Women were initially granted the right to serve in the Philippine military only in the reserve ranks and

the
technical services as part of the Women's Auxiliary Corps established in 1963. In 1993, women were granted the
rights to become trained combat soldiers in the Philippine military when Republic Act No. 7192 was passed,[1]
which granted women in the Philippines to become cadets in the Philippine Military Academy in April that year.
Since the beginning of the creation of the Philippine military approximately on October 25, 1899,[2] the Armed
Forces of the Philippines never had female soldiers.
The first batch of female cadets to graduate as soldiers in the Philippines was in 1997. Among the notable female
cadets was Arlene A. Dela Cruz from the batch of graduates of 1999, who received awards such as the Presidential
Saber, the Philippine Navy Award, the Navy Courses Plaque, the Social Sciences Plaque, and the Humanities
Plaque. Dela Cruz died in a car crash in 2008. [3]
In 2011, Brigadier General Ramona Go, from San Dionisio, Iloilo, became the first female general in the Philippine
Army after being a regular officer. There had been other female generals in the Philippine military, but unlike Go,
those female generals were "technical service" crew, serving in the military as nurses.[4]
In peacekeeping in October 2013, Philippine Navy Captain Luzviminda Camacho became the first female officer
from the Philippines to lead "the Philippine contingent to a peacekeeping mission of the United Nations. Camacho
became the "commander of the 17th Philippine Contingent to Haiti". In addition, Camacho also became the first
female "commanding officer of a Navy ship".[

The United States military opens all positions to women.[59] Units such as Special Operations require members to
meet extraordinary requirements, and very few women have met them. As of 2022, it is reported that three
women have completed the Army’s elite Special Forces course, one has completed Navy Special Warfare Training
to become a Naval Special Warfare combatant-craft crewman, and one has completed the Air Force special tactics
courses necessary to become a Combat Controller
The AFP allocates 10 percent of its recruitment quota to female applicants and data obtained by the MANILA
BULLETIN showed there are currently 12,770 female military personnel in the country which represents eight
percent of the AFP's total strength of 159,625.
Navarro said that men are “anatomically and genetically” powerful than women in terms of physical strength and
it was a challenge that she had to overcome to make it to the AFP.
The Armed Forces has been considered for a long time as an only male profession, despite that women are joining
more and more the military, stereotypes still prevail. Consequently, substantial change in the Armed Forces cannot
be achieved. According to an opinion provided by the FEMM Committee of the European Parliament to the annual
CSDP report only 5% of women participate in CSDP military missions, while there are no female commanders of
CSDP military missions.

To continue, the Strategic Compass calls for gender equality in the Armed Forces, while gender advisors will also be
deployed at the missions and operations. At the annual progress report of the Compass it was also highlighted that
work on this domain will continue.
EUROMIL conducted in this regard, an internal survey concerning women in the Armed Forces, to gather intel on
how the situation is for women in European militaries. According to the input from our members, women face
cases of bullying, sexual assault and/or harassment, equipment and uniforms not suitable for female soldiers,
while female military personnel do not reach as often high-ranking positions, as their male counterparts.
It should also not be forgotten that LGTBQI+ people continue to face discrimination, harassment and violence
based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, especially considering the Armed Forces. Hence, LGBTQI+
integration in Armed Forces is a matter of justice, equality and human rights. If people are willing to serve their
country, then they should be recognized and respected for who they are.
People joining the Armed Forces should also receive specialized education on the issues of gender equality and
diversity in militaries. For instance, by having more women joining the military, the Armed Forces will become
more robust, will gain more high skilled and educated personnel– especially in conflict resolution and peace
building, while changing the military culture that remains a patriarchal one.
It is essential, that the European Institutions focus on inclusion, diversity and equality in the European Armed
Forces, cooperation is needed between the European Parliament, the European Commission, the European
Council, as well as with the national parliaments and military associations to jointly work for a more equal and
inclusive working place environment for military personnel. It should also not be forgotten that a reflection of the
society in the Armed Forces could improve the image of the military, while also ameliorate the rights,
opportunities and working conditions of military personnel. Thus, providing equal opportunities to military
personnel – regardless of gender – to reach higher ranking positions, adequate equipment and uniforms to female
personnel, and drastically tackling issues of harassment and sexual assault in the military should become a priority.
EUROMIL remains committed into a gender equal and inclusive military culture. More work is needed and
cooperation between different actors to achieve substantial results and significantly change the deep-rooted
stereotypes and mentality around women in the Armed Forces. In order for Europe to build stronger, more
durable, equal and inclusive societies, this should be reflected in all its aspects, including in the Armed Forces.

The role and place of women in the military have constantly dominated public debates and discussions particularly
about military readiness.
Apparently, integrating women into the military has not only compromised the readiness of military units in a way,
but also the well-being of women in general. Accordingly, women are four times as likely to be excused from
assigned deployments due to monthly periods, perimenstrual syndrome (PMS), and pregnancy.
Philippine Army Chief Public Affairs Lieutenant Colonel Ramon Zagala said that women in the Army are granted
maternity and special leaves to be with their children and families on special occasions.
“Here at HPA, we also offer a Child Care Facility that helps military and civilian employees in their child-rearing
responsibilities as they perform their duties. It ensures the quality and safety measures that is critical in protecting
and promoting children’s development,” shared Zagala.As for pregnancy and monthly periods, the Philippine Army
adheres to the AFP policy on marriage, pregnancy, and maternity leave of female military personnel in the active
service.Pregnant female military personnel whose duties include physically strenuous activities are exempted from
performing such upon recommendation and certification by the attending physicians or military medical officer.
“She is allowed to resume their duties only when she is physically fit,” said Zagala.Other than those mentioned,
women are also afforded the same leave privileges as men because the Army promotes the need to have a balance
work and family life among its troops.

Addressing gender issues

Traditional attitudes still make many people frown upon the idea of women fighting and the image of mothers
coming home in military uniforms.In order to address gender issues, the Philippine Army created its Gender and
Development (GAD) office in 2014 to promote women’s rights and gender equality.“One way to do this is through
the conduct of trainings and seminars for all the members of the Army on topics that are relevant to GAD, as well
as the release of guidelines that support the National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security,” said Zagala.In
case there are violence against women, such cases are treated with utmost confidentiality under the Office of the
Ethical Standard and Public Accountability. The Philippine Army adheres to the Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP) policy in the disposition of domestic-related offenses of AFP personnel.Women soldiers are also encouraged
to report violence against them through the Gender-Based Violence Referral System (GBVRS) established in 2015
where in the Army units and offices under the GBVRS network are mandated to establish a GBV desk equipped
with an interview room, database of cases, and other equipment.“Through the GBVRS, women are given the
channel where they can raise issues on violence or harassment and have their cases be dealt with by proper
authorities,” said Zagala.

Women in the military

Although women were initially granted the right to serve in the military as part of the Women’s Auxiliary Corps in
1963, it was only 1993 when women were granted the rights to become trained combat soldiers in the Philippine
military by virtue of Republic Act No. 7192. Thus, the integration of first female cadets to Philippine Military
Academy.Of the 17 female cadets who reported in 1993, only seven graduated in 1997 along with their male
classmates. The Magnificent Seven were Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Ma. Consuelo Nunag Castillo, Army
Lieutenant Colonel Leah Lorenzo-Santiago, Navy Commander Marissa Arlene Andres-Martinez, Army Lieutenant
Colonel Maria Victoria Blancaflor-Agoncillo, Sheryl Uy-Cabasan, Arlene Orejana-Trillanes, and Aileen Somera-
Reyes.These women accepted the challenge, refused to accept the status quo, and paved the way for the next
generation of female PMA graduates. From 1997 to 2018, 451 female cadets have already graduated in
PMA.According to Zagala, five percent of the allotted Candidate Soldier (CS) quota to respective Philippine Army
major units is allocated to female recruits. At present, it has already complied with the Magna Carta for Women
(MCW) to have 20 percent women soldiers in the ranks.To make sure there is no special treatment/favors in
women, Zagala said the Philippine Army implements a policy that prescribes the guidelines and procedures in the
utilization of female line personnel in the PA.

