AFP, OPAPRU call for sovereignty defense and 'positive peace' on 128th Independence Day

On Friday, June 12, as the Philippines marked 128 years since declaring independence from Spain, the nation's military and peace officials gathered to deliver a message that echoed across ceremonial grounds from Manila to Baguio: freedom is not a gift to be enjoyed, but a responsibility to be guarded.

General Romeo S. Brawner Jr., chief of staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, stood at the Rizal Monument alongside President Marcos and delivered the military's core argument for the day. The theme chosen for this year's observance—"Kalayaan, Kinabukasan, Kasaysayan," or Freedom, Future, History—was meant to remind Filipinos that the independence they now take for granted was purchased with blood. Brawner framed the military's role not as a force of the past, but as a living bridge between what was sacrificed and what must be preserved. "We honor the courage of our heroes by remaining faithful to our sworn duty as defenders of our sovereignty, preserving democratic institutions, and safeguarding the welfare of the Filipino people," he said. The message was direct: soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines carry a debt forward. They must become, in his words, living examples of patriotism—discipline and integrity made visible through action.

At the Philippine Military Academy in Baguio City, Vice Admiral Caesar Bernard N. Valencia reinforced the same theme during flag-raising ceremonies. Independence, he said, is not merely something to commemorate but something to actively protect. The Philippine Army held simultaneous ceremonies at Fort Bonifacio in Taguig and at camps nationwide. Army Vice Commander Maj. Gen. Efren F. Morados, speaking on behalf of Army Chief Lt. Gen. Antonio G. Nafarrete, issued a sharper call. He warned against deception and selfish interests, urging troops to remain bound to the Constitution and to integrity in public service. "Every time our flag flies, it is proof that we are faithfully carrying out our duty," he told the assembled soldiers.

But the military's message of sovereignty and sacrifice was only half the story being told on Independence Day. The Office of the Presidential Adviser on Peace, Reconciliation and Unity brought a different lens to the celebration—one focused not on external threats or historical memory, but on the internal fractures that prevent the nation from moving forward. Presidential Peace Adviser Mel Senen S. Sarmiento acknowledged what many Filipinos live with daily: social divisions, armed conflict, and poverty continue to corrode the nation's capacity to develop. These are not abstract problems. They are the conditions that keep communities fractured, that fuel resentment, that make unity a slogan rather than a lived reality.

Sarmiento introduced a concept that has gained traction in peace studies but remains unfamiliar to many: positive peace. It is not the mere absence of violence—the ceasefire, the truce, the temporary quiet. Positive peace means addressing the roots of conflict itself: the inequality that breeds resentment, the social exclusion that creates grievance, the structural injustices that make violence seem like the only language available to the powerless. "When the underlying roots of structural conflict are addressed, and are replaced by social justice, inclusiveness, and harmony," Sarmiento said, "it is creating the conditions wherein genuine and long-lasting peace can firmly take root and flourish." The distinction matters. It means that defending the nation's future is not only a military responsibility. It is a civic one. Every Filipino, he argued, is a nation builder. Pride in heritage must translate into action toward a stronger, more united, and more just society.

What emerged from the day's ceremonies was a portrait of a nation aware of its vulnerabilities on multiple fronts. The military spoke to external sovereignty and the preservation of democratic institutions. The peace apparatus spoke to internal cohesion and the removal of the conditions that fuel conflict. Neither message contradicted the other. Together, they sketched a vision of independence that requires constant tending—not just from soldiers in uniform, but from citizens willing to confront the divisions and inequalities that threaten to hollow out the freedom their ancestors fought to secure.