THAT assertion is more than a slogan. It’s one of the most enduring expressions of military identity ever created, a declaration that service in the Marine Corps is not merely an occupation but a permanent transformation of character. It was articulated by Maj. Gen. John A. Lejeune, the 13th Commandant of the US Marine Corps, that a Marine’s relationship with the Corps doesn’t end when active duty ends. Rather, it represents a lifelong bond forged through sacrifice, discipline and loyalty.
The institutional logic behind the phrase is straightforward. A person who leaves active service honorably remains a Marine. The transformation that occurs during boot camp — the rigorous process known as the “making of a Marine” — is viewed as a permanent alteration of character. The values instilled during that process are expected to endure long after the uniform is folded away. At the center of this transformation is the Corps’ motto:Semper Fidelis — Always Faithful. Faithful to country. Faithful to fellow Marines. Faithful to truth and duty.
The phrase also carries a deeper implication. If the nation ever faces an existential threat, a Marine — whether 25 or 75 years old — is expected to answer the call. The uniform may come off, but the commitment never does. That’s precisely why the phrase carries such enormous social capital, authority and emotional weight. It is also why it’s vulnerable to abuse.
The title “Marine” commands public trust. It evokes images of courage, honor and sacrifice. Yet, those virtues are not a shield against accountability. The privilege of being recognized as a Marine comes with a lifelong obligation to uphold the highest standards of integrity in civilian life. Past service is not a license to excuse present misconduct.
This ethos has been embraced by the Philippine Marine Corps as well, whose culture, traditions and esprit de corps have long reflected similar ideals of loyalty, professionalism and honor. That’s why the recent bribery controversy involving a group of individuals presenting themselves as “ex-Marines” has struck a raw nerve.
The allegations were explosive. They claimed to have served as security escorts and couriers responsible for delivering suitcases of cash allegedly connected to the multibillion-peso flood control scandal. Their allegations have implicated prominent politicians, lawmakers and the president himself. Had the allegations been true, they would have represented one of the most significant corruption scandals in recent memory. Instead, the narrative has steadily unraveled.
Perjury complaints, cyber libel cases and a National Bureau of Investigation inquiry soon followed after reports emerged that participants had allegedly been promised by politician Mike Defensor as much as P5 million each in exchange for their testimonies. As scrutiny intensified, glaring inconsistencies began to surface.
The Philippine Navy’s investigation reportedly found that four of the 18 individuals had never served in the military; others were dishonorably discharged. Some reportedly faced unrelated criminal allegations, including murder charges. More damaging than the backgrounds of the witnesses, however, were the contradictions in their own accounts. Months after their first public appearance early this year, basic factual errors remained uncorrected in their second appearance at a controversial non-hearing at the Senate last week.
One example is party-list representative Leila de Lima, who wasn’t a sitting congresswoman during the period alleged by the witnesses that she received suitcases filled with cash. When questioned, it was conceded that her inclusion may have been a mistake. Senators Tito Sotto and Erwin Tulfo weren’t sitting senators at the time alleged by the “witnesses.” Furthermore, Sotto’s executive assistant, Mark Rosales, to whom the suitcases were allegedly delivered in 2024 actually passed away in 2015, nine years before the supposed transaction occurred.
The contradictions didn’t stop there. Senators Loren Legarda and the two Villar senators were also identified as recipients, despite being politically aligned with the very bloc that had facilitated the testimony. In other cases, witnesses could not even consistently state the number of suitcases delivered or the amount of money supposedly contained inside them. It was a comedy of errors, a staggering collection of inconsistencies if you will, but one delivered under oath. The consequences are serious.
By presenting themselves as “ex-Marines,” they sought to invoke the moral authority associated with military service. The institutional prestige earned through generations of sacrifice was leveraged to make unverified allegations appear courageous and principled. The public was asked to trust not the evidence, but the image. Yet the Marines’ core philosophy isn’t blind loyalty. It’s fidelity to truth. Perjury is the direct opposite ofSemper Fidelis.
A Marine’s honor is measured not by how loudly he speaks, but by whether his word can be trusted. Integrity is the foundation upon which the entire institution rests. Once that integrity is abandoned, the Marine identity becomes little more than a costume worn for convenience. This distinction is particularly important when discussing persons who were discharged without honor. They cannot credibly claim the moral authority associated with a title they failed to uphold.
More than respecting Marines who once wore the uniform, the public respects them because the uniform symbolizes a commitment to values greater than oneself. A true Marine understands that honor cannot be rented, purchased, or fabricated. Integrity must be earned every day. When those values are discarded, the symbolism loses its meaning. The controversy involving these 18 individuals is therefore more than politics. It’s attempted theft of the Marine Corps’ honor for personal or partisan gain.
As Medal of Valor recipient retired colonel Ariel Querubin succinctly put it: “True Marines don’t carry stolen people’s money. Honor is earned, not delivered in suitcases.”
And that may be the simplest test of all. A Marine’s word is gold. If integrity is absent, no title, no uniform, and no affidavit can restore its value.
That said, let the sword of justice fall on all those who’ve stolen the people’s money with impunity for so long and remain on the loose. If it truly seeks redemption, the Marcos administration must rush to accomplish this mission no matter who gets hurt. Carpe diem!
Rafael M. Alunan 3rd is a governor of the Management Association of the Philippines and a former cabinet official in the administrations of Presidents Cory Aquino and Fidel Ramos.
