The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) faces a critical strategic shift. For decades, the military focused on internal security, counter-insurgency, and domestic stability, largely relying on the U.S. security umbrella for external defense. This approach was sufficient until territorial disputes in the South China Sea—from Mischief Reef in 1994 to Ayungin Shoal in 2024—highlighted the urgent need for a military capable of territorial defense. Modernizing weapons and platforms alone is no longer enough. The AFP must undergo a deeper transformation, changing not only its equipment but also doctrine, force structure, and operational mindset.
Modernization upgrades capabilities incrementally but does not necessarily improve effectiveness. Transformation, on the other hand, is comprehensive. It redefines how the military fights, integrating new concepts, technologies, and organizational structures. The lessons from conflicts like Russia-Ukraine show that modern warfare now spans multiple domains—cyber, air, maritime, and land—and relies on integrated, adaptive forces. For the AFP to meet 21st-century challenges, it must move beyond buying new platforms and develop integrated strategies and doctrines that align with the Comprehensive Archipelagic Defence Concept (CADC) adopted in 2024.
Doctrine remains a critical gap. While the CADC emphasizes territorial defense and expanded roles for the Philippine Air Force (PAF) and Philippine Navy (PN), the AFP has yet to clearly articulate how these forces will operate together. Without a clear doctrinal framework, it is difficult to measure progress or ensure the military can respond effectively to external threats. Doctrine should guide the AFP in coordinated, joint operations that leverage air, naval, and land capabilities in unison.
Force structure also needs urgent reform. Currently, the AFP is overwhelmingly army-centric, with 71% of personnel in the Philippine Army, compared to 17% in the Navy and 12% in the Air Force. This imbalance limits the country’s ability to defend maritime territories and sea lanes—vital for a nation spread across more than 7,000 islands. Transformation requires rebalancing personnel and resources so the Navy and Air Force can operate effectively alongside the Army, particularly in defending strategic chokepoints, offshore assets, and contested maritime zones.
Practical steps could accelerate transformation. First, the AFP should establish a technical working group of military and civilian experts to review doctrine, force structure, and operational integration with CADC. Second, the Department of National Defence should reallocate budgets to ensure the PAF and PN have sufficient funding relative to the Army. Without proportional investment, the AFP risks leaving key maritime and aerial capabilities underdeveloped, undermining the shift from internal security to territorial defense.
The stakes are high. The Philippines operates in a region of growing strategic competition, with China’s maritime assertiveness and other Indo-Pacific dynamics reshaping security calculations. A modernized but untransformed AFP may acquire platforms without achieving operational effectiveness, leaving the country vulnerable to coercion. A transformed AFP, in contrast, would integrate doctrine, structure, and capabilities to project credible territorial defense and contribute meaningfully to regional security architectures.
Forward-looking: Transformation is not instantaneous, but it is essential. By aligning doctrine, force structure, and modernization investments, the AFP can become a flexible, lethal, and integrated force by 2040. This approach ensures the Philippines can defend its sovereignty, secure strategic maritime areas, and participate in regional security cooperation with confidence.
Should the Philippines focus more on rapid modernization of platforms or on deeper transformation of doctrine and force structure to face external threats?
