Major General Edgard Arevalo AFP

05/10/2026

This op-ed piece was published by The Manila Times in its page. Our people deserve to have a new set of Barangay Officials—removing corrupt and inept ones and reelecting those who delivers public service and good governance. Read.

https://www.facebook.com/share/1D4nHBkWNu/?mibextid=wwXIfr

"As sovereign Filipino people, we have the power to determine who will govern us and for how long. And should they fail to meet our expectations, we wield the power to remove them by impeachment or through the ballot."

Read more: https://mrf.lu/2rj1Y

18/08/2026

This issue has been burning and burns even more.

Former 1Pacman Representative and Phil Air Force Reservist BGen Mikee Romero’s alleged response only generated more questions and deeper issues.

Military medals are earned, not given.
By Edgard A. Arevalo

CROW’S NEST
The Manila Times
August 16, 2026

THE news about the powerful Commission on Appointments’ approval of the ad interim appointments of newly promoted Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Chief of Staff Gen. Antonio Nafarrete and 37 other generals and Navy flag officers hogged headlines on Aug. 14, 2026.

According to reports, among those whose ad interim appointments were approved include erstwhile members of the House of Representatives. They are Brig. Gen. Michael “Mikee” Romero of the reserve force of the Philippine Air Force, who was a 1-Pacman party-list representative; and Col. Divina Grace Yu of the reserve force of the Philippine Army, who is a former lawmaker and current Zamboanga del Sur governor. And among the many photos that flooded social media, this stood out: a snapshot of Nafarrete with a beaming Romero wearing his Air Force general’s uniform that is literally teeming with badges and medal ribbons heavily laden with various appurtenances.

Netizens and high-ranking active and retired members of the AFP took to social media and chat groups to share their observations of that photo. Retired Philippine Marine Corps Maj. Alex Anicete made a lengthy post in the vernacular about that photo he saw in the Philippine Daily Inquirer that bothered him amid “a deluge they are experiencing in his province.” He was puzzled why Romero seems to have more medals than the AFP chief.

“Did he (Romero) ever before battled with rebels and terrorists,” Anicete asked, citing what he saw. “Gold Cross and numerous Triple Ms (Military Merit Medals) — with spearhead devices to boot — that can only be earned in actual combat where the awardee showed extraordinary courage,” he said. His comment elicited pointed remarks. Some asked whether Romero deserves the “nine layers of medals” he wore (Nafarrete has only eight), while others proposed a review of the procedure of awarding medals, especially to reservists. Add to that the claim of Alexander Balutan, retired Marine major general and awardee of the Distinguished Conduct Star, that a regular soldier who allegedly lost an eye in combat was not given an award.

What the fuss: Why the issue of the medal matters

I perfectly understand the sentiment. Just so readers will better understand, let me explain.

Every medal, every badge that soldiers wear on their uniforms, is covered by appropriate orders that authorize the donning of such “awards and decorations,” as they are called in military parlance. But before such orders are issued, the act/s being considered for award have to go through a tedious process, beginning from the submission of a written “description of deeds” that follows a prescribed format, certified and signed by the commanding officer. Stringent deliberations by different-level Awards and Decorations Boards follow, and the results are submitted to the appropriate approving authority, depending on the medal.

In case of conspicuous gallantry in combat for an act above and beyond the call of duty where the Medal for Valor is considered, or when, after deliberation, the act merits the “lesser” award of Distinguished Conduct Star or Gold Cross (in that descending order of hierarchy), a more stringent process is observed. Aside from the recommendation of the immediate commanding officer who describes in detail the deeds that led to the successful operation, there must be affidavits from colleagues who personally witnessed the act being considered. The sketch of the armed encounter site is also among other requirements for submission.