“Consistent with the needs and demand of the military profession, its female personnel are accorded with equal
opportunities for appointment, admission, training, promotion, etc., in accordance with the standards required for
such activities except those minimum essential adjustments,” he stressed.The Philippine Army also ensures the
equality of women and men in the organization especially in occupying key positions.“Their assignments on key
positions are based on the same qualification applied to male officers. As long as they have the skills, training and
physical abilities needed for the position, they will be given the post,” said Zagala.
At present, the statistics of women soldiers in the Philippine Army include 829 officers, 3,438 enlisted personnel,
seven provisionary 2nd Lieutenant, and 12 CS, which is 4.38 percent of the entire Army soldiers.
Of the total officer attrition rate, 5.37 percent are females who availed optional retirement. Of the total EP attrition
rate, 0.63 percent are females who availed optional retirement as well.

Women vs Men PFA (Physical Fitness Assessment)

The Physical Fitness Assessment (PFA) is exactly what it sounds like: it’s a test that determines your physical ability
and fitness. Depending on how well you accomplish a physical test a certain score will be given. When combined
after all three of your physical tests you will have either a passing or failing test. The minimum score you can get
and still pass the test is a 60 in each event, the highest score you can get per task is a 100.
For example: The army physical fitness test requires a 2 mile run, push-ups, and sit-ups. The number of push-ups
and sit-ups you do correlate to a score from 0-100, as does your time on the run. The conflict, is that females have
different numerical qualification than males. A male can so 40 push-ups and get a score of 47/100 for that task. If a
female were to do 40 push-ups her score would be a 97/100. Is this fair?
In fact, females have a lower numerical score for each test in a PFA. No matter the branch or task females ‘easier’
qualifications than their male counterparts. Until this recent year, the Marine Corps had a different option for
females in a task than males. When given the task of pull-ups, they could choose to do a flexed arm hang instead…
the males weren’t given such option.

Is this inequality fair? Yes and no.

No: In the field, females are expected to do the same jobs and preform them at the same rate as men. This test
shows if that person, male or female, is physically prepared to do their job. Females should judged the same way
when preparing for the same future.
Yes: This is the largest reason for the different standards. One The male’s body is built completely different than
the males. Men have the build to be able to accomplish physical tasks at a stronger level than women. This is not
the females fault. No matter how hard a women works its hard to see the best physically fit woman soldier outdo
the best physically fit male soldier. To compensate for this, the score should be adjusted in an equal ratio.
No: While the best female may not out do the best male, that does not mean that every man is physically better
than every single female soldier. A strong female can compete with a male counterpart on an equal level if trained
in an appropriate way. While it is true the female body is not the same as a male’s body, this does not mean that
the female cannot accomplish the same physical feats as a male. The woman will need to train more, or do a
technique a little differently, to make it to the male standards, but it is not impossible. If properly trained women
can get their body to preform the vigorous tasks just as well and to the same number as a male.
Yes: An old argument has been that because women are unable to serve in combat (one of the most physically
demanding jobs) so it was okay to have lower standards are less as they wouldn’t be expected to preform the
highly physically demanding jobs. This argument has since become void as jobs are not given on gender alone.

My Beliefs: I personally believe that there is no reason that enlisted soldiers, male or female, should be given
different physical standards. Some females have masculine bodies and are able to easily preform at the male rates,
just as some males have more feminine bodies that keep then from excelling at a male rate. The fact of the matter
is, if properly trained your average male and female soldier should be able to preform the same physical feats, at
the same level. (The matter of if a male and female soldier are currently trained the same is still up to debate

In regards to the debated Marine pull-up test switch:

The general consensus is that this is a healthy change. Many articles that oppose this idea are outsiders opinions.
They are made by people who are not involved with the military and are merely observing with their own biases in
mind. Those in favor tend to be part of the military or have prior firsthand experience.

In Favor of Change:
A pull-up isn’t only an exercise technique, but a skill. The muscles that require a pull-up are the same ones involved
with pulling yourself into a helicopter, pulling yourself up over an obstacle/cliff. Being able to do a pull-up will help
you prepare yourself for real world obstacles. Due to women being put in positions where this skill could possibly
save their lives, it only makes sense to place this task on their PFA

Oppose of the change:

The female body isn’t meant to be able to do a pull-up to the same degree as men. Their arms are not naturally
made to do this exercise. They need special training to be able to accomplish this feat and it is said that its not
worth the trouble.
INFORMATIVE
1/3 of Americans think we spend way too much on the military, while another 1/3 think we don’t spend enough.
Who’s right? Well, that depends on what we want the armed forces to do.

The beauty of the United States.The blue waters of Hawaii.The grandeur of the White House.The endless vistas of
the Southwest.A tranquil, peaceful landscape.Until you remember that the Japanese bombed this…
The British burned this down.And during World War I, Germany almost convinced Mexico to reconquer this.

Yeah, danger is never that far away. In fact, as recently as 2017 there was a Russian spy ship off the coast of
Connecticut.
It’s a dangerous world out there, which is the government’s rationale for spending nearly $770 billion a year on
national defense.

Which is way too much … according to 1/3 of the country.

Or not nearly enough … according to 1/3 of the country
Or exactly the right amount according to…
…Well, you can probably do the math.

[OPENING SEQUENCE]

You’ve probably heard the expression: If you enjoy your freedom, thank a veteran…

…but good luck finding one.

Only about 7 percent of Americans have served in the military. And the younger you are, the less likely you are to
actually know any of them.
And this gets at a weird dynamic in American life. On one hand, the military is uniquely popular. At a time when
faith in almost all our major institutions is collapsing, more than 2/3 of Americans still say they’re confident in our
armed forces.
On the other hand, that affection is pretty abstract. One poll of servicemembers found that 75 percent of them
said that civilians don’t understand the military.
And this leads to a lot of confusion about what our armed forces actually do — and how they do it. For example, in
2022, only 12 percent of Americans said the military is stronger than it needs to be — but nearly 1/3 of them said
we spend too much on national defense. Which feels like a really complicated way of saying... [“I don’t know”
sound]
So, which is it? Is the U.S. military too big or too small?
Well, here’s the key: How much you think we should be spending on defense … really depends on what you want
the military to do. And Americans’ answer to that question has changed a lot over the years.
Up until the middle of the 20th century, we didn’t have much of a peacetime force.
The Founding Fathers were so spooked by standing armies — which they worried could be used to threaten
citizens’ freedom — that they created a system in which everybody basically went home when there wasn’t a war
going on. In fact, even as recently as the years just before World War II there were only about 180,000 members of
the U.S. Army … ranking us 19th in the world … behind Portugal. That stings.
In the years since, of course, things have changed … a lot. Today, the U.S. military is the world’s largest employer,
with more than 2.1 million service members and over 780,000 civilian employees. There are nearly 5,000 U.S.
military installations across 45 different countries. We spend more on defense than the next nine countries
combined. And … not everybody loves this.
But here’s the thing: What that spending looks like in context … may surprise you. It’s true that national defense is
the single biggest item in America’s discretionary budget — the money lawmakers can choose whether or not to
spend. But when you put it in the context of all our spending … it looks a lot smaller. In fact, we spend more than
twice as much on Social Security and Medicare as we do on national defense.
And while the phrase “defense spending” may sound like it’s all going to bullets and bombs, the reality is a little
more complicated. Actually, only about 20 percent of the military’s budget goes towards acquiring hardware. By
contrast, nearly 2/3 of the Pentagon’s spending goes towards things like paying servicemembers’ salaries and
keeping up maintenance on existing equipment.
Because you know how it always seems too expensive to tune up your Accord? Yeah, same principle, but now it’s a
B-2 Bomber.

Of course, even these costs would come down if we shrunk the size of the military. But if we want to consider that
option, we have to be serious about the tradeoffs.
In 2022, the military listed its top priority as being able to counter China. Russia was #2. Then there’s rogue nations
like Iran and North Korea. And terrorism.

And that’s before we even get to the fact that our military keeps open the trade routes necessary for a global
economy and provides rapid response to humanitarian disasters around the world.

So, if we want less defense spending … we have to choose which of those priorities we want to cut back on.
And by the way, not even our current levels of spending are necessarily up to all those tasks.
The Air Force Chief of Staff has warned that China could overcome American air superiority within a little more
than a decade. The number of combat ships in America’s navy is shrinking, while the numbers in the Chinese navy
are skyrocketing. And a report from military researchers at the RAND Corporation warns that America faces a
serious risk of losing its next war.
Now, just because the military’s job is important doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be held to the same standards as
any other government agency. It’s still the case that the Pentagon wastes a lot of money — government reports
estimate that it’s lost billions of dollars just to fraud in recent years.
But nevertheless, it’s worth keeping the big picture in mind: Our national defense costs so much because we ask
the military to do so much. So, our choices are probably between raising our spending … or lowering our
expectations.
Because defending the country isn’t cheap. Seriously, you wouldn’t believe how much it costs to change the oil in
one of these things
MANILA, Philippines — Congress has earmarked and increased by P6 billion the budget for the Armed Forces of the
Philippines modernization program or AFPMP for this year, an administration congressman said yesterday.

“In all, there’s P45 billion for the AFPMP in the 2023 national budget – P27.5 billion in programmed appropriations
plus P17.5 billion in unprogrammed appropriations,” Surigao del Sur Rep. Johnny Pimentel disclosed.

“The P45 billion is P6 billion higher than the P39 billion in programmed and unprogrammed appropriations for the
AFPMP in 2022,” he said, noting that the Department of Budget and Management had originally sought only P40
billion for this year.
“We are confident the government will find the money needed to finance this year’s unprogrammed
appropriations for the AFPMP,” Pimentel said.
While programmed appropriations have ready funding sources, unprogrammed ones provide standby authority for
the Department of National Defense (DND) to sign more contracts for modernization projects, depending on
available government funds, including loans.
“We are forcefully supporting the AFPMP not only because the law requires us to, but also to counteract the
persistent swarming of Chinese vessels around Pag-asa Island,” Pimentel said.
Pag-asa is the largest Philippine-occupied landmass at the northeastern section of the disputed Spratly Islands.
Pimentel is former chairperson of the House strategic intelligence committee and a strong backer of the Visiting
Forces Agreement between the Philippines and the US.
He is also author of House Bill 1782, which seeks to appropriate P5 billion for the installation of new naval forward
operating bases to secure the West Philippine Sea’s gas and oil deposits “for the enjoyment of future generations
of Filipinos.”
Last month, Pimentel also introduced HB 6228, which seeks to declare Pag-asa as a leisure fishing tourism site to
encourage the installation of additional Philippine structures on the 37.2-hectare island.

From December 2021 to June 2022, or in the last seven months of former president Rodrigo Duterte’s
administration, the DND signed P109 billion worth of acquisition contracts for the AFPMP, including:
• P28 billion for two anti-ship, anti-submarine, and anti-aircraft corvettes from South Korea’s Hyundai Heavy
Industries Co. Ltd.;
• P18.9 billion for three shore-based supersonic ramjet missile batteries from India’s BrahMos Aerospace;
• P32 billion for 32 Black Hawk choppers from Poland’s PZL Mielec; and
• P30 billion for six long-range offshore patrol vessels, also from Hyundai.
Just the other weekend, rumors of a destabilization plot in the military spread following a sudden change of
command in the AFP.