*Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD, DM
A star, by itself, is only metal shaped into a symbol. It acquires meaning not because it shines, but because of the battlefield behind it — the years of service, the discipline, the chain of command, and the law that recognizes it. Without that battlefield, a star risks becoming decoration rather than designation.
Recently, I found myself engaged in a quiet dialectical examination after reading a question posted on Facebook under the account of the 27th Chief of the Philippine National Police, General Dionardo Carlos, who was also my former Directorial Staff Course student. The question was simple, almost procedural in tone:
At first reading, it seemed like a technical inquiry. But beneath it lies a profound institutional concern: What gives rank its legitimacy? Is it the insignia? The appointment paper? Or the statute that defines it?
In the uniformed services such as the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Philippine Coast Guard, the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, and the Bureau of Fire Protection, rank is not decorative. It is statutory. It is clearly indicated in appointment orders. It is earned through years of command, institutional discipline, and legal commissioning. When a general wears stars, those stars represent a recognized place in a legally defined chain of command. The salute rendered is not personal admiration; it is institutional acknowledgment.
Civilian agencies such as the Bureau of Customs, Bureau of Immigration, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Bureau of Corrections operate differently. Their heads are presidential appointees with significant administrative authority. Their mandates are national and strategic. Yet unless a statute or executive issuance expressly grants rank equivalency, they do not automatically belong to the military or police rank structure.
And this is where confusion quietly emerges.
A military salute is not merely a gesture of courtesy. It is recognition of commissioned authority within a structured hierarchy. It is governed by doctrine, regulation, and institutional tradition. It is rendered to rank recognized by law — not simply to position.
If a civilian appointee does not hold legally conferred military rank or formally granted rank equivalency, uniformed personnel are not institutionally obligated to render a military salute. Professional respect may always be extended. Courtesy remains part of discipline. But the salute itself is anchored in commissioned authority.
The larger issue here is not ego. It is not rivalry between civilian and uniformed leadership. It is institutional clarity. When symbols are adopted without explicit legal grounding, we risk confusing visibility with legitimacy. Governance depends on defined structures. Institutions rely on clearly drawn lines.
Perhaps, then, it is about time for lawmakers to address this ambiguity directly. Congress may need to enact a clarificatory law that definitively defines the rank equivalency — or the absence thereof — of star-carrying positions within civilian agencies. A statute that clearly states when and how rank equivalency is granted, what insignias may lawfully be worn, and whether such equivalency carries saluting protocol implications would eliminate uncertainty. Such legislative precision would protect both civilian authority and military integrity from interpretative confusion.
Because ambiguity, if left unresolved, gradually erodes institutional discipline.
Throughout my years mentoring officers and advising agencies, I have emphasized that authority does not emanate from insignia. It emanates from mandate. One may hold immense administrative power without ever wearing a star. Conversely, wearing a star without a clear statutory basis risks reducing the symbol into ornamentation.
If we are to preserve the integrity of our institutions, we must protect the boundaries that define them. Civilian authority must be respected for what it is. Military rank must be preserved for what it represents. When both are clearly articulated in law, both are strengthened.
Stars without a battlefield may still shine.
But shine alone does not create legitimacy.
In the end, it is not the glitter of metal that commands obedience — it is the clarity of statute, the discipline of hierarchy, and the supremacy of law.
And that, above all, is what truly deserves our salute.
__
*About the author:
