*

Healing the Healers: Doctors as Transformational Leaders

by

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno

Supreme Court

Allow me first to clear the deck by thanking the Philippine College of

Physicians (PCP), especially Dr. Eugenio Jose F. Ramos, your Vice-

President and overall Chair of the Organizing Committee, for inviting me to

deliver the keynote address on the occasion of PCP’s 39th Annual

Convention. I note that previous speakers for the A.G. Sison Memorial

Lecture consisted of distinguished leaders -- both local and foreign -- and

even included Dr. Peter C. Doherty, the 1996 Nobel Prize winner in

medicine. This illustrious tradition certainly leaves me big shoes to fill, and I

hope that my humble attempt will not disappoint.

I am truly privileged to have been chosen as the A.G. Sison Memorial

Lecturer for 2009, for Dr. Antonio Sison’s accomplishments are nothing

short of extraordinary. He was the personal physician of two Philippine

Presidents, Manuel Quezon and Manuel Roxas. At various points in time, he

was the President of the Philippine Medical Association and the University

of the Philippines. Dr. Sison also served as Dean of the U.P. College of

Medicine. His fourteen-year deanship is, in fact, now remembered as the

“Renaissance Period of Medicine” because of his commitment to the

improvement of medical education. A steadfast nationalist, he was likewise

deeply involved in the affairs of our country. Truly, Dr. Sison may have long

                                                            
*
Delivered before the Philippine College of Physicians, May 5, 2009, 39th Annual Convention, SMX
Convention Center.
  2

passed on to the next life, but his leviathan reputation -- as accomplished

physician, excellent educator, and man of strong moral fiber -- lives on to

this day.

I note further that Dr. Sison’s family is no stranger to the law. His

daughter-in-law, Teresita Cruz Sison, was the first woman President of the

Philippine Bar Association; and, for seventeen years, was the National

Treasurer of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. More significantly, she

has the distinction of being a three-term Member of the Judicial and Bar

Council, the constitutionally created body that recommends appointees for

vacancies that may arise in the Supreme Court and other lower courts. Just

like her father-in-law, Atty. Cruz Sison is made of strong mettle as to

intellect, honor, and moral constitution.

It is in this light that I commence this address, ever mindful of the

long shadow cast by these individuals. Your invitation came at a time when

my call for a moral force had started to reach the domain of public

consciousness. I have been requested to speak on how you, as doctors, can

find the best fit in the overall scheme of the Moral Force Movement.

Let me proceed from the premise that “moral decadence” is gravely

endangering the country and its institutions – undermining its stability,

threatening its security, preventing its development, and making good

governance very difficult, if not impossible. We cannot shrug off the

sobering statistics of Transparency International’s 2008 Corruption

Perception Index, showing that the Philippines came in 141st among 180
  3

countries as among the most corrupt – having the same rank as Iran, Yemen

and Cameroon. Just two days ago, a group from Norway came out with a

study that for year 2008, we earned the dubious distinction of having the

most number of citizens displaced as a consequence of the Moro Islamic

Liberation Front (MILF) rebellion in the South.

These are two sure signs of a state teetering on the brink of failure.

Given this factual backdrop, we called for a moral force to facilitate the

moral formation and transformation of the individuals who make up our

institutions. This moral force intends to make our moral and ethical virtues

as Filipinos the building blocks in rebuilding our country. There cannot be

any argument, no ambivalence, on what these moral virtues are. These are

the moral virtues already cast in stone in our Constitution: dependence on

Almighty God; a government of the people, by the people and for the

people; the rule of law and not the rule of greed; social justice for the poor

and the powerless; and honesty in public and private life, to name a few.

There can be no hedging about these moral virtues because we have

constitutionalized them and we have ratified them as a people.

At the core of the Moral Force Movement is the concept of

transformational leadership, a theory introduced by James McGregor

Burns in 1978, further developed by Bernard Bass in 1985, and expounded

on by several other leadership and management theorists. This is a

leadership that is visionary, inspiring and daring,1 one that challenges the

status quo even if the defenders of the latter’s stench spurn its callers with
                                                            
1
See http://www.strategosinc.com/leadership_transformational.htm, last retrieved on April 30, 2009.
  4

contempt.2 Transformational leaders stimulate followers to view work in

new perspectives, remove the blindfold of apathy, and motivate themselves

to look beyond their own interests towards those that will benefit the

community.3 They bring about change in individuals, institutions and the

country, so as to build a just, humane and prosperous society. They

transcend self-interest for the common good, as opposed to transactional

leaders who appeal to the self-interest of their constituents.

In essence, therefore, transformational leaders practice effective,

empowering, and ethical leadership. Effective, because they are competent,

decisive, proactive. They do not only ask what is wrong; they also suggest

what the answers are, even if these are inconvenient. Inspiring, because they

are participative, engaging, and socially just. They ignite our conscience;

they reject the conspiracy of silence. And ethical, because they are God-

fearing; hence, they count the moral cost of every decision in life. They

promote the rule of law; protect public resources; and fight especially for the

least, the last and the lost. As such, the relationship between a

transformational leader and a follower is that of a partnership characterized

by a reciprocal exchange based on mutual respect.4

The Moral Force Movement is a social movement advocating good

governance through transformational leadership and responsible citizenship.

It is a positive, constructive, nonpartisan, multi-sectoral, unifying and inter-

                                                            
2
See http://business.inquirer.net/money/features/view/20080928-163466/Transformational_leadership, last
retrieved on April 30, 2009.
3
Francisco, J., Transformational Leadership and its Impact on Employee Attitudes, in THE WAY WE
WORK: RESEARCHES AND BEST PRACTICES IN PHILIPPINE ORGANIZATIONS 77-78 (Ma. Regina M.
Hechanova and Edna P. Franco eds., 2005)
4
Francisco, J., supra note 3.
  5

faith force. It is positive, because it aims to be a vehicle for real and lasting

change by promoting goodness and righteousness; it will be driven by the

power of love and not by the love of power; it will promote hope and diffuse

hopelessness. It is constructive, because it will seek to enlighten Filipinos

about the genesis of problems in society; it will stress the moral virtues that

are being compromised by the problems and, most importantly, propose

viable solutions that can be adopted by policymakers and undertaken by

individuals and organizations -- whether from the public or the private

sector. It will not engage in the politics of finger-pointing, but in the politics

of problem-solving. Thus, to begin with, it will recommend doable courses

of action, beginning with the 2010 elections; for one moral virtue that has

been embedded in our Constitution is the recognition of the inviolability of

the voice of the sovereign people in choosing our leaders.

The movement, however, will be nonpartisan, as it is neither pro-

opposition nor anti-administration. It will not endorse any candidate for

election nor be used to pursue partisan political agenda. But nonpartisan

does not mean it will be unconcerned with political issues involving good

government. It also does not mean neutral, as it will take an unyielding

stand against immorality and its various manifestations, such as cheating in

elections. The movement will be multi-sectoral and unifying, as it aims to

consolidate multi-sectoral efforts toward good governance by building a

strong and expansive network of individuals and organizations who share

this cause. And finally, the Movement will be inter-faith and spiritually

guided. It will not be paralyzed by the fear of futility, for while its detractors
  6

may have the strength of the 3 Gs -- guns, goons and gold -- it shall be

superior, for it will rely on the omnipotent G -- the God of Love, the God of

Grace, the God of Mercy; and that G will be more than sufficient.

If I may change gear, I note that Section 1 of Article I of the Code of

Ethics of the Medical Profession in the Philippines clearly states that the

primary objective of the practice of medicine is service to mankind

irrespective of race, creed or political affiliation. Since the medical

profession is a public vocation, doctors are duty-bound to burst out from the

limited framework of private interests; they cannot reduce the noble practice

of medicine to a mere transaction, a cold exchange of professional services

and fees. Given the nature of your profession, therefore, it may well be said

that doctors are perfectly positioned to practice effective, empowering, and

ethical leadership. Doctors deal with the patricians and the plebeians of our

society, and they cannot avoid the moral spotlight.

But how, exactly, can doctors be transformational leaders?

Much can be said in answer to the query just posed. The practice of

medicine has not been insulated from the dilemmas that have long plagued

society; in the microcosm of the medical profession, we find illustrations of

the evils that beset the world. We may, for instance, cite the fact that some

of its wayward practitioners do not strictly follow the exacting ethical

standards of the profession. We need only refer to the Cebu canister scandal,

in which an emergency surgery conducted to remove a perfume canister

from the rectum of a homosexual man was videotaped. The video, which
  7

showed hospital personnel laughing and making jokes at the patient’s

expense, was subsequently posted on YouTube, a popular video-sharing site.

The endemic presence of vested proprietary interests in the provision

of medical services is another key issue. The almost symbiotic relationship

between doctors and pharmaceutical companies may be harmless under

ordinary circumstances, but can be detrimental to the public if the parties fail

to exercise self-restraint and thus take the relationship to the extreme. We

cannot prolong the reign of greed; we cannot participate in bullying the

vulnerable, for one of our moral virtues ensconced in the Constitution is

social justice -- giving power to the powerless, representation to the

unrepresented and underrepresented.

Sometimes we hear mumblings that doctors are characterized by

apathy and indifference to the problems of our society. Certainly, the

medical profession, some say, thrives whether we have a democratic or an

authoritarian state, a rightist or a leftist leadership, an incorruptible or a

graft-ridden government. After all, some point out, regardless of the socio-

economic state of the country, people do get sick and require the services of

physicians. It is thus not surprising, the critics conclude, that doctors are the

Johnnys-come-lately in social movements that matter.

I do not share this woeful view of the medical profession. Our nation

is our shadow as a people; it can only be as tall as we build ourselves to be.

To facilitate its moral rebirth, each citizen must be a proactive, determined

and staunch defender of what is right and denouncer of what is wrong.

  8

Inasmuch as we influence and help our leaders and one another in the noble

task of engineering positive change and transforming our society, we are all

and should be leaders.5

We may not be guaranteed success in the short-term, but this is not

enough justification to evade our duties as citizens. We do this not just for

ourselves or for our children, but for our children’s children, and let us not

make the future disown us for our procastination. As the late American

author Louis L’Amour said, “Victory is won not in miles but in inches. Win

a little now, hold your ground, and later, win a little more.”

When Jesus Christ walked the earth more than two thousand years

ago, healing was a part of His ministry to the masses, work for which He

acquired renown. Even His opponents did not dispute his powers of healing,

although they misrepresented it as having been given by “Beelzebub, the

prince of demons.”6 But while Jesus’ healings in the gospel traditions

included leprosy, blindness, paralysis, deafness and dumbness, among

others, the most significant role He played was being a healer of a society

afflicted with moral decay. I draw this analogy for, as doctors, your duty is

not only to heal the physically sick but, as citizens also, you have the

additional duty to uplift the morally afflicted, the responsibility to raise up

the spiritual paraplegics in our society. In our lives, we all commit mistakes,

but in a society aching for reforms, the greatest mistake is the act of

                                                            
5
Lowney, C., HEROIC LEADERSHIP 18, 284 (2003).
6
Mark 3:22-27; Matthew 12:22-29; Luke 11:14-23.
  9

omission, the act of doing nothing when something is in your hands to make

a difference. The country is sick. Is the doctor in?

Thank you and God bless us all.