I was privileged to be one of the members of the Navy and of the AFP Awards and Decorations Boards deliberating recommendations for award. I remember having successfully backed the recommendation to bestow upon one Lt. George DP Alvarez, a Navy aviator, the Distinguished Aviation Cross for flying his airplane from Puerto Princesa in Palawan to Sangley Point in Cavite, even without night-flight capability. There was opposition from senior members of the board, calling it a daring act, if not silly, to endanger his life and the aircraft. But I pointed out that that peril could have given the pilot a convenient excuse, and yet, unmindful of his personal safety and with proven competence and experience, he heroically took on the mission to save the life of a sailor in critical condition from burns he sustained from an accidental liquefied petroleum gas explosion aboard a ship.

Badges are different. Commanders, with the approval of the appropriate boards, are given some leeway and discretion in awarding these to individuals who have met certain criteria. It could be for exemplifying the unit’s virtues, materially supporting the unit, or advancing the unit’s missions and objectives. This explains why someone wears Navy SEAL, Scout Ranger or Army Special Forces badges even if he has not completed these elite units’ extraordinarily rigorous and difficult training.

About Romero, news items say he “played a key role in supporting the Philippine Air Force modernization program, including the acquisition of three C-130J aircraft.” Being the chairman of the Association of Reservists and Reservists Administrators of the Philippines Inc., he is credited for his “longstanding commitment to strengthening the country’s air defense and the reservist force capabilities.” That may be among the reasons the former House deputy speaker and businessman has what he wears on his uniform.

Are we barking at the wrong tree?

But why, then, should the issue bother the former legislator? He may have no qualms about not having those medals and badges in the first place. He may even say he did not ask for it; it was given to him. I even doubt if he knows the name of each medal he was wearing.

Why pick on the reservist general and why should it matter to him? He might, in the sound discretion of the awarding authority, deserve the awards, after all. Critics may have to trust and give the benefit of the doubt that a process was followed.

But the matter surely bothers those who have served and are still serving in the military.

This should be a wake-up call to revisit AFP Regulations G-131-054, or the AFP Awards and Decorations Manual, since its last update in 2014.
Members of award-giving bodies must be more prudent and thorough in the deliberation of every recommendation and mindful of the supposed prestige and high regard that every soldier, airman, sailor, and Marine — regular or reservist, active or retired — attach to the medals.

And the fact that past and present service members react to this issue that others may find petty is a strong indication that medals remain valued, and bestowing them must be zealously guarded. We know there were many who have shed blood, sweat, and tears; rendered sacrifices; exposed their limbs to peril; and placed their lives in harm’s way in the name of duty. Yet, a number of them were not properly recognized with the medals they deserve. And then this.

Military medals are earned; they are not given as a reward.

[email protected]

THE news about the powerful Commission on Appointments’ approval of the ad interim appointments of newly promoted Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Chief of Staff Gen. Antonio Nafarrete and 37 other generals and Navy flag officers hogged headlines on Aug. 14, 2026.

15/08/2026

“We should strive to continue choosing peace as far as possible — but peace must never come at the expense of our dignity as a nation, as an armed force, and as a people. By calmly, lawfully and resolutely defending our rights by “pushing back” with commensurate force when attacked earns not only the respect of the international community but also the confidence of our own people.”

Redefining our stand in the West Philippine Sea: from restraint to resolute defense
By Edgard A. Arevalo

CROW’S NEST
August 2, 2026

Note: This is a sequel to my July 26, 2016 article that was titled “He says, he said; the bitter path to diplomacy”

THE violent confrontations between the Philippine Navy (PN) and the China Coast Guard (CCG) at the Second Thomas (Ayungin) Shoal have been our country’s defining moments in protecting our territorial integrity, sovereignty and sovereign rights.

On June 17, 2024, an elite team from the Philippine Navy was physically attacked while carrying out a lawful rotation and resupply mission to the BRP Sierra Madre. It shocked Filipinos and the international community that one member of the team lost a finger and eight high-powered fi****ms were seized by the CCG. Then came the July 21, 2026, incident; eight sailors were hurt and one sustained a serious head injury. These and many other past incidents show China’s vicious pattern of resorting to dangerous maneuvers, intentional ramming, water cannoning and physical intimidation to prevent the Philippines from exercising its lawful rights within its own exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

These events raise a difficult but unavoidable question that I asked in my previous article: Is forbearance and bearing the physical and morale impact of these attacks our preferred mode of diplomacy with China? Or should we begin responding with commensurate force?

Both former President Rodrigo Duterte and current President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. pursued a policy of restraint toward China’s aggression, following the principle “a friend to everyone and an enemy to none.” The objective has been clear — to avoid giving China any justification to escalate the situation into an armed conflict. And in that pursuit, members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) have shown remarkable discipline worthy of recognition. Despite repeated harassment, they have followed orders, completed missions and avoided actions that could trigger violence, which earned for our nation vast international support and reinforced our image as a responsible state that respects international law.

However, Beijing has mistaken our restraint for passivity to a point that their repeated attacks no longer constitute isolated incidents but a deliberate strategy designed to wear down our resolve. And if we only meet every violent act with diplomatic protests, China may conclude that the cost of coercion is negligible.

Stoking war?

Responding with commensurate and proportional force is not the same as provoking war. International law recognizes the inherent right of states to protect their personnel and government vessels. Defensive actions such as blocking unsafe approaches, employing non-lethal water cannons against aggressive vessels, or physically preventing illegal boarding attempts are justified if they are strictly limited to protecting government security and law enforcement personnel and ensuring mission accomplishment.

The key principle is proportionality.

We should never become the aggressor. We must not fire the first shot or initiate violence. But we must neither allow our soldiers to perpetually play the victim card. Our soldiers must be equipped and authorized by government — with clear and unmistakable instructions — to employ reasonable defensive measures when their lives and missions are threatened.

While there is reasonable ground to fear that stronger responses could trigger a military escalation with China, history suggests that escalation is not automatic.

Out there in the South China Sea, Beijing has been employing the “gray zone strategy,” i.e., coercive tactics calibrated below the threshold of armed conflict. China generally seeks to avoid actions that could activate treaty obligations, severely damage its international standing, or disrupt regional stability. Therefore, a carefully calibrated AFP-PCG response using non-lethal, defensive measures is unlikely, by itself, to trigger full-scale war.

What increases the danger instead is uncertainty. Clear rules of engagement, disciplined ex*****on and continuous communication between both sides reduce the risk of miscalculation far more effectively than complete inaction.

Way forward

Being in that isolated post and the possibility of physical attack hanging like a sword of Damocles, we cannot be sure how long our soldiers can exercise maximum restraint. Certainly, the AFP and the PCG should continue exercising the highest level of discipline, but they should be authorized to defend themselves using graduated, non-lethal responses. Every mission should be supported by improved surveillance, real-time communications, legal documentation and international transparency. Every confrontation should be recorded and immediately shared with the Filipino people and the international community.

We should prepare for the possibility of China ultimately seizing control of the BRP Sierra Madre. While no public declaration has been explicitly made of such intention, Beijing’s sustained efforts to obstruct resupply missions and challenge our presence there strongly suggest their intent to make our continued occupation increasingly difficult. If resupply eventually becomes impossible and if even ship repairs are prevented by strong resistance and violent confrontation, the grounded ship could deteriorate beyond habitability, potentially allowing China to alter the status quo without firing a single shot.

That possibility underscores why maintaining the BRP Sierra Madre is a strategic imperative rather than merely a symbolic act.

The way forward requires neither reckless confrontation nor submissive accommodation. Marcos was well-applauded in his fifth State of the Nation Address (SONA) when he said, “Filipinos are a noble, kind, gracious and a great race ... and we do not yield.”

We should therefore pursue a strategy of “restrained firmness.” Diplomacy must be pursued, but it should be backed by credible maritime capability through accelerated modernization. The PN and PCG should receive better ships, drones, communications systems, and non-lethal defensive equipment. Alliances with like-minded nations should continue to strengthen deterrence while avoiding unnecessary provocation. Most importantly, we must sustain a coherent national position — whoever sits in Malacañang.

Less rhetoric, more coherent and decisive actions

The West Philippine Sea is not merely a foreign policy issue. It is a test of our national resolve in addressing a “common threat” that Marcos said in his SONA “(is) directed against our dignity and self-respect as a people ... (where) our very humanity has been called into question.”

We should strive to continue choosing peace as far as possible — but peace must never come at the expense of our dignity as a nation, as an armed force, and as a people. By calmly, lawfully and resolutely defending our rights by “pushing back” with commensurate force when attacked earns not only the respect of the international community but also the confidence of our own people.

And it will do justice to our troops beyond providing hazard pay, pinning medals on their chests, or giving them pats in the back.

That would add purpose and meaning to the most applauded and rooted part of the president’s SONA, “Sa mga pang-aalipusta, hindi tayo matitinag. Sa manlulupig, hindi tayo pasisiil (We will not be moved by the mockery; we will not be subdued by the invaders).”

[email protected]

29/06/2026

A 15 year old male in Manila threatened to stab using and later threw a busted glass bottle on a gas station’s pump attendants—bragging that he can stab anyone without danger of being jailed because he is a minor.

In Batangas City, a Grade 10 pupil, through a video post brandishing a .45 caliber pistol, threatened to stab and gun down students of Grades 7, 8, 9 and 10 who allegedly bully him—prompting Batangas Integrated High School authorities to suspend classes out of fear for the safety of their student.

These happened at the heels of that fatal school mass shooting in Tacloban City.

Age of minority pa more?

Read my OpEd piece:

ON June 22, 2026, high school students “Nash” and “Rod” — ages 14 and 15, respectively — went on a shooting rampage at San Jose National High School in Tacloban City. The incident left three students dead and 20 others injured, including three who were sent to the intensive care unit. An...

27/04/2026

Martyrs, murderers or victims of circumstances?
by Edgard A. Arevalo

CROW’S NEST
The Manila Times
March 26, 2026

WHENEVER students die during clashes between the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the New People’s Army (NPA), they get praised and the military gets ridiculed. The “innocent civilians” who died were branded as “martyrs,” “victims” and “human rights advocates” while soldiers were called “berdugo” (ex*****oner), “murderer” or “violators of human rights.” Sweeping judgments without careful examination of the circumstances of the deaths.

On April 19, 2026, another tragic incident happened in Toboso, Negros Occidental. Nineteen NPA members lay dead after eight armed skirmishes with soldiers from the 79th Infantry Battalion. Twenty-four fi****ms were seized in that 11-hour gun battle. Reports say that among the identified fatalities were Maureen Keil Santuyo and Alyssa Alano, reportedly a faculty member and student, respectively, at University of the Philippines; Ma. Clarita Branzuel Blanco, a teacher in Tabugon, Cebu; and RJ Nichole Ledesma, a Kabataan party-list nominee in the 2022 elections. Sixteen bodies were already claimed by relatives, said Lt. Gen. Fernando Reyeg, who leads the AFP Visayas Command. Among government troops, Army Cpl. Jony Gallano sustained gunshot wounds to both arms.

The fatalities were armed when neutralized, fighting with NPA members led by commander Roger Fabillar, AFP Chief of Staff Gen. Romeo Brawner Jr. said.

Scene-of-the-crime operatives — or SOCOs — from the Philippine National Police, accompanied by follow-on soldiers, immediately proceeded to the encounter sites, conducted an investigation, secured and preserved pieces of evidence, and did a “verification of the circumstances surrounding the series of clashes.”

Meanwhile, social media was swamped with posts demonizing the military over the deaths of “mere researchers, journalists, student leaders and peasant organizers and cultural workers.” Calls to investigate the clash mounted, especially because not one soldier involved died.

A NPA spokesman called the military’s report of the skirmish “a study in calculated exaggeration” and attributed to the AFP a “well-documented history of planted evidence and fabricated encounters.”

But there is a question that remains inadequately answered: why were they bearing arms; and why were they in the exact time and places of the armed confrontation? This is not the first time such an incident happened. There were many instances in the past when those who died fighting alongside NPA combatants were claimed as “innocent civilians” or “mere students engaged in an immersion program.”

This cycle of violence and exploitation by the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the NPA must stop!

Yes, there are social ills.

Poverty, inequality and government neglect are more felt in the countryside. Corruption is widespread.

These, too, must end.

But not by inciting the poor and marginalized to pursue change through the barrel of a gun. That is not only against the law, it also yields tragic consequences, like what happened in Negros Occidental. The state has the right to defend itself, and the military is obliged to protect its citizens.

The recruitment of young and idealistic students, out-of-school youths, and even faculty members to the NPA is masked as advocacies. A journey to social activism that begins with insidious speeches, literatures, and symposia that “expose” the ills of society. This is followed by training select recruits with the potential to lead. For these “advocates” to see for themselves and better understand the masses, they are immersed in some distant and depressed village. To do research or a study and come back with a wealth of data to process for meaningful findings and workable recommendation. But they rarely return home.

Once overcome by hatred, engulfed by a burning desire to fight for change, and emboldened by automatic ri**es, they are transformed into “mandirigma,” or warriors willing and ready to die for a cause, take up arms and engage security forces to overthrow the government. That has been the CPP-NPA leaders’ playbook for the past 57 years: preying on other people’s children or siblings, never their own, to die in the mountains for a lost cause.

There were parties who insinuate foul play. They justify the presence of the students, teachers and social workers in the community — and ultimately at the clash sites — as researchers engaged in lawful pursuits. But it should be asked: was their presence in these villages coordinated by higher educational institutions (HEIs) with local government units (LGUs)? Or with the military and police in the area?

The rules of engagement are clear. Researchers or study groups are noncombatants, as long as they do not participate in actual combat. Provided they do not stay in NPA camps.

The Commission on Higher Education (CHEd) has published CHEd Memorandum Order (CMO) 63, s. 2017, that provides policies and guidelines in the conduct of “off-campus” activities that HEIs are supposed to design, approve and noted by the commission. The memo specifically directs HEIs to coordinate with the appropriate LGUs and nongovernment organizations. The CHEd also gives unto the HEIs the “duty to observe due diligence in the conduct of off-campus activity” that includes noncurricular ones, e.g., “community outreach and immersion.” Failing to do so entails the CHEd to impose sanctions “without prejudice to other liabilities under applicable laws.”

Could those off-campus activities that eventually led to last week’s tragic deaths had the CHEd’s permission? Were these activities, as designed and approved by the HEIs concerned, held with “paramount consideration given to the safety and welfare of student participants,” as mandated by the CHEd?

There should be a thorough review of the implementation of and compliance with CMO 63. The CPP-NPA’s recruitment activities in schools must be stopped.

While the death of the NPA commander and subcommander was a heavy blow to the terrorist group in Negros, it came with a heavy toll: the lives of those who died for a losing cause.

[email protected]

WHENEVER students die during clashes between the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the New People’s Army (NPA), they get praised and the military gets ridiculed. The “innocent civilians” who died were branded as “martyrs,” “victims” and “human rights advocates” while soldie...

17/04/2026

All for oil
By Edgard Arevalo

CROW’S NEST
The Manila Times
April 5, 2026

THE war in the Middle East is now on its second month, and there is no clear end in sight. No clear concept of a victory, no apparent exit plan.

The United States and Israel grossly miscalculated Iran’s capability and resilience when they tried to subdue Tehran in a war they want to finish rapidly. They employed their formidable triangle of military power: missile system in the narrow tip first; air power, second; and naval power, third. The “cheapest” capability — boots on the ground — will be last.

Washington said it wanted to effect regime change in Tehran and tear down its nuclear arms capability that threatens American security from afar. The US succeeded in killing Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with key military leaders, but failed to achieve its declared political objective. The Feb. 28 attack only triggered a costly war that continues to drain the US economy, reduce its military power, and lose its central leadership role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Iran fought back, employing asymmetric warfare with the knowledge it cannot defeat the US, plane for plane. It engaged the aggressors, deploying drones that reportedly cost between $20,000 and $50,000 against multimillion-dollar F-35 fighter jets, state-of-the-art aircraft carriers, and cruise missiles.

