by
Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD
In the complex and often volatile world of public service, especially within the armed forces and law enforcement, men in uniform are not just defenders of the state—they are symbols of order, justice, and moral authority. As such, the behavior of those at the helm of institutions like the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) must rise above emotional outbursts, public spectacle, and personal vendettas. Whether for charity, content creation, or bravado, engaging in public brawls, verbal tirades, or challenges to violence—no matter how theatrical or consensual—undermines the dignity of the uniform and the constitutional mandate of these institutions.
The phrase “an officer and a gentleman” is not merely a ceremonial ideal; it is a moral and behavioral standard. It implies that those in command must possess competence, courage, and courtesy—not only in the battlefield or in law enforcement, but also in how they conduct themselves in public and private life. Civilians look up to them not just for protection but for inspiration. Their words and actions shape national attitudes toward justice, discipline, and authority.
When high-ranking officials in the PNP, AFP, or other uniformed services engage in public arguments, verbal profanity, or worse—issue challenges to fistfights or duels, they diminish the nobility of their office. Worse, they erode the trust that people place in the institutions they represent.
Recently, incidents have arisen where top-ranking public officials and uniformed leaders engaged in heated verbal spats and even threats of physical confrontation, either in response to criticism or to prove a point. Some have even suggested boxing matches for charity or to “settle” disputes. While such spectacles may appear humorous or noble in intent (such as fundraising), they convey a deeply troubling message: that violence or machismo is a legitimate form of conflict resolution, especially among state leaders.
This contradicts the very purpose of institutions like the PNP and AFP, which are meant to uphold peace, law, and order, and to mediate conflict without partiality or resort to force unless necessary. When public officials mimic the very aggression they are supposed to prevent, they embolden lower-ranking officers—and even civilians—to believe that discipline and due process are optional.
Both the Revised Penal Code and various codes of conduct governing military and police personnel explicitly prohibit acts that bring shame or disrepute to their office. For instance, Article 261 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes the act of challenging someone to a duel or scoffing at someone for refusing such a challenge, a law clearly designed to discourage violence disguised as honor.
Moreover, uniformed personnel are bound by institutional codes of ethics, such as the PNP Ethical Doctrine Manual and the AFP Code of Ethics, which emphasize that officers must maintain professionalism, observe decorum, and avoid behavior that tarnishes the image of the service.
There is an emerging trend where public officials or uniformed personnel justify controversial acts as being done “for a good cause” — such as raising funds for disaster victims, or gaining online engagement for advocacy. While the intent may be noble, the means must also be noble. A fight in the name of charity is still a public brawl, and a foul-mouthed exchange, even if “for content,” is still indecent and inappropriate—especially when done by individuals sworn to protect the public.
Charity does not absolve a soldier or a police officer from the duty to model self-restraint and composure, especially in front of cameras. Content creation should not come at the cost of institutional respectability.
True leadership is demonstrated in the ability to restrain one’s impulses, especially under provocation. When tempers flare or criticisms arise, the proper response from a uniformed leader is not to lash out, but to stand tall with dignity, respond with facts or silence, and let institutions—not fists or foul words—do the talking.
In a world where virality can distort values, and where social media rewards confrontation over civility, uniformed leaders must act as the last line of moral order. By maintaining professionalism, they remind the public that power must always be tempered by virtue.
In a nutshell, men in uniform must remember that they wear not just the colors of their unit, but the trust of an entire nation. They are not entertainers, influencers, or vigilantes—they are officers and gentlemen, bound by duty, honor, and law. Whether they lead a squad or an entire armed force, they must rise above the temptation of spectacle and impulse. No rank, no cause, no content, no charity justifies turning the dignity of the uniform into a public circus.
In an age of spectacle, we need leaders of substance.
_________________________________________________________________________________
*About the author:
Dr. Rodolfo “John” Ortiz Teope is a distinguished Filipino academic, public intellectual, and advocate for civic education and public safety, whose work spans local academies and international security circles. With a career rooted in teaching, research, policy, and public engagement, he bridges theory and practice by making meaningful contributions to academic discourse, civic education, and public policy. Dr. Teope is widely respected for his critical scholarship in education, management, economics, doctrine development, and public safety; his grassroots involvement in government and non-government organizations; his influential media presence promoting democratic values and civic consciousness; and his ethical leadership grounded in Filipino nationalism and public service. As a true public intellectual, he exemplifies how research, advocacy, governance, and education can work together in pursuit of the nation’s moral and civic mission
