THE FRIAR LAND SCANDAL - How Filipinos Were Being Robbed of the Soil (1912)

“The HISTORY of an oppressed people is hidden in the lies and the agreed myth of its conquerors.” – Meridel Le Sueur, American writer, 1900-1996
Forwarding the posts to relatives and friends, ESPECIALLY in the homeland, is greatly appreciated. Use emails, Twitter, Google+, Facebook, etc. THANK YOU !!!

*****************************************

NOTES TO READERS:  Colored and/or underlined words are HTML links. Click on them to see the linked posts/articles. Forwarding this and other posts to relatives and friends, especially those in the homeland, is greatly appreciated. To share, use all social media tools: email, blog, Google+, Tumblr,Twitter,Facebook, etc. THANKS!!

Click the following underlined title/link to checkout these Essential/Primary Readings About Us Filipino Natives:

Primary Blog Posts/Readings for my fellow, Native (Malay/Indio) Filipinos-in-the-Philippines

****************************************

Hi All,

We native Filipinos have been so brainwashed into believing that we are essentially corrupt, i.e. with a "culture of corruption" in our blood/veins, figuratively speaking. Maybe to a degree we have become so after witnessing for generations the corrupt practices of those in power (in government, military and business), top to petty bottom;  foreign, then native. As may be said: "the values of those above cascade down to those below" or something to that effect.

We may not know exactly when our high corruption index began, but it appears that during the early American colonial period, our new foreign masters - the Americans- were no better than the defeated Spaniards (i.e. hated friars); as demonstrated in the following case of the so-called "Friar Land Scandal."

I stumbled on the below piece of historical essay written by Jackson H. Ralston, a well-known American lawyer in Washington, DC and authority on international law and arbitration. He acted as an attorney for the American Anti-Imperialist League.  [ Today, in his honor and memory, Ralston has a Prize and Lectureship in International Law established at Stanford University and professorial chair at the School of Law, University of California, Berkeley.]

The article is very informative and enlightening indeed.  In it, Ralston spoke of the corrupt practices committed by Americans, in particular by two individuals whose names are familiar to us native Filipinos:

Governor W. Cameron Forbes (for whom the now exclusive Forbes Park, home to some of the wealthiest families and expatriates in the Philippines, is named), 

Dean C. Worcester (the zoologist) while they occupied positions of power during the colonization of our homeland: the former as Commissioner of Commerce & Police/Vice-Governor then Governor-General (1904-1913); the latter as Secretary of the Interior . 

Both men spoke and wrote history books on the Philippines that had vigorously declared the incapacity of us native Filipinos for self-government and had opposed early granting of independence. Some fellow Filipinos with Americanized minds have quoted these guys in their defense of American colonialism and American Exceptionalism . 

I suspect there were many other instances of corruption and exploitation for economic/financial gains by individual Americans and American corporations of the time and, therefore, such were possible reasons for imposing the Parity Rights as a prerequisite to the granting of Philippine (mainly political) independence in 1946.

Anyway, I hope you will read and pass along this lengthy piece. I extracted it verbatim as I find it extremely important to transmit such hidden truths (omitted in our official and popular American-Philippine history books,etc.). 

- Bert 9/18/2012

***********************************************

THE FRIAR LAND SCANDAL - How Filipinos Are Being Robbed of their Soil
- Jackson H. Ralston (1912)

At the session of 1910-1911, there was referred to the Committee on Insular Affairs of the House of representatives the following resolution of the House, under which an extensive examination of its subject was made: "Whereas it has publicly been charged that sales and leases of public lands have been made in the Philippines in violation of the law: Now therefore, be it "Resolved, That the House Committee on Insular Affairs be, and it is hereby, empowered and directed to make a complete and thorough investigation of the interior department of the Philippines government touching the administration of Philippine lands and all matters of fact and law pertaining thereto, whether the same are to be had in the United States, the Philippine islands or elsewhere, to report to the House during this congress all the evidence taken and their findings and recommendations thereon:..."

The investigation demonstrated the existence of very serious abuses in connection with the public lands in that were the like to have taken place within the limits of the United states proper, those concerned  in them would speedily be removed from office by impeachment or otherwise. The situation developed was of such a character as to call for the immediate interposition of Congress.

It seems useful in the beginning to make clear the statutes which control the public and so-called friar lands and the proper interpretation of such statutes, to the end that it may be discovered whether the facts subsequently to be narrated exhibit a departure from the letter and spirit of the law.

Land Laws of the Philippines

The organic act controlling the Philippine Islands and creating civil government in the islands was passed on July 1, 1902. Section 12 placed the "property and rights" which may have been acquired in the Philippine Islands with certain exceptions, under the control of the Government of the Islands, to be administered for the benefit of the inhabitants thereof.  Section 13 provided for the classifications of such lands according to their character. Section 15 authorized the Government of the Philippine Islands to provide for the granting or sale and conveyance to actual occupants and settlers, as well as to other citizens of said Islands, such portions of the public domain as it may deem wise, not exceeding sixteen (16) hectares to any one person; and for the sale and conveyance of not more than 1,024 hectares to any corporation or association of persons; all conditioned upon actual and continued occupancy, improvement and cultivation for not less than 5 years, during which time the land is inalienable and may not be encumbered. 

(We note in passing, and recur to it later, that the plain intent is that the public domain may not be granted to corporations not organized in the Philippine Islands, but nevertheless repeated grants of public lands have been made to corporations organized in the United States. Also this Section does not contemplate the granting of any public lands except to citizens of the Islands, notwithstanding which, repeated grants of the public lands have been made to citizens of the United States, who do not appear to have been either occupants or settlers.)

Sections 63, 64, and 65 deal with the Friar Lands Section 63 authorizing the Government of the Philippine Islands to acquire and convey title to real and personal property, and Section 64 particularly providing for the purchase of the Friar lands and issuance of bonds therefor.  Section 65 provides that the Friar lands so acquired shall constitute part, and portion "of the public property of the Government of the Philippine Islands" just as we have noticed that Section 12 was intended to classify the lands acquired under the treaty of peace with Spain as "public property" placed under the control of the Government of the Islands, although acquired by the United States. 

The Friar lands, Congress continues to say, in Section 65, "May be held, sold, and conveyed, or leased temporarily for a period not exceeding 3 years after their acquisition by said Government on such terms and conditions as it may prescribe, subject ot the limitations and conditions provided for in this act."

The legislation was as thoroughly well safeguarded as legislation could well be. The particular provisions stated by Congress as necessarily applicable to the circumstances to be created by the purchase of Friar lands being made, in all other respects the Philippine Government was to be bound by the conditions and limitations applicable to public property. So manifest was the intention of Congress in this respect that the limitations and conditions were not only applied by Congress to the lands after their acquisition when they would be disposed of, but were even made a condition precedent to the acquisition, as is manifest in Section 63, relating to the Friar lands, authorizing the Philippine Government to "acquire,  receive, hold, maintain and convey title to real and personal property," "subject to the limitations and conditions prescribed by the act."

Violations by the Philippine Commission

With this view firmly in our minds, let us see the particulars in which the Philippine Commission has, as we believe, radically departed from the act of Congress from which its authority, and sole authority, has been derived. 

In providing for the disposition of the Friar lands, the Philippine Government, in its act above recited, has, to begin with, in No.1120, inserted a recital to the effect that the Friar lands were not "public lands," in the sense in which those words were used in its own public land act, No. 926. This recital was absolutely incorrect, however convenient or proper it might have been to provide proper agencies for meeting the requirements of Sections 63, 64 and 65, with reference to their leasing and selling, and the creation of a sinking fund. we find that this act No. 1120 was amended by Acts Nos. 1847 and 1933, authorizing the leasing of the lands for a term not exceeding 3 years, which was contemplated by the act of Congress, and the sale of such lands as the Director of Public lands should think for the best interests of the Government, but in neither No.1847 or No.1933 is any reference made to the amount of land to be included in the sale, so that, as we have stated, a casual reader, or even a careful one, might believe that the sales contemplated, and the only sales permitted, were those which were provided for by the Congressional Act with relation to the public property of the Philippine islands, of which the Friar lands were, when purchased, by the express language of the congressional act, made a part; that is to say, sales in quantities not exceeding 16 hectares to a private individual, or 1,024 hectares to a corporation and then only under the conditions as to agricultural cultivation provided for by Congress. But as we have seen, and shall see in detail, the Commission has given an interpretation permitting, should the opportunity arise, the sale of an entire unoccupied Friar lands to a single individual.

Disregard of Limitations

But the Philippine commission has gone still further in its disregard, absolute in character, of the limitations and conditions affecting the disposal of the lands originally public lands as well as those after acquired and becoming, by thje terms of the acts of congress, public property. The very specific language of Section 15 of the Act of July 1, 1902, permits public domain to be granted or sold and conveyed to "actual occupants and settlers and other citizens of said islands" except as to number and mineral lands. 

It is manifest from the careful reading of this provision that it was the intention of congress in the first place that only actual occupants and settlers who were citizens of said Islands, and other persons , such citizens, could acquire from the Government any portion of the public domain.  It was not open to a foreigner or to an American citizen to acquire title from the Government to a foot of land other than timber or mineral. Such lands were reserved absolutely for the citizens of the Philippine Islands. 

And who were such citizens? Section 4 of the Act states: "that all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside thereon who were Spanish subjects on the 11th day of April, 1899, and then resided in said islands, and their children , born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine islands and as such entitled to the protection of the United States, except such as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the crown of Spain, etc."

This view is absolutely prohibitive upon the acquirement of public lands by any persons, even citizens of the United states, who do not come within the classification that we have just given, and receives additional force from the fact that section 21 of the Act of July 1, 1902, provides "..That all valuable mineral deposits in public lands in the Philippine Islands, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be free and open to exploration, occupation, and purchase, and the land in which they are found to occupation and purchase, by citizens of the United States or of the Islands."  The proof of citizenship required of such individuals or corporations is fixed by Section 35. 

In dealing with coal lands, Section 53 permits their entry by any person "who is a citizen of the United States or of the Philippine islands, or who has acquired the rights of a native of said Islands under and by virtue of the Treaty of paris or any association of persons severally qualified as above."

Forest lands were, by Section 18, left subject to the regulations theretofore established by the Government of the Islands.

Distinction Between Classes of land

We have, therefore, absolute and impassable line-drawn between agricultural lands of the Philippines on the one hand and the mineral and timber lands upon the other: the first only obtainable from the Philippine Government by virtue of the applicant being a citizen of the Islands and the others obtainable by American citizens and Filipinos, or pursuant to the prior acts of the Philippine Government or later Amendments thereto. Both by express limitation upon the nationality of the takers of agricultural lands and by the contrast made by congress between such nationality and the nationality of those taking other classes of lands, was it made clear that Congress intended the agricultural wealth of the Philippines to be limited to the natives of the Philippines, and only obtainable by them upon compliance with conditions as to occupation and cultivation. In this wise Congress guarded against alien ownership and against the acquiring  and holding of public lands for speculative purposes.

What were then the powers of the Philippine Government with reference to the leasing of public lands? Section 13 allows the Government of the Philippine islands to make rules and regulations for the lease, sale or other disposition of the public lands other than timber or mineral lands. Section 15 provides, as we have stated, for granting --meaning by way of homestead-- and for selling to actual occupants and settlers. Section 63 provides for the acquirement of the Friar lands subject to the limitations and conditions prescribed in the Act, and conveyance of the title. Section 65 provides for the temporary leasing, for a period not exceeding three years, of the Friar lands.

With this understanding, which we hope we have made clear, of the Congressional Act and Intent, let us state briefly, following the matter up by specific reference to proof, the various violations of law of which the Philippine commission has been guilty.

Sales to Unauthorized Persons

In defiance of the Congressional direction that public lands should be granted or sold and conveyed only to citizens of the Islands, this not including Americans, the Philippine Government has passed laws authorizing sale, and has actually executed deeds of conveyance in fee simple of portions of public lands, not mineral or timber, to Americans and as well as we can understand the testimony, to other persons foreign to the islands. We instance particularly the public sale of public lands in the town of Baguio to Governor W. Cameron Forbes, Secretary of the Interior Dean C. Worcester , Assistant Director of Public Lands J.R.Wilson, and a great number of other Americans employed and not employed  under the Philippine Government.

The Philippine Government has in like violation of law sold to American corporations there several tracts of public land of abut twenty-five hundred acres each.

The Philippine Government has in like violation of law sold or contracted to sell fifty-five thousand acres of Friar lands to an American representing other Americans and an American corporation, and has contracted to sell to other Americans about one hundred thousand acres of other Friar lands.

In violation of the Congressional enactment, no power to do so being granted by Congress, the Philippine Government passed laws permitting  the leasing of large amounts of public land to Americans, and under such act on tract of nearly one thousand hectares has been leased at a nominal rental fixed by the Commissioner, to the nephew of Secretary Worcester., for a possible term of fifty years, creating an estate in him differing little in value from an estate in fee simple, which, as an American, he could not have taken under the Act of congress, and sixty times as great as even a Filipino would have been permitted to purchase from the Government of the Islands. The Philippine Government leased for a period of three years, with right to purchase, which has been partially executed, over four thousand acres, to the man, who, as Executive Secretary, was practically one of its own numbers, and in order to give sanction to the contemplated sale, passed an act under which he expects to acquire title to the entire tract.

Lack of Power

It is well understood and does not need the citation of authority to establish, that when a public body is authorized to make rules and regulations, even when having the effect of law and being made, such rules and regulations can not, under any circumstances, enlarge or diminish the powers originally conferred upon the officers or body making them. To give any other interpretation to this language would be to authorize the minor authority to legislate in contravention of the wish of the superior, whereupon the rule and regulation would cease to be what the words imply, and would become in itself a legislative act.

All therefore, that Congress contemplated in the passage of the Philippine Government act was that within the limits of the powers reputed to the Philippine Government it should facilitate the carrying out of the congressional intent, not that it should amend or change Congressional provisions.  Its acts can only be considered as a ratification of such rules and regulations as were what the terms implied, and not such as imposed or created new conditions and new circumstances at variance with the act of Congress. 

Congress did not say that the provisions of this act, with relation to public lands, should be changed or added to, and that such change or addition should be legal as soon as it is assented expressly or tacitly, yet it can only be by taking such a view of the matter that the Philippine Commission could undertake to legalize the sale of more land to an individual than congress contemplated, or the sale to  class of individuals whom congress had never authorized to receive title.

Rules of Common Law

It seems of the highest importance to call attention to certain rules of the common law, and one or two embodiments of the rule in statutory law, which seem to offer a touchstone to determine whether the actions of Government officials in the Philippines in the case to be enumerated were consistent or inconsistent with the principles of sound business morality.

It is a principle of law so well known as to need citation, save it were to convince persons as ignorant of fundamentals as seem to have been the leading officials of the United States in the Philippine Islands, that a person occupying a trust relation can not deal in the property with relation to which he is a trustee, and can gain no profit out of or from such dealings if he so far transgress as to deal in it.

having, therefore, laid down the general principles, which in our judgment, control, or should control, the disposition of lands in the Philippines to public functionaries, let us consider the actions of Philippine officials with regards to Baguio lands, beginning with those who are the highest in office.

Sales to Officials

The present Governor General of the Philippine Islands is W. Cameron Forbes, who became such governor in the year 1909, having been appointed Vice Governor on July 1, 1908, previous to which time he was Secretary of commerce and Police. 

Governor Forbes purchased at Baguio, on may 28, 1906, two tracts of land aggregating 64,600.03 square meters, or, nearly as may be, 15 acres of ground, For this he paid 1,293 pesos, or approximately 86 pesos per acre; in gold about $43.00. It is a fair assumption from the evidence that this was the appraised value, and this assumption is borne out by the testimony of Secretary Worcester. The appraised value was fixed by an Assessment committee, whose actions were subject to the approval of Mr. Worcester. To the extent therefore of 15 acres of land, in what was designed to be the summer capital of the Philippines, Mr. Forbes became the purchaser of a tract of land which, according to Secretary Worcester he, Forbes, considers the best site in Baguio.   

No thought of the impropriety of his conduct seems to have entered the head of the Governor General of the Philippine Islands.

For many years, in fact, nearly or quite from the beginning, Dean C. Worcester has been Secretary of the Interior of the Philippine Islands. The land laws, with all their incongruities, with their defiance in spirit and in text of the statute of the United States forming the Philippine Government have been framed or supervised by him.

Mr. Worcester controlled the Board making the appraisements upon the land at Baguio. He knew in advance of the establishment of the new town, the tract he desired for himself. As he says, "It was known for fully five years that I intended to bid for the lot, which I afterwards occupied." His appraisers, therefore, whose actions he confirmed must have known the same thing. he, like Mr. Forbes, considered that he has the best site. he purchased, on May 28, 1906, the date of the purchase of Mr. Forbes 39,676.97 square meters of land, paying therefore 595.15 pesos. In other words, for approximately 10 acres, he paid 60 pesos per acre, or $30 in gold, in the summer capital of the Philippines, upon the approach to which hundreds of thousands of dollars had been expended, and hundreds of thousands of dollars, as stated, had or have been since then, paid out for public buildings and public improvements under the direction of the Philippine Commission, consisting of himself and his immediate official and personal associates.

As if this were not sufficient defiance of all rules of official propriety, on the same day that the personal purchase was made by Mr. Worcester, there was sold to the Baguio Country Club, of which Mr. Worcester is President, 345,473.97 square meters, for the sum of 2,303.20 pesos, being approximately 82 acres at the rate of 28 pesos per acre, or in gold, $14.

There existed an estate, at its nearest point 8 miles from the boundaries of Manila, having upon parts of it over a thousand people, and adjoining another estate lying between it and manila, upon which there were over two thousand. This estate, called Tala, was for the most part unoccupied, and Mr. Frank Carpenter, Executive Secretary, determined to acquire such portion. The conditions or terms of payment deserve special attention. The average price per acre was 7.48 pesos, which would make the whole tract 31,677.00 pesos, this to be paid at the rate of 1% per annum for 20 years, a credit being allowed carpenter for the amount he may have paid under his leases. The average per acre per year, therefore, to be paid on account of the purchase price approximates 37-1/2 centavos (18-1/4 cents) per acre plus 4% interest on the deferred purchase money. The net result, therefore, of this proceeding is that Mr. Carpenter at the end of 20 years will find himself in the possession of property originally valued at about P32,000.00, paid for by the labor of his Filipino tenants, increased in value by the expenditures of the public money, literally promised and liberally made by the government of the islands, and, so far as he is concerned, he will have furthered the creation of a landlord and tenant system in the Philippine islands, turning the Filipino from being a possible landowner into that of a contributor to the wealth of an alien race. All this is done under the guise of tender consideration for the welfare of the Filipinos.

Captain Sleeper, Director of Public lands, confined his operations to investments in mining prospects or mines. In this respect, he would, in the United States fallen under the condemnation of the statutes. In the Philippines, his actions escaped statutory condemnation, and received the praise of his superiors in office.

J.R. Wilson, Assistant Director of Public lands, applied to lease nearly twenty-five hundred acres of land in the Island of Mindanao for 25 years, renewable for a similar period. This application, while not formally granted, had never been rejected at the time of the inquiry. For this he apparently was to pay 50 centavos per hectare.

The worthy example set by Government chiefs was not lost upon their immediate subordinates, and the virus extended all through the service. We will cite only a few illustrations. Mr. Z.K.Miller, machinery expert of the Bureau of Agriculture, applied for 350 acres of land. Solicitor General George Harvey, paid 10,000 pesos a year by the Filipinos, appears as the president of the Siasi Plantation and Building Company, applying for a lease of 2,500 of land. A very large number of employees appear as purchasers of tracts of Baguio.

Mr. E.L.Worcester, nephew of the Philippine Secretary of the Interior, seeking new bulbs wherewith to glorify Easter, went to the islands. In the rich lands of the province of Nueva Ecija he discovered a tract of nearly 2,500 acres so level that by making little embankments the water in the rainy season could be retained long enough to produce rice. For this land he applied, and with no difficulty the Government leased it to him at the lowest rental allowed by a law apparently framed by the Secretary of the Interior.

Sales to Corporations

it would be useless and unnecessary to multiply indefinitely as we might instances of dispositions of public lands to private individuals or corporations, in violation of the letter and spirit of the law, but we can not refrain from giving some special attention to those to California corporations.

Certain peculiarly well-informed sugar interests in this country, evidently in a position to read the future with marvelous accuracy, determined, far in advance of congressional action as to admission of sugar from the islands, to invest largely in Philippine lands aside from the purchase of Friar lands hereafter to be discussed, and these interests thought it advisable to purchase public lands. 

Though Congress had, as we have stated, limited possible sales to Filipino citizens and corporations, the Commission, with lofty disregards of a legislative body 11,000 miles away, had made a law unto itself permitting sales to American corporations, and thus it came to pass when the San Mateo Agricultural Company, the San Carlos Agricultural Company and the San Francisco Agricultural Company, all California corporations, presented themselves through E.L. Poole, the common agent of the american sugar interests, he was heartily welcomed, taken on a Government steamer to Mindoro, shown the fatness of the land and given patents for his principals. 

Thus, it was that 7,500 acres of Philippine public lands, their heritage as the Filipinos vainly fought, passed into the possession of a small group of Americans who will give Filipinos leave to toil for aliens on the lands of their fathers.  This land, capable of supporting as Filipino farms go near 2,000 people, is made the patrimony of a few persons, foreign to the workers.

Observations on Land

It is probable that wrongdoers are rarely unable to justify to themselves their own wrongdoings. In this instance we find that the sale or lease of Filipino land in great quantities to exploiters is justified under plea of the highest welfare of the Filipino, their more steady employment, their enhanced wages.

Even so did Jacob undoubtedly justify his purchase from Esau of his birthright for a mess of pottage, for by so doing did he not give Esau a new lease of life? Has not many a moral slave dealer justified the reduction of his captive to submission by pointing out that but for his intervention the slave would not have been taught the ways of industry and shown the truths of his owner's religion? It is not a far cry from the position of Jacob or of the slave dealer to that of Secretary Worcester and his fellows of the Philippine Commission. let us review some of the facts and see.

Ostensibly to benefit the Filipino, to give him employment and raise his wages, the Commission, as we believe we have shown, violated the law in the sale to sugar magnates of 55,000 acres of Friar lands. The purchasers intend, first, to establish a sugar mill of large capacity and grind all the cane to be produced on this tract and other tracts of 7,500 additional acres. Next, they seek to put to work, for a while at least, as many Filipinos as will work for them. They they propose to sell off or lease to these or other Filipinos the lands they work, and grind their cane for them.

After the Filipinos  shall have bought or leased in small farms, and at such prices as the syndicate may fix, the lands in question, the mill will grind their cane, and will be able to charge for such service a price which will leave the Filipino his bare subsistence. The poor Filipino will be at its mercy, for there will be no competitor for the purchase of the cane. A perfect working illustration of the operations of the modern "trust" will thus be supplied, and a thousand Filipinos will make "bricks without straws" for strange masters.  The plan is well thought out, and save for unexpected obstacles, not to originate from the Commission, will meet with success.

That success is to be expected will be apparent from a consideration of the circumstances. In the island of Negros are Filipino farmers making a fair and independent living, though only with their crude mills extracting 50 to 60 percent of the saccharine matter. These can not compete with farmers in Mindoro from whose cane will be extracted 90 to 95%. They must either immediately retrogress in he social scale or move to Mindoro. Accepting the latter alternative they become first laborers for the sugar syndicate and next land owners or lessees in a small way, surrendering all their earnings, save a bare pittance, to the Mindoro Development Company. Their birthright will have been sold today for a mess of pottage, and tomorrow they will go hungry.

Let us conceive what an opportunity the Commission in its blindness has thrown away. If, instead of spending the money of the people in Baguio, improving the property of its members, building a mansion for the Governor general and in other things burdensome to the people, it had started or helped start sugar mills in Negros or Cebu or Southern Luzon  where charges for grinding would have been under the control of the Government, real prosperity and independence would have been the lot of the Filipino farmers and a debt of gratitude would at least have been earned. 

As it is, the Filipino has seen his patrimony frittered away, as far as opportunity to fritter it away has opened to the Commission. land capable of supporting in comfort and plenty many thousand of toilers has become the possession of the few.  The Old World conditions, which have caused millions of people to cross the Atlantic to the United States, are, so far as the humble powers of the commission permit, being reproduced in the Philippines. The ornithologist of Michigan has become a land owner, virtually through sale to himself, the seeker after Easter lilies is the lord of thousands of acres, the executive secretary has ans will have hundreds and even thousands of Filipinos contributing their toil to swell his fortune, the debonair gentlemen of the future American-Philippine sugar trust will command the services of thousands of tenants, the rich sugar lands of the Isabella tract will make more Americans millionaires.

Except as we have indicated we do not attack the "law" honesty of the Philippine officials. While they may not have stolen the goose from off the common they have permitted the theft of "the common from off the goose." Their intelligent comprehension of their duty to their wards we deny in toto. They have no more idea of true republicanism, of true democracy, than if they had lived 300 years ago. Modern thought means nothing to them. Conservation of resources for future generations they are incapable of understanding.

it is not necessary for us to determine how far their errors and blunders and shortcomings are due to the situation in which they find themselves. We can not forget however, that they have been petty monarchs among a people for whom their contempt has been little disguised. Filipino public opinion is either ignored or its existence denied, as has been done before this Committee. Their attitude is that of the aristocrat toward the plebe, the master toward the serf. Too ignorant to know they should not speculate in things as to which they were trustees, they have had the effrontery to judge as to what was good for a people over whom an unkind Province has placed them.

Conclusion

We have finished our review, incomplete as of necessity it must be, but developing the most salient points. What should be done?

Many of the most prominent American officials in the Philippine Islands have demonstrated such intellectual unfitness and moral obtuseness that they should summarily be removed.  

The Philippine Government, without authority, has caused deeds and leases of public and Friar lands to be executed to American citizens and corporations. The Attorney general should be empowered to take appropriate methods to have these instruments set aside.

it should be made a criminal offense for Philippine officials directly or indirectly to purchase or lease the lands of the Philippines.

Such further legislation should be had as will absolutely prevent american exploitation of the Philippines so long as we exercise jurisdiction over them.

While we have enumerated those things which seem most immediately pressing, we should not for an instant be unconscious of the infinite egotism of Americans in assuming that they, who as yet are but learning to govern themselves, are competent to rule a people of another language, customs, traditions, ideas and mode of thought. 

Rather than continue to display our necessary incompetence, we should permit the Filipinos in their own way, learning by their own mistakes to develop for themselves that system of government and that civilization which will prove most nearly in accord with their aspirations.



Source: THE FILIPINO PEOPLE, Volume 1 - Manuel L. Quezon, published January 1912


NOTE: 

 The Jackson H. Ralston Prize and Lectureship in International Law was established in 1973 at Stanford University by Mrs. Opal Ralston. The Prize is dedicated to the memory of Mrs. Ralston's husband, a distinguished practitioner, judge, teacher, and scholar of international law. The Prize is awarded to an "original contribution by a man or woman to the development of the role of law in international relations." It defines the concept of law to include broadly "all human efforts to regulate man's activities towards the establishment of international peace and justice, including activity in arbitration, diplomacy, international organization, and other steps toward the peaceful settlement and establishment of the conditions and promotion of world order." 

Recipients of the Ralston Prize are chosen by a Stanford Law School advisory committee, which submits its choice to the Dean of Stanford Law School, the President of Stanford University, the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, and the Secretary General of the United Nations for approval. The Stanford Journal of International Law publishes the Ralston Prize Lecture given by the recipient of the award. Previous recipients have included Elliott Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada (1990); Oscar Arias Sanchez, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and President of Costa Rica (1988), Jimmy Carter, President of the United States (1987); Tommy Koh, Singapore's Ambassador to the United States and the United Nations (1985), and Olaf Palme, the late Prime Minister of Sweden (1977).

NOTE: The Crucible Of Empire - The relatively short Spanish-American War was the door to American Imperialism. 

********************************************

PLEASE DONATE CORE SUBJECT BOOKS TO OUR HOMELAND (i.e. your hometown public schools, alma mater, etc.). Those books that you and/or your children do not need or want; or buy books from your local library during its cheap Book Sales. Also, cargo/door-to-door shipment is best.  It is a small sacrifice.  [clean up your closets or garage - donate books.THANKS!]

*******************************************

Hi All,

The below link will show a short list of my past posts (out of 540 posts so far) which I consider as basic topics about us native (indio)/ Malay Filipinos. This link/listing, which may later expand, will always be presented at the bottom of each future post.  Just point-and-click at each listed item to open and read. 

PLEASE POINT & CLICK THIS LINK:  

http://www.thefilipinomind.com/2013/08/primary-postsreadings-for-my-fellow.html

Thank you for reading and sharing with others, especially those in our homeland.

- Bert

NOTES ABOUT THIS WEBLOG:

1. THE FILIPINO MIND blog contains 532 published postings you can view, as of December 12, 2012. 
2. The postings are oftentimes long and a few readers have claimed being "burnt out."  My apologies. The selected topics are not for entertainment but to stimulate deep, serious thoughts per my MISSION Statement and hopefully to rock our boat of  ignorance, apathy, complacency and hopefully lead to active citizenship.
3. All comments are welcomed for posting at the bottom window. Comments sent by email will also be posted verbatim. However, ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL BE IGNORED.
4. Visit my other website, click --> SCRIBD/TheFilipinoMind, or the SCRIB FEED at the sidebar, or type it on GOOGLE Search to read or download ebooks and PDFs of essays I have uploaded.  Statistics for my associated website:SCRIBD/theFilipinoMind : ALL FREE AND DOWNLOADABLE: 123 documents, 207,458 reads
5. Some postings and other relevant events are now featured in Google+, BMD_Facebook, BMD_Twitter and BMD_Google Buzz and Google+.
6. Translate to your own language. Go to the sidebar and Click on GOOGLE TRANSLATOR (56 languages - copy and paste sentences, paragraphs and whole articles, Google translates a whole posting in seconds, including to Filipino!!).
7. Forwarding the posts to relatives and friends, ESPECIALLY in the homeland, is greatly appreciated. Use emails, Twitter, Google+, Facebook, etc. THANK YOU !!!
8. Songs on Filipino nationalism: please reflect on the lyrics (messages) as well as the beautiful renditions. Other Filipino Music links at blog sidebar.  Click each to play.:

• BAYAN KO by Freddie Aguilar 
• ”Bayan Ko” by KUH LEDESMA 
• ”Bayan Ko” by a Korean choir 
• ”Sa Kuko ng Agila” by Freddie Aguilar 
• ”Huwad na Kalayaan” by Freddie Aguilar

The Jones Act (1916)

 The Jones Act

The term of Governor General Francis Burton Harrison (1913-21) was one of particularly harmonious collaboration between Americans and Filipinos. Harrison's attitudes (he is described as having regarded himself as a "constitutional monarch" presiding over a "government of Filipinos") reflected the relatively liberal stance of Woodrow Wilson's Democratic Party administration.

In 1913 Wilson had appointed five Filipinos to the Philippine Commission of the legislature, giving it a Filipino majority for the first time. Harrison undertook rapid "Filipinization" of the civil service, much to the anger and distress of Americans in the islands, including superannuated officials. In 1913 there had been 2,623 American and 6,363 Filipino officials; in 1921 there were 13,240 Filipino and 614 American administrators.

Critics accused Harrison of transforming a "colonial government of Americans aided by Filipinos" into a "government of Filipinos aided by Americans" and of being the "plaything and cats-paw of the leaders of the Nacionalista Party."

A major step was taken in the direction of independence in 1916, when the United States Congress passed a second organic law, commonly referred to as the Jones Act, which replaced the 1902 law. Its preamble stated the intent to grant Philippine independence as soon as a stable government was established. The Philippine Senate replaced the Philippine Commission as the upper house of the legislature.

Unlike the commission, all but two of the Senate's twenty-four members (and all but nine of the ninety representatives in the lower house, now renamed the House of Representatives) were popularly elected. The two senators and nine representatives were appointed by the governor general to represent the non-Christian peoples. The legislature's actions were subject to the veto of the governor general, and it could not pass laws affecting the rights of United States citizens. The Jones Act brought the legislative branch under Filipino control. The executive still was firmly under the control of an appointed governor general, and most Supreme Court justices, who were appointed by the United States president, still were Americans in 1916.

Elections were held for the two houses in 1916, and the Nacionalista Party made an almost clean sweep. All but one elected seat in the Senate and eighty-three out of ninety elected seats in the House were won by their candidates, leaving the National Progressive Party (the former Federalista Party ) a powerless opposition. Quezon was chosen president of the Senate, and Osmeña continued as speaker of the House.

The Jones Act remained the basic legislation for the administration of the Philippines until the United States Congress passed new legislation in 1934 which became effective in 1935, establishing the Commonwealth of the Philippines. Provisions of the Jones Act were differently interpreted, however, by the governors general. Harrison rarely challenged the legislature by his use of the veto power.

His successor, General Leonard Wood (1921-27), was convinced that United States withdrawal from the islands would be as disastrous for the Filipinos as it would be for the interests of the United States in the western Pacific. He aroused the intense opposition of the Nacionalistas by his use of the veto power 126 times in his six years in office.

The Nacionalista Party created a political deadlock when ranking Filipino officials resigned in 1923 leaving their positions vacant until Wood's term ended with his death in 1927. His successors, however, reversed Wood's policies and reestablished effective working relations with Filipino politicians.

Although the Jones Act did not transfer responsibility for the Moro regions (reorganized in 1914 under the Department of Mindanao and Sulu) from the American governor to the Filipino-controlled legislature, Muslims perceived the rapid Filipinization of the civil service and United States commitment to eventual independence as serious threats.

In the view of the Moros, an independent Philippines would be dominated by Christians , their traditional enemies. United States policy from 1903 had been to break down the historical autonomy of the Muslim territories. Immigration of Christian settlers from Luzon and the Visayan Islands to the relatively unsettled regions of Mindanao was encouraged, and the new arrivals began supplanting the Moros in their own homeland.

Large areas of the island were opened to economic exploitation. There was no legal recognition of Muslim customs and institutions. In March 1935, Muslim datu petitioned United States president Franklin D. Roosevelt, asking that "the American people should not release us until we are educated and become powerful because we are like a calf who, once abandoned by its mother, would be devoured by a merciless lion."

Any suggestion of special status for or continued United States rule over the Moro regions, however, was vehemently opposed by Christian Filipino leaders who, when the Commonwealth of the Philippines was established, gained virtually complete control over government institutions.


Source: U.S. Library of Congress
http://countrystudies.us/philippines/18.htm

VENERATION WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING - Prof. Renato Constantino

“The HISTORY of an oppressed people is hidden in the lies and the agreed myth of its conquerors.” - Meridel Le Sueur, American writer, 1900-1996

“Colonies do not cease to be colonies because they are independent” – Benjamin Disraeli, British Prime Minister (1804-1881)

WHAT WE FILIPINOS SHOULD KNOW: To those who wonder "why dig the past": We engage in revisiting and revising our past, i.e. historical "revisionism", to develop new emphases and raise new questions on assumptions and explanations for key historical issues and policies --given by our former colonial master America, government officials and authors of history books, then and now.

In our homeland's case, we can not afford a "balanced" approach to history since in the past and present years, our homeland's history, as it refers to Philippine-US relationships, has been imbalanced in favor of the Americans, who as far as we baby boomers can remember, are only "the good guys" and "do-gooders" in history.

It is time for us, especially for Filipinos-in-the-Philippines to recover our history, a nationalist history, which necessitates uncovering the lies and myths about America, and/or its intervention, occupation and colonization of our homeland; since the American arrival into and 50-year occupation of our homeland, the sweet nothings about "Philippine-American Special Relations", etc. perpetuated through our school textbooks, mass media, government pronouncements, Filipinos with Americanized minds, etc.

We Filipinos, here and abroad, past and present, relied and continue to use official explanations that lead only to our ignorance of hidden truths and knowledge of untruths, thus subtly continuing the pre-WW2 colonial condiitons into the post-WW2 neocolonial conditions that brought only worsening impoverishment to the Malay/native Filipino majority; foreign control of the national economy and the dwindling of our national patrimony.

NOTE the shallowness,incompleteness and absence of nationalism in the scope of "Readings in Philippine History" Course provided by the Office of the President, Commission on Higher Education (CHED). The course concentrates on reinforcing the blame on Spanish colonization for all our national ills then and now. Nothing about the American colonialism which has a greater, more disastrous, albeit subtle, long-term impact: its intervention/invasion, occupation and colonization; and its conversion to a neo-colonial power over our homeland.


NOTES:

1. Colored and/or underlined words are HTML links. Click on them to see the linked posts/articles.
2. Forwarding this and other posts to relatives and friends, especially those in the homeland, is greatly appreciated). To share, use all social media tools: email, blog, Google+, Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp, etc. THANKS!!
3. Read on Scribd mobile apps: iPhone, iPad and Android.
4. Free download as PDF, TXT or read online for free from Scribd, point-click to open-->SCRIBD/TheFilipinoMind

Click the following underlined title/link to checkout these Essential/Primary Readings About Us Filipino Natives:
Primary Blog Posts/Readings for my fellow, Native (Malay/Indio) Filipinos-in-the-Philippines

****************************************

Veneration Without Understanding
- Professor Renato Constantino
(delivered on 3rd Annual Rizal Lecture, Fort Santiago (1969)

In the histories of many nations, the national revolution represents a peak of achievement to which the minds of man return time and again in reverence and for a renewal of faith in freedom. For the national revolution is invariably the one period in a nation's history when the people were most united, most involved, and most decisively active in the fight for freedom. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that almost always the leader of that revolution becomes the principal hero of his people. There is Washington for the United States, Lenin for the Soviet Union, Bolivar for Latin America, Sun Yat Sen, then Mao Tse-Tung for China and Ho Chi Minh for Vietnam. The unity between the venerated mass action and the honored single individual enhances the influence of both.

In our case, our national hero was not the leader of our Revolution. In fact, he repudiated that Revolution. In no uncertain terms he placed himself against Bonifacio and those Filipinos who were fighting for the country's liberty. In fact, when he was arrested he was on his way to Cuba to use his medical skills in the service of Spain. And in the manifesto of December 15, 1896 which he addressed to the Filipino people, he declared:

"From the very beginning, when I first had notice of what was being planned, I opposed it, fought it, and demonstrated its absolute impossibility.

I did even more. When later, against my advice, the movement materialized, of my own accord I offered my good offices, but my very life, and even my name, to be used in whatever way might seem best, toward stifling the rebellion; for convinced of the ills which it would bring, I considered myself fortunate if, at any sacrifice, I could prevent such useless misfortune…. I have written also (and I repeat my words) that reforms, to be beneficial, must come from above, and those which comes from below are irregularly gained and uncertain.

Holding these ideas, I cannot do less than condemn, and I do condemn this uprising-which dishonors us Filipinos and discredits those that could plead our cause. I abhor its criminal methods and disclaim all part in it, pitying from the bottom of my heart the unwary that have been deceived into taking part in it." [1]

Rizal and The Revolution

Rizal's refusal to align himself with the revolutionary forces and his vehement condemnation of the mass movement and of its leaders have placed Filipinos in a dilemma. Either the Revolution was wrong, yet we cannot disown it, or Rizal was wrong, yet we cannot disown him either. By and large, we have chosen to ignore this apparent contradiction. 

Rizalists, especially, have taken the easy way out, which is to gloss over the matter. They have treated Rizal's condemnation of the Katipunan as a skeleton in his closet and have been responsible for the "silent treatment" on his unequivocal position against the Revolution.


To my knowledge, there has been no extensive analysis of the question. 

For some Rizalists, this aspect of Rizal has been a source of embarrassment inasmuch as they picture him as the supreme symbol of our struggle for freedom. Others in fact privately agree with his stand as evidenced by their emphasis on the gradualism of Rizal's teachings particularly his insistence on the primacy of education. They would probably praise Rizal's stand against the Revolution, if they dared. Since they do not dare for themselves, the are also prudently silent for Rizal's sake.

Others, careless and superficial in their approach to history and perhaps afraid to stir a hornet's nest of controversy, do not think it important to dwell on this contradiction between our Revolution and our national hero and elect to leave well enough alone. Perhaps they do not perceive the adverse consequences of our refusal to analyze and resolve this contradiction. Yet the consequences are manifest in our regard for our Revolution and in our understanding of Rizal.

The Philippine Revolution has always been overshadowed by the omnipresent figure and the towering reputation of Rizal. Because Rizal took no part in that Revolution and in fact repudiated it, the general regard for our Revolution is not as high as it otherwise would be. On the other hand, because we refuse to analyze the significance of his repudiation, our understanding of Rizal and of his role in our national development remains superficial. This is a disservice to the event, to the man, and to ourselves.

Viewed superficially, Rizal's reaction toward the Revolution is unexpected, coming as it did from a man whose life and labors were supposed to have been dedicated to the cause of his country's freedom. Had someone of lesser stature uttered those words of condemnation, he would have been considered a traitor to the cause. As a matter of fact, those words were treasonous in the light of the Filipinos' struggle against Spain.

Rizal repudiated the one act which really synthesized our nationalist aspiration, and yet we consider him a nationalist leader. Such an appraisal has dangerous implications because it can be used to exculpate those who actively betrayed the Revolution and may serve to diminish the ardor of those who today may be called upon to support another great nationalist undertaking to complete the anti-colonial movement.

An American-sponsored Hero

We have magnified Rizal's role to such an extent that we have lost our sense of proportion and relegated to a subordinate position our other great men and the historic events in which they took part. Although Rizal was already a revered figure and became more so after his martyrdom, it cannot be denied that his pre-eminence among our heroes was partly the result of American sponsorship. This sponsorship took two forms: on one hand, that of encouraging a Rizal cult, on the other, that of minimizing the importance of other heroes or even of vilifying them. There is no question that Rizal had the qualities of greatness. History cannot deny his patriotism. He was a martyr to oppression, obscurantism and bigotry. His dramatic death captured the imagination of our people. Still, we must accept the fact that his formal designation as our national hero, his elevation to his present eminence so far above all our other heroes was abetted and encouraged by the Americans.

It was Governor William Howard Taft who in 1901 suggested that the Philippine Commission that the Filipinos be given a national hero. The Free Press of December 28, 1946 gives this account of a meeting of the Philippine Commission:

'And now, gentlemen, you must have a national hero.' In these fateful words, addressed by then Civil Governor W. H. Taft to the Filipino members of the civil commission, Pardo de Tavera, Legarda, and Luzuriaga, lay the genesis of Rizal Day…..

'In the subsequent discussion in which the rival merits of the revolutionary heroes were considered, the final choice-now universally acclaimed as a wise one-was Rizal. And so was history made.'

Theodore Friend in his book, Between Two Empires, says that Taft "with other American colonial officials and some conservative Filipinos, chose him (Rizal) as a model hero over other contestants - Aguinaldo too militant, Bonifacio too radical, Mabini unregenerate." [2] This decision to sponsor Rizal was implemented with the passage of the following Acts of the Philippine Commission:
 (1) Act No. 137 which organized the politico-military district of Morong and named it the province of Rizal "in honor of the most illustrious Filipino and the most illustrious Tagalog the islands had ever known, "
(2) Act No.243 which authorized a public subscription for the erection of a monument in honor or Rizal at the Luneta, and (3) Act No. 346 [p.128] which set aside the anniversary of his death as a day of observance.

This early example of American "aid" is summarized by Governor W. Cameron Forbes who wrote in his book, The Philippine Islands:

It is eminently proper that Rizal should have become the acknowledged national hero of the Philippine people. The American administration has lent every assistance to this recognition, setting aside the anniversary of his death to be a day of observance, placing his picture on the postage stamp most commonly used in the islands, and on the currency …. And throughout the islands the public schools tech the young Filipinos to revere his memory as the greatest of Filipino patriots. (Underscoring supplied) [3]

The reason for the enthusiastic American attitude becomes clear in the following appraisal of Rizal by Forbes:

Rizal never advocated independence, nor did he advocate armed resistance to the government. He urged reform from within by publicity, by public education, and appeal to the public conscience. (Underscoring supplied) [4]

Taft's appreciation for Rizal has much the same basis, as evidenced by his calling Rizal "the greatest Filipino, a physician, a novelist and a poet (who) because of his struggle for a betterment of conditions under Spanish rule was unjustly convicted and shot…. "

The public image that the American desired for a Filipino national hero was quite clear. They favored a hero who would not run against the grain of American colonial policy. We must take these acts of the Americans in furtherance of a Rizal cult in the light of their initial policies which required the passage of the Sedition Law prohibiting the display of the Filipino flag. The heroes who advocated independence were therefore ignored.

For to have encouraged a movement to revere Bonifacio or Mabini would not have been consistent with American colonial policy.

Several factors contributed to Rizal's acceptability to the Americans as the official hero of the Filipinos. In the first place, he was safely dead by the time the American began their aggression. No embarrassing anti-American quotations could ever be attributed to him. Moreover, Rizal's dramatic martyrdom had already made him the symbol of Spanish oppression. To focus attention on him would serve not only to concentrate Filipino hatred against the erstwhile oppressors, it would also blunt their feelings of animosity toward the new conquerors against whom there was still organized resistance at that time. His choice was a master stroke by the Americans. The honors bestowed on Rizal were naturally appreciated by the Filipinos who were proud of him.

At the same time, the attention lavished on Rizal relegated other heroes to the background-heroes whose revolutionary example and anti-American pronouncements might have stiffened Filipino resistance to the new conquerors. The Americans especially emphasized the fact that Rizal was a reformer, not a separatist. He could therefore not be invoked on the question of Philippine independence. He could not be a rallying point in the resistance against the invaders.

It must also be remembered that the Filipino members of the Philippine Commission were conservative ilustrados. The Americans regarded Rizal as belonging to this class. This was, therefore, one more point in his favor. Rizal belonged to the right social class -- the class that they were cultivating and building up for leadership.

It may be argued that, faced with the humiliation of a second colonization, we as a people felt the need for a super-hero to bolster the national ego and we therefore allowed ourselves to be propagandized in favor of one acceptable to the colonizer. Be that as it may, certainly it is now time for us to view Rizal with more rationality and with more historicity. This need not alarm anyone but the blind worshiper. Rizal will still occupy a good position in our national pantheon even if we discard hagiolatry and subject him to a more mature historical evaluation.

A proper understanding of our history is very important to us because it will serve to demonstrate how our present has been distorted by a faulty knowledge of our past. By unraveling the past we become confronted with the present already as future. Such a re-evaluation may result in a down-grading of some heroes and even a discarding of others. It cannot spare even Rizal. The exposure of his weaknesses and limitations will also mean our liberation, for he has, to a certain extent become part of the superstructure that supports present consciousness. That is why a critical evaluation of Rizal cannot but lead to a revision of our understanding of history and of the role of the individual in history.

Orthodox historians have presented history as a succession of exploits of eminent personalities, leading many of us to regard history as the product of gifted individuals. This tendency is strongly noticeable in those who have tried of late to manufacture new heroes through press releases, by the creation of foundations, or by the proclamation of centennial celebrations. Though such tactics may succeed for a limited period, they cannot insure immortality where there exists no solid basis for it. In the case of Rizal, while he was favored by colonial support and became good copy for propagandists, he had the qualifications to assume immortality. It must be admitted however, that the study of his life and works has developed into a cult distorting the role and the place of Rizal in our history.

The uncritical attitude of his cultists has been greatly responsible for transforming biographers into hagiographers. His weaknesses and errors have been subtly underplayed and his virtues grossly exaggerated. In this connection, one might ask the question, what would have happened if Rizal had not been executed in December of 1896? Would the course of the Philippine Revolution have been different? This poses the question of the role of the individual in history. Was this historical phase of our libertarian struggle due to Rizal? Did the propagandists of the 19th century create the period or were they created by the period.

The Role of Heroes

With or without these specific individuals the social relations engendered by Spanish colonialism and the subsequent economic development of the country would have produced the nationalist movement. Without Rizal there would have developed other talents. Without Del Pilar another propagandist would have emerged. That Rizal possessed a particular talent which influenced the style of the period was accidental. That he was executed on December 30 only added more drama to the events of the period. If there had been no Rizal, another type of talent would have appeared who might have given a different style to the historic struggle; but the general trend engendered by the particular social relations would have remained the same.

Without Rizal there may have been a delay in the maturation of our libertarian struggle, but the economic development of the period would have insured the same result. Rizal maybe accelerated it. Rizal may have given form and articulation and color to the aspirations of the people. But even without him, the nationalist struggle would have ensued. This is likewise true in the case of present-day national liberation movements. The fundamental cause of mass action is not the utterances of a leader; rather, these leaders have been impelled to action by historical forces unleashed by social development. We must therefore not fall into the error of projecting the role of the individual to the extent of denying the play of these forces as well as the creative energies of the people who are the true makers of their own history.

Because Rizal had certain qualities, he was able to serve the pressing social needs of the period, needs that arose out of general and particular historical forces. He is a hero in the sense that he was able to see the problems generated by historical forces, discern the new social needs created by the historical development of new social relationships, and take an active part in meeting these needs. But he is not a hero in the sense that he could have stopped and altered the course of events. The truth of this statement is demonstrated by the fact that the Revolution broke out despite his refusal to lead it and continued despite his condemnation of it. Rizal served his people by consciously articulating the unconscious course of events. He saw more clearly than his contemporaries and felt with more intensity the problems of his country, though his viewpoint was delimited by his particular status and upbringing. He was the first Filipino but he was only a limited Filipino, the ilustrado Filipino who fought for national unity but feared the Revolution and loved his mother country, yes, but in his own ilustrado way.

Though we assert that the general course of history is not directed by the desires or ideas of particular men, we must not fall into the error of thinking that because history can proceed independently of individuals it can proceed independently of men. The fact is that history is made by men who confront the problems of social progress and try to solve them in accordance with the historical conditions of their epoch. They set their tasks in conformity with the given conditions of their times. The closer the correspondence between a man's perception of reality and reality itself, the greater the man. The deeper his commitment to the people's cause in his own time as evidence by his life and deeds. Hence, for a deeper understanding and a more precise evaluation of Rizal as Filipino and as hero, we must examine at some length the period during which Rizal lived.

Innovation and Change

Rizal lived in a period of great economic changes. These were inevitably accompanied by cultural and political ferment. The country was undergoing grave and deep alterations which resulted in a national awakening. The English occupation of the country, the end of the galleon trade, and the Latin-American revolutions of that time were all factors which led to an economic re-thinking by liberal Spanish officials. The establishment of non-Hispanic commercial houses broke the insular belt that had circumscribed Philippine life for almost two centuries and a half. The middle of the 19th century saw 51 shipping and commercial houses in Manila, 12 of which were American and non-Hispanic European. These non-Spanish houses practically monopolized the import-export trade. The opening of the ports of Sual, Cebu, Zamboanga, Legaspi and Tacloban, all during the second half of the 19th century, enabled these non-Spanish interests to establish branches beyond the capital city, thus further increasing cosmopolitan penetration. [5]

European and American financing were vital agents in the emerging export economy. Merchants gave crop advances to indio and Chinese-mestizo cultivators, resulting in increased surpluses of agricultural export products. The Chinese received loans for the distribution of European goods and the collection of Philippine produce for shipment abroad. Abaca and sugar became prime exports during this period as a result of these European and American entrepreneurial activities. The Transformation of the sugar industry due to financing and the introduction of steam-powered milling equipment increased sugar production from 3,000 piculs in mid-19th century to nearly 2,000,000 piculs in four decades. [6]

These economic developments inevitably led to improvement in communications. The infra-structure program of the Spanish government resulted in a moderately functional road system. The third quarter of the century saw the opening of railroad lines. The steamship effected both internal and external linkages, postal services improved, the telegraph was inaugurated in 1873, and by 1880, we were connected with the world by a submarine cable to Hong Kong. Manila's water system was modernized in 1870; we had street cars in 1881 and telephone and electric lights in the metropolitan region during the same period. Material progress set the stage for cultural and social changes, among them the cultivation of cosmopolitan attitudes and heightened opposition to clerical control. Liberalism had invaded the country as a result of the reduction of the Spain-Manila voyage to thirty days after the opening of the Suez canal. The mestizo that developed became the crude ideological framework of the ferment among the affluent indios and mestizos. [7]

The Ideological Framework

Economic prosperity spawned discontent when the native beneficiaries saw a new world of affluence opening for themselves and their class. They attained a new consciousness and hence, a new goal - that of equality with the peninsulares - not in the abstract, but in practical economic and political terms. Hispanization became the conscious manifestation of economic struggle, of the desire to realize the potentialities offered by the period of expansion and progress. Hispanization and assimilation constituted the ideological expression of the economic motivations of affluent indios and mestizos. Equality with the Spaniard meant equality of opportunity. But they did not realize as yet that real equality must be based on national freedom and independence. They were still in the initial phases of nationalist consciousness - a consciousness made possible by the market situation of the time. The lordly friar who had been partly responsible for the isolation of the islands became the target of attacks. Anti-clericalism became the ideological style of the period.

These then were the salient economic and ideological features of Rizal's time. A true historical review would prove that great men are those who read the time and have a deeper understanding of reality. It is their insights that make them conversant with their periods and which enable them to articulate the needs of the people. To a large extent, Rizal, the ilustrado, fulfilled this function, for in voicing the goals of his class he had to include the aspirations of the entire people. Though the aims of this class were limited to reformist measures, he expressed its demands in terms of human liberty and human dignity and thus encompassed the wider aspirations of all the people.

This is not to say that he was conscious that these were class goals; rather, that typical of his class, he equated class interest with people's welfare. He did this in good faith, unaware of any basic contradictions between the two. He was the product of his society and as such could be expected to voice only those aims that were within the competence of his class. Moreover, social contradictions had not ripened sufficiently in his time to reveal clearly the essential disparateness between class and national goals. Neither could he have transcended his class limitations, for his cultural upbringing was such that affection for Spain and Spanish civilization precluded the idea of breaking the chains of colonialism. He had to become a Spaniard first before becoming a Filipino. [8]

As a social commentator, as the exposer of oppression, he performed a remarkable task. His writings were part of the tradition of protest which blossomed into revolution, into a separatist movement. His original aim of elevating the indio to the level of Hispanization of the peninsular so that the country could be assimilated, could become a province of Spain, was transformed into its opposite. Instead of making the Filipinos closer to Spain, the propaganda gave root to separation. The drive for Hispanization was transformed into the development of a distinct national consciousness.

Rizal contributed much to the growth of this national consciousness. It was a contribution not only in terms of propaganda but in something positive that the present generation of Filipinos will owe to him and for which they will honor him by completing the task which he so nobly began. He may have had a different and limited goal at the time, a goal that for us is already passe, something we take for granted. However, for his time this limited goal was already a big step in the right direction. This contribution was in the realm of Filipino nationhood - the winning of our name as a race, the recognition of our people as one, and the elevation of the indio into Filipino.

The Concept of Nationhood

This was a victory in the realm of consciousness, a victory in a racial sense. However, it was only a partial gain, for Rizal repudiated real de-colonization. Beguiled by the new colonizer, most Filipinos followed the example of Rizal. As a consequence, the development of the concept of national consciousness stopped short of real de-colonization and we have not yet distinguished the true Filipino from the incipient Filipino.

The concept of Filipino nationhood is an important tool of analysis as well as a conceptual weapon of struggle. There are many Filipinos who do not realize they are Filipinos only in the old cultural, racial sense. They are not aware of the term Filipino as a developing concept. Much less are they aware that today social conditions demand that the true Filipino be one who is consciously striving for de-colonization and independence.


Perhaps it would be useful at this point to discuss in some detail the metamorphosis of the term Filipino not just as a matter of historical information but so that we may realize the importance of Rizal's contribution in this regard. Even more valuable are the insights we may gain into the inter-dependence between material conditions and consciousness as manifested in the evolution of the word Filipino in terms of its widening applicability and deeper significance through succeeding periods of our history.

It is important to bear in mind that the term Filipino originally referred to the creoles - the Spaniards born in the Philippines - the Españoles-Filipinos or Filipinos, for short. The natives were called indios. Spanish mestizos who could pass off for white claimed to be creoles and therefore Filipinos. Towards the last quarter of the 19th century, Hispanized and urbanized indios along with Spanish mestizos and sangley [Chinese] mestizos began to call themselves Filipinos, especially after the abolition of the tribute lists in the 1880s and the economic growth of the period.

We must also correct the common impression that the Filipinos who were in Spain during the Propaganda Period were all indios. In fact, the original Circulo Hispano-Filipino was dominated by creoles and peninsulares. The Filipino community in Spain during the 1880's was a conglomerate of creoles, Spanish mestizos and sons of urbanized indios and Chinese mestizos. [9]

This community came out with an organ called España en Filipinas which sought to take the place of th earlier Revista Circulo Hispano Filipino founded by another creole Juan Atayde. España en Filipinas was mainly an undertaking of Spanish and Spanish mestizos. The only non-Spaniard in the staff was Baldomero Roxas. Its first issue came out in 1887. It was "moderate" in tone and failed to win the sympathy of the native elements. In a letter to Rizal, Lopez-Jaena criticized it in these words:

"From day to day I am becoming convinced that our countrymen, the mestizos, far from working for the common welfare, follow the policy of their predecessors, the Azcarragas. [10]"

Lopez-Jaena was referring to the Azcarraga brothers who had held important positions in the Philippines and in Spain, but who, though they had been born here, showed more sympathy for the peninsulares. It is fortunate that a street which was once named for one of them has become Claro M. Recto today.

Differences between the creoles and the "genuine" Filipinos as they called themselves, soon set in. It was at this time that Rizal and other indios in Paris began to use the term indios bravos, thus "transforming an epithet into a badge of honor." The cleavage in the Filipino colony abroad ushered in a new period of the Propaganda which may be said to have had its formal beginning with the birth of La Solidaridad. Its leaders were indios. The editor was not a creole like Lete or a Spanish mestizo like Llorente but Lopez-Jaena and later Marcelo H. del Pilar. La Solidaridad espoused the cause of liberalism and fought for democratic solutions to the problems that beset the Spanish colonies.

From the declaration of aims and policies the class basis of the Propaganda is quite obvious. The reformists could not shake off their Spanish orientation. They wanted accommodation within the ruling system. Rizal's own reformism is evident in this excerpt from his letter to Blumentritt:

"….under the present circumstances, we do not want separation from Spain. All that we ask is greater attention, better education, better government employees, one or two representatives and greater security for our persons and property. Spain could always win the appreciation of the Filipinos if she were only reasonable! "[11]

The indios led by Rizal gained acceptability as Filipinos because the proved their equality with the Spaniards in terms of both culture and property. This was an important stage in our appropriation of the term Filipino. Rizal's intellectual excellence paved the way for the winning of the name for the natives of the land. It was an unconscious struggle which led to a conscious recognition of the pejorative meaning of indio. Thus, the winning of the term Filipino was an anti-colonial victory for it signified the recognition of racial equality between Spaniards and Filipinos.

The "Limited" Filipino

But the appropriation of this term was not the end of the historic struggle for national identity. While for Rizal's time this was a signal victory, it was in truth a limited victory for us. For the users of the term were themselves limited Filipinos based on education and property. Since this term was applied to those who spoke in the name of the people but were not really of the people, the next stage for this growing concept should be the recognition of the masses as the real nation and their transformation into real Filipinos. However, the Filipino of today must undergo a process of de-colonization before he can become a true Filipino. The de-colonized Filipino is the real goal for our time just as the Hispanized Filipino was once the goal of the reformists.

Though Rizal was able to win for his countrymen the name Filipino, it was still as ilustrado that he conceived of this term. As ilustrado he was speaking in behalf of all the indios though he was separated by culture and even by property from the masses. His ilustrado orientation manifests itself in his novels. Though they are supposed to represent 19th century Philippine society in microcosm, all the principal characters belonged to the principalia. His hero, Ibarra, was a Spanish mestizo. The Spaniards, the creole, the mestizo, and the wealthy Chinese - these were characters he could portray with mastery because they were within his milieu and class. But there are only very hazy description of characters who belonged to the masses. His class position, his upbringing, and his foreign education were profound influences which constituted a limitation on his understanding of his countrymen.

Rizal, therefore, was an ilustrado hero whose life's mission corresponded in a general way to the wishes and aspirations of the people. He died for his people, yet his repudiation of the Revolution was an act against the people. There seems to be a contradiction between the two acts; there is actually none. Both acts were in character; Rizal was acting from patriotic motives in both instances.

He condemned the Revolution because as an ilustrado he instinctively underestimated the power and the talents of the people. He believed in freedom not so much as a national right but as something to be deserved, like a medal for good behavior. Moreover, he did not equate liberty with independence. Since his idea of liberty was essentially the demand for those rights which the elite needed in order to prosper economically. Rizal did not consider political independence as a prerequisite to freedom. Fearful of the violence of people's action, he did not want us to fight for our independence. Rather, he wanted us to wait for the time when Spain, acting in her own best interests, would abandon us. He expressed himself clearly on these points in the following passage from a letter which he wrote in his cell on December 12, 1896, for the use of his defense counsel.

"….. many have have interpreted my phrase to have liberties as to have independence, which are two different things. A people can be free without being independent, and a people can be independent without being free. I have always desired liberties for the Philippines and I have said so. Others who testify that I said independence either have put the cart before the horse or they lie." [12]

He had expressed much the same opinion earlier in his El Filibusterismo when Father Florentino said:

"I do not mean to say that our liberty will be secured at the sword's point, for the sword plays but little part in modern affairs, but that we must secure it by making ourselves worthy of it, by exalting the intelligence and the dignity of the individual, by loving justice, right and greatness, even to the extent of dying for them - and when a people reaches that height God will provide a weapon, the idols will be shattered, the tyranny will crumble like a house of cards and liberty will shine out like the first dawn." 13

Yet the people revered him because, though he was not with them, he died for certain principles which they believed in. He was their martyr; they recognized his labors although they knew that he was already behind them in their forward march.

In line with their avowed policy of preparing us for eventual self-government, the Americans projected Rizal as the model of an educated citizen. His name was invoked whenever the incapacity of the masses for self-government was pointed out as a justification for American tutelage. Rizal's preoccupation with education served to further the impression that the majority of the Filipinos were unlettered and therefore needed tutelage before they could be ready for independence. A book, Rizal, Educator and Economist, used in certain Philippine schools, supports this thesis by quoting a portion of Rizal's manifesto of December 15, 1896 which states:

"…..I am one most anxious for liberties in our country and I am still desirous of them. But I placed as a prior condition the education of the people that by means of instruction and industry our country may have an individuality of its own and make itself worthy of these liberties. "[14]

The authors of this book then make the following comment:

"Rizal intentionally avoided the use of the term independence, perhaps because he honestly believed that independence in its true, real, and strict sense should not be granted us until we were educated enough to appreciate its importance, and its blessings, and until we were economically self-reliant." [15] [p. 140]

This statement not only supports the American line but is also an example of how our admiration for Rizal may be used to beguile us into accepting reactionary beliefs, the products of colonial mentality.

A people have every right to be free. Tutelage in the art of government as an excuse for colonialism is a discredited alibi. People learn and educate themselves in the process of struggling for freedom and liberty. They attain their highest potential only when they are masters of their own destiny. Colonialism is the only agency still trying to sell the idea that freedom is a diploma to be granted by a superior people to an inferior one after years of apprenticeship.

The Precursor of Mendicancy

In a way, Rizal's generation is no different from the generation that was engaged in our independence campaigns. Neither was his generation much different from those who today say they stand for independence but do not want to hurt the feelings of the Americans. In a way, Rizal and his generation were the precursors of the present-day mendicants. It may be shocking to say that Rizal was one of the practitioners of a mendicant policy, but the fact is that the propagandists, in working for certain reforms, chose Spain as the arena of their struggle instead of working among their own people, educating them and learning from them, helping them to realize their own condition and articulating their aspirations. This reflects the bifurcation between the educated and the masses.

The elite had a sub-conscious disrespect for the ability of the people to articulate their own demands and to move on their own. They felt that education gave them the right to speak for the people. They proposed an elitist form of leadership, all the while believing that what the elite leadership decided was what the people would and should follow. They failed to realize that at critical moments of history the people decide on their own, what they want and what they want to do. Today, the ilustrados are shocked by the spate of rallies and demonstrations. They cannot seem to accept the fact that peasants and workers and the youth have moved without waiting for their word. They are not accustomed to the people moving on their own.

The ilustrados were the Hispanized sector of our population, hence they tried to prove that they were as Spanish as the peninsulares. They wanted to be called Filipinos in the creole sense: Filipino-Spaniards as Rizal called Ibarra. They are no different from the modern-day mendicants who try to prove that they are Americanized, meaning that they are Filipino-Americans. As a matter of fact, the ilustrados of the first propaganda movement utilized the same techniques and adopted the same general attitude as the modern-day mendicants and pseudo-nationalists, in so far as the colonizing power was concerned.

Ilustrados and Indios

The contrast to the ilustrado approach was the Katipunan of Bonifacio. Bonifacio, not as Hispanized as the ilustrados, saw in people's action the only road to liberation. The Katipunan, though of masonic and of European inspiration, was people's movement based on confidence in the people's capacity to act in its own behalf. The early rebellions, spontaneous and sporadic, could be termed movements, without consciousness. Rizal and the propagandists were the embodiment of a consciousness without a movement. It was Bonifacio and the Katipunan that embodied the unity of revolutionary consciousness and revolutionary practice.

The indio as Filipino rose in arms while the ilustrado was still waiting for Spain to dispense justice and reforms. The ilustrado Filipino was now being surpassed by the indio in revolutionary ardor. The indio had a more legitimate claim to the title of Filipino because he was truly liberating himself. The revolutionary masses proclaimed their separatist goal through the Katipunan. Faced with the popular determination, the ilustrados joined the Revolution where, despite their revolutionary rhetoric, they revealed by their behavior their own limited goals.

Though their fight was reformist and may be regarded as tame today, the historic role of the ilustrados cannot be denied for they were purveyors of ideas which when seized upon by the masses became real weapons. Today their ideas are orthodox and safe. However, the same concepts when made relevant to present society again make their partisans the objects of persecution by contemporary reactionaries.

The role and the contribution of Rizal, like that of the ilustrado class, must be evaluated in the context of his particular reality within the general reality of his time. Rizal was a necessary moment in our evolution. But he was only a moment, and while his validity for his time amounted to a heroism that is valid for all time, we cannot say that Rizal himself will be valid for all time and that Rizal's ideas should be the yardstick for all our aspirations. He provided the model of a form of heroism that culminated in martyrdom. He was a Filipino we can be proud of, a monument to the race despite all his limitations. But we cannot make him out to be the infallible determinant of our national goals, as his blind idolators have been trying to do.

We must see Rizal historically. Rizal should occupy his proper place in our pantheon of great Filipinos. Though he is secure to be in our hearts and memories as a hero, we must now realize that he has no monopoly of patriotism; he is not the zenith of our greatness; neither are all his teachings of universal and contemporary relevance and application. Just as a given social system inevitably yields to new and higher forms of social organization, so the individual hero in history gives way to new and higher forms of heroism. Each hero's contribution, however, are not nullified thereby but assume their correct place in a particular stage of the people's development. Every nation is always discovering or rediscovering heroes in the past or its present.

Blind Adoration

Hero-worship, therefore, must be both historical and critical. We must always be conscious of the historical conditions and circumstances that made an individual a hero, and we must always be ready to admit at what point that hero's applicability ceases to be of current value. To allow hero-worship to be uncritical and unhistorical is to distort the meaning of the heroic individual's life, and to encourage a cult bereft of historical meaning - a cult of the individual shorn of his historical significance. It is form without content, a fad that can be used for almost anything, because it is really nothing. We must view Rizal as an evolving personality within an evolving historical period. That his martyrdom was tainted by his attacks on our independist struggle is not a ground for condemning him entirely. We must determine the factors - economic and cultural - that made Rizal what he was. We must see in his life and in his works the evolution of the Filipino and must realize that the period crowned by his death is only a moment in the totality of our history.

It is a reflection of our lack of creative thinking that we continue to invoke Rizal when we discuss specific problems and present-day society. This is also a reflection of our intellectual timidity, our reluctance to espouse new causes unless we can find sanctions, however remote, in Rizal. This tendency is fraught with dangers.

Limitations of Rizal

We are living in an age of anti-colonial revolutions different in content from those of Rizal's period. Rizal could not have anticipated the problems of today. He was not conversant with economic tools of analysis that would unravel the intricate techniques that today are being used by outside forces to consign us to a state of continued poverty. The revolutions of today would be beyond the understanding of Rizal whose Castilian orientation necessarily limited his horizon even for that period. He was capable of unraveling the myths that were woven by the oppressors of his time, but he would have been at a loss to see through the more sophisticated myths and to recognize the subtle techniques of present-day colonialists, given the state of his knowledge and experience at that time. This is not to say that were he alive today and subject to modern experiences, he would not understand the means of our times. But it is useless speculation to try to divine what he would now advocate.

Unless we have an ulterior motive, there is really no need to extend Rizal's meaning so that he may have contemporary value. Many of his social criticisms are still valid today because certain aspects of our life are still carry-overs of the feudal and colonial society of his time. A true appreciation of Rizal would require that we study these social criticisms and take steps to eradicate the evils he decried.

Part and parcel of the attempt to use Rizal as an authority to defend the status quo is the desire of some quarters to expunge from the Rizalist legacy the so-called controversial aspects of his writings, particularly his views on the friars and on religion. We have but to recall the resistance to the Rizal bill, the use of expurgated versions of the Noli Me Tangere and the El Filibusterismo, and objections to the readings of his other writings to realize that while many would have us venerate Rizal, they would want us to venerate a homogenized version.

In his time, the reformist Rizal was undoubtedly a progressive force. In many areas of our life today, his ideas could still be a force for salutary change. Yet the nature of the Rizal cult is such that he is being transformed into an authority to sanction the status quo by a confluence of blind adoration and widespread ignorance of his most telling ideas.

We have magnified Rizal's significance for too long. It is time to examine his limitations and profit from his weaknesses just as we have learned from the strength of his character and his virtues. His weaknesses were the weaknesses of his society. His wavering and his repudiation of mass action should be studied as a product of the society that nurtured him.

The Negation of Rizal

Today, we need new heroes who can help us solve our pressing problems. We cannot rely on Rizal alone. We must discard the belief that we are incapable of producing the heroes of our epoch, that heroes are exceptional beings, accidents of history who stand above the masses and apart from them. The true hero is one with the masses: he does not exist above them. In fact, a whole people can be heroes given the proper motivation and articulation of their dreams.

Today we see the unfolding of the creative energies of a people who are beginning to grasp the possibilities of human development and who are trying to formulate a theoretical framework upon which they may base their practice. The inarticulate are now making history while the the articulate may be headed for historical anonymity, if not ignominy. When the goals of the people are finally achieved, Rizal the first Filipino, will be negated by the true Filipino by whom he will be remembered as a great catalyzer in the metamorphosis of the de-colonized indio. 

REFERENCES:

1 The full text of the manifesto may be found in Jose Rizal, Political and Historical Writings. Vol VII (Manila: National Heroes Commission, 1964), p. 348.

2 Theodore Friend, Between Two Empires (New Haven and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1928), p. 15.

3 W. Cameron Forbes. The Philippine Islands (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1928), p. 55

4 Ibid. p. 53

5 See Robert R. Reed, Hispanic Urbanism in the Philippines: A Study of the Impact of Church and State (Manila: The University of Manila, 1967), Chapter VIII.

6 Ibid, p. 125

7 For a discussion of cultural and social context of the period, see Edgar Wickberg, The Chinese in Philippine Life, 1850-1898 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1965), pp. 131-134

8 A fuller discussion of the developing concept of the true Filipino may be found in my book, The Making of a Filipino (Quezon city: Malaya Books, 1969), Chapter 1. [p. 190]

9 Ibid., see also my essay, "The Filipino Elite," found in part two of this book.

10 Graciano Lopez-Jaena. "Letter to Rizal, March 16, 1887," Rizal's Correspondence with Fellow Reformists, Vol. II, Book II (Manila: National Heroes Commission, 1963), p. 103.

11 The Rizal-Blumentritt Correspondence, Part 1: 1886-1889, Vol. II, January 26, 1887, p. 44.

12 Rizal, "Data for my Defense," Political and Historical Writings, p. 340

13 Rizal, The Reign of Greed, translated by Charles Derbyshire (Manila: Philippine Education Company, 1956), p. 360.

14 Rizal, "Manifesto, December 15, 1896," Political and Historical Writings, p. 348.

15 Hernandez, Ella, Ocampo. Rizal, Educator and Economist, (Manila, 1949), p. 94 [p. 191]

About Prof. Renato Constantino:

1. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00472330080000191

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renato_Constantino

"Upang maitindig natin ang bantayog ng ating lipunan, kailangang radikal nating baguhin hindi lamang ang ating mga institusyon kundi maging ang ating pag-iisip at pamumuhay. Kailangan ang rebolusyon, hindi lamang sa panlabas, kundi lalo na sa panloob!" --Apolinario Mabini La Revolucion Filipina (1898)

"For a people to be without history, or to be ignorant of its history, is as for a man to be without memory - condemned forever to make the same discoveries that have been made in the past, invent the same techniques, wrestle with the same problems, commit the same errors; and condemned, too, to forfeit the rich pleasures of recollection. Indeed, just as it is difficult to imagine history without civilization, so it is difficult to imagine civilization without history." - American historian Henry Steele Commager (1965)