*Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD, DM
Military history repeatedly teaches a hard lesson: changing a commander in the middle of a war is one of the most dangerous decisions a state can make. Even a capable successor needs time—to understand the terrain, assess the adversary, establish trust, and impose command authority. During this transition, confusion emerges, discipline weakens, and opponents search for vulnerabilities. Wars are rarely lost for lack of plans; they are often lost because continuity is broken at the most critical moment.
The same principle applies to institutions entrusted with enforcing the rule of law.
Today, the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) is engaged in a high-stakes institutional struggle—not against a foreign enemy, but against corruption, undue influence, and the manipulation of custodial systems by powerful detainees. These are not ordinary inmates. They include individuals implicated in major drug-related scandals, politically exposed persons, and suspects in sensational crimes such as the missing sabungeros cases. Managing them requires not only routine detention, but sustained institutional discipline under pressure.
In recent years, the BJMP has consolidated its integrity under the leadership of Jail Director Ruel Rivera, with firm policy direction and oversight from Secretary Jonvic Remulla. This period has been defined not by rhetoric, but by concrete policies, operational safeguards, and accountability mechanisms designed specifically to withstand the pressures posed by high-profile inmates.
Crucially, these reforms have already been tested. The BJMP has demonstrated operational readiness through its handling of politically exposed and highly influential detainees, including Arnie Teves, as well as individuals involved in major drug-control scandals. These cases served as real-world stress tests—revealing whether rules could hold, whether personnel could resist influence, and whether command authority could be enforced without exception. The institution did not falter; it adapted and held the line.
It is precisely for this reason that leadership continuity now matters.
A sudden change in management—new leadership, new pacing, new policy emphases—inevitably creates a period of transition. In theory, transitions are orderly. In practice, they generate uncertainty. Decision-making slows, enforcement styles shift, and informal actors test boundaries. In custodial environments housing highly connected inmates, such moments are not neutral; they are opportunities.
High-profile detainees do not operate in isolation. They possess money, influence, and entrenched networks that extend beyond prison walls—into politics, business, and even law-enforcement institutions, including the Philippine National Police and other agencies. When leadership continuity weakens, these networks become active, seeking favors to regain, privileges to negotiate, and cracks in the system to exploit. Historically, anomalies in jail management rarely begin with open defiance; they begin during transitions.
For this reason, continuity in BJMP leadership should not be mistaken for resistance to reform. On the contrary, it is a strategy to protect reform. Stability preserves institutional memory, sustains discipline, and prevents the reopening of informal channels that reforms were designed to close. Just as a battlefield commander maintains momentum to deny the enemy an opening, institutional leaders must maintain continuity to deny corruption the space to regroup.
In the final analysis, the credibility of the BJMP—and the state’s broader commitment to equal justice—will not be measured by the number of policies announced, but by the endurance of those policies when tested by power, money, and influence. At moments like this, changing commanders mid-battle does not signal strength. It risks surrendering hard-won ground.
Continuity, when anchored in proven leadership and institutional integrity, is not stagnation. It is how reform survives.
_____
*About the author:
