non-judicial punishment for minor offenses without convening a court-martial, including reprimands, withholding privileges, extra duty, and restriction. However, accused personnel may demand a court-martial instead, providing a check on commander discretion.

The AFP operates under both domestic military law and international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions (1949), Hague Conventions, UN Charter, and Additional Protocols. These treaties establish rules for warfare, protection of civilians, treatment of prisoners, and use of force restrictions. Violations constitute war crimes under both Philippine law and international tribunals. Rules of Engagement (ROE) are operation-specific directives defining when, where, and how military force may be used. ROE are mandatory, reflect mission objectives and legal constraints, vary by operation, and may be more restrictive than general law permits. Violating ROE results in disciplinary action even without criminal violations.