an article: (1/2)A FRAMEWORK for HOMELAND STRATEGY:
Building Internal Capacity and Broadening Public Safety and Security
Introduction
A vision for a strong Filipino nation in the next decade of this century calls for a strategic framework on security and development. To secure our homeland, we need a strategy that must be founded on the theme of building up our internal capacity and resiliency. This is the platform for projecting a country’s agential power in domestic society as well as in the regional community.
The opportunity for crafting a homeland strategy that will promote and protect national values and interests is most wanting at this time of changes and uncertainties. In a move to confront non-traditional security threats at the local, national, and regional levels, the Philippine administration is behooved to come up with adaptive and proactive courses of action on the security and development of our motherland. This is to ensure the safety and welfare of citizens, the peace and order in democratic society, the sanctity of social justice and the rule of law, the continuity of economic gains, the sustainability of the ecological environment, and on the whole, the empowerment and resiliency of the Filipino nation in the midst of a complex and vulnerable environment.
The concept of a homeland strategy is posited as the integrated ways and means of strengthening the capacities of our people, institutions, systems, communities, government, and even our charter to better respond to the demands and insecurities of this era. The strategy to do this requires substantial and structural changes in government administration to address long-standing, if not worsening, social and security problems that hamper our national development and regional standing as well.

To borrow Einstein’s doctrine, “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” Such thinking, which we refer to as cultural mindset and ideological framing, is based on a set of values, vision of an alternative future, and pragmatic action. The strategic nature of this age-old wisdom is evident in the quest for change, and in finding novel solutions to chronic problems. As a strategy, the focus is on the end goal that should guide all possible options and necessary actions to deliver the intended objective. This is especially true in an environment of security and conflict that threatens national interests and weakens government’s influence.
Given the foregoing context, this white paper attempts to develop a conceptual framework for a homeland strategy with the end view of understanding its relevance, as well as its nuances, for the security and development of the Filipino nation. The paper will outline strategic lines of action for a secure, progressive, strong, and resilient homeland. One of the components of the homeland strategy is broadening the policy field of public safety for internal peace and security. This paper intends to focus discussions on this subject by defining the key areas and actors that constitute the multi-sectoral coverage of public safety in a homeland strategy.
Conceptualizing a Strategic Framework for the Homeland
The idea of a strong nation is premised on ideological commitment of the Filipino people. The ideology must be one that is theoretically sound, socially agreed, and realistically undertaken in the form of adaptive policies and pragmatic strategies to get to our ends of security and development. It must be reflective of the culture, history, and hopes of Filipinos. But while we hone a uniquely Filipino ideology which we can identify with and which can unify us as a nation, it must be one that adapts to the changing demands and emerging contexts of the security environment at this time. The socio-political and economic upheavals of the past, which necessitated the forging of a Filipino ideology by crisis governments in Philippine administrative history, were significantly different from the complex security dilemma that we face today. Nevertheless, the fundamental values and innate desire for social justice, economic emancipation, political freedom, and self-determination of Filipinos are enduring. These continuously define our national interests which in turn shall guide our public policies on law and order, peace and development, and security in our homeland in this still new century.
Our concept of a homeland strategy in the Philippine Public Safety College (PPSC) was developed from a vision of enhancing the country’s power projection and increasing its sphere of influence within the country and the Southeast Asian Region. Initially, we presented this idea to the policy community in a framework that illustrates a solid base for the homeland.

As can be seen in Figure 1, the foundation of domestic internal capacity is cemented by the building blocks of the strong and cohesive major islands of the Philippines—Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. What holds these internal regions together is a homeland strategy that is connected to a national security strategy and a national development strategy.
The capacities for economic growth as well as political development of our regions in the homeland must be worked out and strengthened in order for national progress to stand on strong peripheries and empowered grassroots. The development of Mindanao, as a growth corridor of the south, is particularly strategic as this will not only resolve the conflict in that part of the country but also boost tourism, trade, and investments in the area. The promotion of Mindanao also reinvigorates the Philippine role in its subregional association with Brunei, Indonesia, and Malaysia—known as the Brunei Darussalam-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area or BIMP-EAGA—in forging cooperation in functional areas of development and nontraditional security concerns.
Without a strategic security outlook, development policies and plans are unstable and unviable. A homeland strategy that emanates from a national security strategy and a national development strategy is compact and comprehensive in theory and policy. The focus on non- traditional security threats and civilian functions of government in a homeland strategy allows the Chief Executive and his policy advisers to strategize with clarity and rationality on how to
 
develop and utilize the right mix of resources and power bases to get to our ends of security and development in the domestic domain.
Our concept development of a homeland strategy for the Philippines is sustained by continuing policy research in the PPSC on the component function of public safety in national security. To place this in proper perspective, we came up with another framework that defines the strategic agenda for the homeland.
With reference to an evolving framework in Figure 2, the homeland strategy can be distinguished from the high politics of a national security strategy above, and from the low politics of a national development plan below. The highly political nature of a national security strategy, which is linked to foreign policy and diplomacy, is not the same as the administrative character of a national development plan that is grounded on regular public laws and procedures.
What connects the two policy regimes in external and internal security is the homeland strategy. This is how government—in the execution of the Social Contract to protect the citizens in the homeland—aims to work out things in the most efficient, responsive, effective, and even out of the ordinary ways to address existential threats to human security. The very nature of these threats—such as natural disasters, pandemics, illegal drugs, terrorism, illicit networks of crime and corruption—is a security concern that needs to be elevated from the usual business of doing government.
The security label, for which a strategy is warranted, is a high-level domestic concern that extends to the region where other countries have a common interest to work on functional areas of public safety and human security. A comprehensive strategy for the Filipino homeland stands on sound domestic policies and capacities that attract regional partners towards a common cause. This is where we take off to the real strategic setting that inevitably pulls us towards integration and functional cooperation in this century. But to be able to do that, we need to reorient traditional mindset and restructure ineffective governance systems if necessary.
The groundwork is in the homeland strategy that includes in its conceptual frame the following agenda: (1) developing fiscal incentives, critical infrastructure, institutional support, and competitive advantages in education, industry, trade and investments; (2) broadening and modernizing public safety for internal peace and security; and (3) restructuring the politico- administrative system to a presidential-federal form of government.
Note that the homeland strategy does not include the armed forces modernization, military alliances, national defense, diplomacy, and other state-level security talks and cooperation in international relations—all of which are hallmarks of an external national security strategy. Having said this, however, the internal orientation of the homeland strategy is not mainly about the administration of socio-economic development programs and other public policies of a status quo government.
The strategy for the homeland stands out as an orchestrated security and development approach with the essential component of the legitimate use of force and/or police powers in law enforcement, countering terrorism, and other internal security functions within the country, its coastlines, and territorial seas. This is the domain of a broadened and multi-sectoral public safety system that we need to advance in crafting a strategy for our homeland.
The homeland strategy rests on a strong advocacy for political and administrative reforms which leads us to critical discussions about removing restrictions on our pivot for change. In this regard, the agenda of reframing our constitution to federalize government units, as well as remove economic constraints among others, is on the table. The democratic mechanisms provided for in our constitution will pave the way towards the necessary amendments for our country to adapt to the current demands of security and development.

Significantly, the homeland strategy works well with a presidential-federal form of government that devolves political and fiscal powers to autonomous government units. This will not only promote equitable development in the countryside, but also grant self-determination for peoples in different regions of our country. This is the key to promote peace, progress, and social justice for all Filipinos regardless of their ethnic origins.
The homeland strategy empowers the citizenry by raising democratic governance to a higher level of federalism. The desire for self-determination and autonomy, even as we work on a collective vision for the country, must not be exclusive to particular peoples but to all regions. The grant of autonomy or a substate must not be a limited strategy of appeasement to rebel groups, albeit a questionable one, in a very unstable and vulnerable security setting. Rather, political devolution and autonomy must be a comprehensive policy of development to all regions, under a principled constitutional framework that will give it legitimacy.
Through the collective will of the sovereign people that clamor for change, the transformations of our institutions are achievable in order for our country to move forward. With clear policy direction, we must now prepare to shape our future strategic history by constructing a grand plan for our homeland. Such plan is focused on the future, based on the lessons of the past and current challenges.
The homeland strategy, which makes use of the various powers of the state, is based on domestic laws and international norms. In a democratic society, internal armed struggle is no longer the acceptable means of achieving societal and political changes. The quest for peaceful solutions in our home is the norm. But while government adheres to this democratic approach, it must negotiate with an armed group from a position of strength, soft power, and constitutionality. The higher principles that determine our national interests must guide policy options and strategic approaches that can, once and for all, put an end to chronic insurgencies and internal armed conflicts.
Taken all the agenda together, the homeland strategy aims to realize the following goals: (1) strong domestic capacity and sustainable economic gains; (2) peaceful and protected homeland; and (3) effective governance and stable democratic institutions. As seen in Figure 1, these are the policy goals that constitute an empowered, safe, and resilient homeland. A country that is strong inside is one that is able to project power and increase its sphere of influence beyond its borders. This, significantly, is the concept of a homeland strategy as the base of a national security strategy.
The Key Areas of an Expanded Public Safety for Peace and Security in the Homeland
The protection of the citizens—their lives, civil liberties, properties, institutions, and communities—is anchored on effective governance and adaptive public policies. This is the very function of the existence of government that must employ the necessary ways and means to ensure the safety and welfare of the people, and the internal security of our motherland. This component needs to be aligned with a homeland strategy of developing our internal capacities, advantages, resiliency, and agential power in this age of uncertainties and insecurities.
To safeguard the Filipino people and the homeland, our civilian public safety agencies must be modernized and broadened as a coordinated and integrated system for internal peace and security. This strategic line of action lies on our abilities and capacities not only to develop institutions, but also to adapt to a new mode of thinking that will help us construct an ideal system and make sound policies in this regard. Notably, this is what we in the Philippine Public Safety College (PPSC) have been doing through training and education of the police and other civilian uniformed personnel, as well as through policy and strategic studies on public safety, security sector reform, governance, and homeland security.
Aside from capacity building, our agenda of enlarging the public safety system in the homeland is dependent on other related components in our framework of a homeland strategy. The other components include strengthening the rule of law and intensifying the campaign against crime and corruption; empowering the people and the communities; and even restructuring ineffective governmental systems in order to adapt to emerging security realities and existential threats therein.
The protection of the citizens in the homeland is a national interest that calls for reorienting and even revolutionizing conventional practices, even as we remain committed to the rule of law and international norms. The strategic focus is to ensure that our people can live in a free, peaceful, stable, and just society where they can prosper and develop their full potentials. This is the policy goal that shall guide the necessary methods and means of carrying out our mandate in the multi-sectoral field of public safety.
To realize our strategic objective, we need to work on the following key areas or courses of action: (1) curbing drugs and other illicit networks of crime and corruption; (2) countering radicalization, violent extremism, and terrorism; (3)maintaining order and keeping the peace in cities, communities, and the countryside; (4) responding to, mitigating, and managing disasters, emergencies, and pandemics; (5) protecting cyber networks and other critical infrastructures; and (6) safeguarding the airports, seaports, coasts, and territorial seas.

(1) On the first key area of curbing illegal drugs and other illicit networks of crime and corruption, President Rodrigo Duterte’s policy pronouncements to wage war against these are explicit, consistent, and deliberately executed. His speech acts effectively securitize the national interest on public safety with well-defined priorities, organizational build-up, and intensified operations. The fight against lawless elements by the police and other law enforcement agencies is unrelenting, resulting in more than a hundred thousand drug users and/or pushers surrendered, thousands arrested, and dozens killed in action in less than a month. Considering that illegal drugs is a complex problem in society, the fight against these must also be executed in the context of development. This means that even as we wage the war against illegal drugs trade, addiction, and related crimes, we must also rehabilitate and create opportunities for social and economic growth for affected citizens and communities.
While the campaign against illegal drugs is carried out without let up by the police, there is also a need to clean up their ranks and make law offenders within the bureaucracy accountable. Along this line, the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) is made to expedite the investigation and adjudication of cases against the police involved in illegal activities. Other concerned authorities and local officials are also directed by the Chief Executive not to lower their guards in curbing illegal drugs, other criminal activities, and corruption in their respective wards. The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) is likewise ordered to strictly monitor the performance of local government units (LGUs) in law enforcement and policing.
(2) On the second key area of countering radicalization, violent extremism, and terrorism, the comprehensive scope of this course of action calls for a whole-of-society approach in which various sectors play a role. The existential threats that terrorism brings to our citizens, communities, and critical infrastructure warrant a smart strategy of defeating the enemies while also addressing the causes and phases of terrorism—from indoctrination and recruitment