Borrowing for Defense: A Bold Strategy or a Risk to Philippine Sovereignty?

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — February 19, 2025

A NATION caught between rising superpower tensions. A military struggling to keep pace. A government searching for solutions. As the Philippines races to modernize its armed forces, a controversial proposal has emerged: tapping private and foreign financing to fund its defense upgrades. At first glance, the idea seems pragmatic—an innovative solution to chronic budget shortfalls. But beneath the surface lie deep legal, political, and geopolitical concerns that could reshape the country’s security landscape for decades.

The Legal Tightrope: Executive Authority vs. Congressional Oversight

General Romeo Brawner Jr. acknowledged a key obstacle: No existing law allows the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to secure commercial foreign funding. To bridge this gap, he suggested that President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. could issue an executive order (EO) enabling such transactions. But this raises an immediate constitutional dilemma.

Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article VI, Section 28(2) grants Congress exclusive authority over appropriations and revenue measures. This “power of the purse” is not merely a procedural hurdle—it is a fundamental principle of democratic governance. Any attempt to bypass legislative oversight through an EO would likely face legal scrutiny.

The Philippine Supreme Court has consistently upheld this principle. In Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, the Court reinforced that the executive branch cannot create financial obligations without explicit legislative approval. Furthermore, the Revised AFP Modernization Act (RA 10349) limits foreign borrowing for defense purposes to $300 million. If an EO seeks to circumvent this ceiling, it could be challenged as an unconstitutional overreach.

There is also an ethical dimension. Public officials are bound by the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards (RA 6713), which mandates transparency and accountability. If foreign financing arrangements lack clear safeguards, they could create new opportunities for corruption and undue foreign influence—an unsettling prospect for a nation that has long grappled with political scandals.

The Political Battlefield: Budgets, Priorities, and Presidential Power

Beyond legal concerns, the plan to secure foreign military financing is deeply political. The reduction of the AFP’s modernization budget from P50 billion to P35 billion underscores the competing priorities within the national budget. Should the government divert more resources to military spending, or should it focus on urgent social needs like healthcare and education?

Public sentiment is divided. While some view military upgrades as essential for national defense—especially amid rising tensions in the South China Sea—others see an expanded defense budget as a misplaced priority. The Philippine Constitution, in Article II, Section 9, enshrines the duty of the state to promote “social justice.” A substantial shift in spending toward military procurement could fuel debates over whether the government is neglecting broader human development goals.

Legislators, too, may resist the move. Any perception that the executive branch is sidelining Congress in military financing decisions could trigger pushback from lawmakers across party lines. Moreover, if the EO is legally challenged, the Supreme Court could strike it down on separation-of-powers grounds—further straining relations between the executive and legislative branches.

The Geopolitical Chessboard: Balancing Alliances and Sovereignty

Perhaps the most consequential aspect of foreign military financing is its impact on the Philippines’ foreign policy. The country is already walking a geopolitical tightrope—seeking to modernize its military while avoiding overdependence on any single ally.

The focus on acquiring advanced weaponry, including anti-ship missiles and submarines, reflects a strategic pivot. These assets would enhance the Philippines’ maritime defense posture, particularly in the South China Sea, where Beijing’s aggressive expansionism poses an existential threat. But foreign financing introduces new risks:

Debt and Dependence – If loans from India, South Korea, or other partners come with strings attached, the Philippines could find itself constrained in its foreign policy decisions. History is replete with examples of nations that accepted foreign funding only to find themselves beholden to the lender’s strategic interests.
Technology Transfers and Trade-offs – Military deals often involve technology-sharing agreements that can strengthen local defense industries. However, they can also come with restrictive clauses that limit the recipient nation’s ability to independently upgrade or maintain the equipment.
China’s Inevitable Reaction – An accelerated military buildup—particularly if funded by foreign sources—could provoke strong reactions from Beijing. While deterrence is necessary, the Philippines must carefully calibrate its defense strategy to avoid triggering retaliatory economic or military measures.

Blueprint for Balanced and Responsible Progress

The urgency of modernizing the AFP is undeniable, but the path forward must be guided by prudence rather than expedience. The government would be well-advised to take the following steps:

Legislative Reforms – Instead of relying on an EO, Congress should consider amending RA 10349 to clarify the scope of foreign financing for defense projects, ensuring that any new funding mechanisms are legally sound.
Enhanced Oversight – A robust accountability framework must be put in place to prevent corruption and ensure that foreign financing agreements serve the national interest. A bipartisan congressional committee could be tasked with scrutinizing military procurement deals.
Multilateral Approaches – The Philippines should continue strengthening regional defense partnerships, particularly within ASEAN, to enhance collective security while avoiding excessive reliance on any single foreign power.
A Balanced Budget Strategy – While military upgrades are necessary, they should not come at the expense of social services. A well-rounded national security strategy includes not just advanced weaponry but also investments in economic resilience, education, and healthcare.

The Crossroads of Security and Sovereignty

Foreign financing offers a tempting shortcut to modernizing the Philippine military, but the risks are profound. If not carefully managed, it could undermine democratic institutions, entangle the country in geopolitical rivalries, and compromise national sovereignty. The true test of leadership is not merely securing more funds—it is ensuring that those funds serve the best interests of the Filipino people.

History is littered with nations that traded autonomy for short-term security—only to find themselves trapped by the very powers they sought help from. As the Philippines considers foreign-backed military modernization, it must heed the lessons of the past. Strength is not just about firepower; it is about the ability to stand firm on one’s own terms. That is the real battle, and it must not be lost.