Iran also used its most potent advantage that negatively impacted the economies of not just the US and its allies, but the entire world: control of the Strait of Hormuz. Its effective closure of this vital waterway, where approximately one-fifth of the world’s oil requirements transit daily, applied enormous pressure on the US and its NATO allies.

Nations heavily dependent on crude oil from the Middle East had to endure the acute supply shortage and price hike on petroleum products. They were forced to release their strategic oil reserves only for their citizens, cut down on consumption, and reduce the number of work and school days. Countries that rely largely on imported fuel had to bear the fuel price spikes or resort to rationing what they have obtained from nontraditional sources.

The Philippines is no exception.

We already know our need for energy security and fuel sufficiency since Adam’s time. We knew many years ago that we needed to shift from heavy dependence on fossil fuel to cleaner and more sustainable renewable energy. But our leaders did not take serious action on this. To this very day, our elected officials are preoccupied with their political squabbles and the preservation of their own selfish interests.

Various studies suggest that we have over 5 billion barrels of oil and over 55 trillion cubic feet of natural gas sitting in our exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the West Philippine Sea. Based on our 2024 oil consumption rate of roughly 184.5 million barrels per year, the oil deposits can meet our needs for up to 27 years, and the natural gas deposits for more than three decades. But that is like counting the chicks even before the hen is found. The challenge here is the huge capital and infrastructure needed for their exploration, development and utilization.

Incapable

We have resigned to the fact the government is incapable of a unilateral fuel and energy sufficiency program, that we need to partner with firms capable of providing financial investment and equipment.

We chose to partner with China at a time when diplomatic tensions have not yet reached today’s level. In 1998, we signed a memorandum of agreement with Beijing to conduct a joint exploration of oil and gas reserves. It failed. Toward the end of his term in June 2022, former president Rodrigo Duterte stopped all exploration talks with China on issues of sovereignty and constitutionality.

The same fate befell the 2005 tripartite agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking among Philippine, Chinese and Vietnamese firms. The Supreme Court struck down the agreement for being contrary to the provisions of Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.

With the economic downtrend caused by the war in the Middle East, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. found renewed impetus to broker a deal with China. He entertains the thought of a “reset” in the talks for joint oil and gas exploration in the West Philippine Sea. But unless the reset will be with China recognizing our ownership of the deposits found in our EEZ or amendments to the relevant provisions of our supreme law, forget it! This revival of talks is dead even before we restart it.

Under the circumstances, however, we are unlikely to achieve our aspiration with Beijing as a partner. Not only because this neighbor has been treating us shabbily, but also because our fundamental law requires that it cannot be a firm more than 40-percent owned by China. Other interested companies may be unwilling to invest because the risks Beijing poses on their would-be financial investments and costly infrastructure are way too high to be ignored.

Is this option, therefore, of reopening discussions of joint exploration with China, which President Marcos and his sister Sen. Imee Marcos had a rare agreement on, worth retrying? The ink on the newspapers reporting this plan has not even dried yet when retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio hogged the headlines. He revealed that China declared on its website that it owns any yield from resource explorations in the South China Sea.

Such a sad fate. Will the exploration, development and utilization of our oil and gas resources — which would bring energy and fuel security, job opportunities, and more government revenues for Filipinos — continue to be an elusive dream? Do we stand a better chance if we can have a “good negotiator” to broker a mutually beneficial deal with China?

Given our vital national interest in local petroleum supply sufficiency and energy security, the hard question worth asking is: do we need a shift in our foreign policy following the perceived emerging change in the geopolitical landscape, owing to the war in the Middle East or an amendment to our Constitution?

Both options are hard to do.

Postscript

This author is immensely grateful to its many readers and followers, as this column reaches another milestone.

Today, Easter Sunday, Crow’s Nest marks its fourth year in the trusted opinion pages of the oldest existing English-language newspaper in the Philippines: The Manila Times.

Thank you for your valued comments, feedback and encouragements. These keep his energy steady and the insights flowing.

[email protected]

THE war in the Middle East is now on its second month, and there is no clear end in sight. No clear concept of a victory, no apparent exit plan.