Republic of the Philippines

CEBU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

(SUC Level IV, AACCUP Accredited and ISO 9001:2008 certified)
Cebu City Campus, R. Palma St. Cebu City
http://www:ctu.edu.ph email: information@cscst.edu.ph
Tel No: (032) 238-6609 Fax No:(032) 238-6609

College of Arts and Sciences

WHAT IS FILIPINO NATIONALISM?
- Mrs. Leticia R. Constantino

“Colonies do not cease to be colonies because they are independent” –

Benjamin Disraeli,
British Prime Minister (1804-1881)

Nationalism has had a long history in our country. In our struggle for freedom, there have been periods
when strong nationalist feelings fired our people to action and other periods when nationalism seemed
to be forgotten. Not only did nationalism as a sentiment have its peaks and valleys, nationalism as a
political concept has been espoused at one time or another by different sectors of society which
projected particular nationalist goals as their own interests and historical circumstances demanded.

The ilustrados who led the Propaganda Movement were expressing the nationalist goals of the Filipino
elite when they demanded reforms which would give them participation in political rule and a greater
share in economic benefits. The people, led by Bonifacio, went further than the ilustrados. They
demonstrated the highest nationalist fervor when they spontaneously heeded the call of the Katipunan
and fought an anti-colonial revolution against Spain. They had practically won their freedom when they
were confronted by a new colonizer.

Nationalism again sustained the people in their fierce resistance to American rule. Many from among the
masses fought for a decade more, even as most of the ilustrado leaders changed sides and collaborated
with the enemy. Their goal, their ideal was independence. They equated independence with a better life,
and rightly so, although they had no clear idea of the economic dimensions of the independent society
they aspired for beyond the immediate demand for land to the tillers.

Nationalism at that time was mass nationalism. It was clearly anti-colonial; its dominant goal was
political independence.

American colonial policy suppressed Philippine nationalism by military campaigns against resistance
groups - the members of which is branded as brigands and outlaws –and by the Sedition Law (1901)
which imposed the death penalty or a long prison term on anyone who advocated independence from
the United States even by peaceful means. The Flag Law (1907) prohibited the display of the Philippine
flag, that symbol of Filipino nationalism, from 1907 to 1919.

As for Andres Bonifacio, the leader of the anti-colonial struggle, it was only in 1921, when Senator Lope
K. Santos authored a law making his birthday a national holiday, that he was recognized as a national
hero. On the other hand, with Governor Taft’s approval, Rizal has been proclaimed a national hero as
early as 1901.

The American administration gave every assistance to this recognition because, in the words of
Governor-General W. Cameron 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.” Rizal became the symbol of "safe" patriotism.

American public policy further undermined Filipino nationalism through the educational system which
imposed the English language as a medium of instruction, projected American society and culture as
models to be emulated, omitted all mention of Filipino resistance to American conquest and the cruel
suppression of that resistance, inculcated the idea that Filipinos must undergo tutelage in self-
government to deserve independence, and presented the United States as our generous benefactor.

Although the beneficiaries of American education began to imbibe American values and culture and to
like American consumer goods, the majority of Filipinos remained faithful to the ideal of independence.
Politicians therefore had to declare in campaign speeches that they would work for “immediate,
complete and absolute independence”, in order to get the people’s votes. But this independence was
now to be requested from the colonizer who had promised to grant it in due time.

Actually, the major political leaders, representing as they did the landlord class which grew rich on the
export-crop economy dependent on the US market, had become afraid of the economic difficulties
independence would bring. Hence, there were instances when leaders of the independence Missions
themselves privately requested American officials to postpone the grant of independence preferring
instead greater autonomy, that is, more political power from themselves.

Manuel L. Quezon himself had worked secretly against the Jones Bill. Because they had acquiesced to
the growth of a dependent economy, these leaders could not very well explain the economic realities to
the people nor could they espouse economic independence since they were the beneficiaries of
economic dependence. Independence therefore remained a political goal.

Nationalism as anti-colonialism was raised to new heights of necessity by the brutal Japanese
occupation. Ironically enough, this hatred for one colonizer only increased the longing for the return of
the other colonizer and our blind faith in his promises.

While an aroused nationalism and a healthy suspicion made most Filipinos see the sham independence
by Japan and correctly appraise Japan’s exploitative designs on our economy and natural resources, we
failed to recognize very similar policies and objectives when these came from our American friends.

When our “liberators” demanded that we accord American citizens the same rights as Filipinos, when
they asked for military and naval bases on our soil, not enough Filipinos objected. We did not see these
as derogations of the sovereignty we had just regained. Our nationalist aspirations were satisfied with
flag independence. The economic dimensions of nationalism were not yet clearly within the
perspective of the majority.

Soon, however, economic problems arising from the re-imposition of free trade and the renewed
domination of our economy by foreign, mostly American, corporations would make more Filipinos realize
that the task of nationalism did not end with the attainment of political independence.

In fact, American interventions in our internal affairs and American influence on our foreign policy made
thinking Filipinos doubt that we were even politically independent. The subservience of the Philippine
government to American dictates was most obvious under our most pro-American, and indeed,
American-made president, Ramon Magsaysay.

Almost single-handedly, Senator Claro M. Recto espoused the nationalist causes against Magsaysay’s
pro-Americanism. He said that US-bases made a mockery of our independence and would expose us to
nuclear annihilation; he advocated an independent foreign policy. Above all, he projected the economic
aspect of nationalism, opposed the granting of special incentives to attract foreign investments and
instead advocated nationalist industrialization. On the last point, he had the concurrence of President
Carlos P. Garcia and of Filipino businessmen who supported Garcia’s “Filipino First” policy.

Although the nationalism of these Filipino entrepreneurs was based on their narrow economic interests
(they wanted the government to protect them against foreign competition and to give them preference
in dollar allocations), Filipino First as a nationalist slogan inspired other sectors to voice out nationalist
demands in their particular fields. Educators, for example, asked for freedom to design a pattern of
education more responsive to Filipino needs.

Recto has raised the banner of economic nationalism, and clearly showed that the greatest obstacle to
its realization is American imperialism, which acting in behalf of corporate giants, pressures weaker
states to open their economies to penetration and control. His definition of nationalism is still valid
today: “…a banner of freedom proclaiming the national interests of the people, to be protected and
safeguarded by themselves so that the fruits of their efforts and the wealth derived from their God-given
resources shall accrue to them and thus enable all of our people to rise above poverty and march on to
prosperity, contentment and dignity.”

From this definition, we can deduce the major characteristics of Filipino nationalism for our time.

Nationalism is defensive, protective. Nationalists believe that the resources of our country should be for
the benefit of our people today and in the future. Since our economy is increasingly being dominated by
foreign corporations with the active intervention in their behalf of their governments, nationalism is
necessarily anti-imperialist. This means primarily, American and Japanese imperialism though it includes
the operation of other advanced countries as well.

However, anti-imperialism is not racism. Nationalists are not anti-American or anti-Japanese; they are
only against those policies of governments that harm the interests of the Filipino people, policies
which these governments pressure our government to adopt.

For example, nationalists criticize the many incentives and privileges given to foreign corporations
which take over areas of the economy that could well be handled by Filipino businessmen if our
government gave them preference and protection. Whereas Filipino businessmen would have no reason
to remit their profits abroad, foreign corporations are guaranteed by our government the privilege of
remitting their entire profits in dollars. Thus, a large part of the dollar earnings of our exports only goes
to finance these profit remittances.

A second example: nationalists criticize export orientation which satisfy the needs of others rather than
those of our own people. We export our best fish and shrimps to Japan and import their canned
mackerel. Our best fruits are for export. Meanwhile, 77% of Filipino children between the ages of one
and four are suffering from malnutrition.

The nationalist goal is the welfare of the Filipino masses; therefore the second major quality of
nationalism is its mass character. Our people themselves must protect and advance their own interests.
Nationalism should no longer serve the interest of one or another sector as in the past. Mass
nationalism is therefore democratic; it believes in the greatest possible participation of the people in the
determination of policy, particularly in the re-orientation of our development program. Corollary goals of
mass-based nationalism are a more equitable distribution of economic resources and a just and humane
society.

Nationalism does not advocate economic, political, scientific or cultural isolation. It is not anti-
development; it does not long to return to an idealized past. Nationalism believes that our people
deserve all the ease and comfort, good health, and access to the best products of man’s intellect and
artistic spirit that the highest achievements of modern science and art can provide. For this reason,
nationalism believes in economic, political, scientific and cultural exchanges with other countries but it
will be careful and selective, always placing priority on the needs and welfare of the Filipino people.

As a national ideology, nationalism must permeate every aspect of Philippine life. We have been
witnessing in past years heightened interest in ethnic culture as well as local music and art. These are
manifestations of cultural nationalism. However, if this new sense of cultural identity is not integrated
with economic and political nationalism and instead is used to divert our attention from growing foreign
control of our economy, then this cultural development is a disservice to our people.
Nationalism demands both economic and political independence. It resists and condemns foreign
intervention in our internal affairs as well as in the conduct of our foreign policy. The US bases are an
unwarranted derogation of our sovereignty and should be dismantles. In the field of education, the use
of our national language vas the medium of instruction is a primary nationalist demand. Instruction is
always more effective in the national language. This should not be taken as hostility to English or any
other foreign language. They should be learned as a foreign language because that is what they are.

It is a measure of our colonial mentality that we are more interested in understanding and being
understood by foreigners than we are in developing an efficient medium for internal communication.
The multiplicity of Philippine language is often advanced as an argument by those who have favor for
English. Let us not forget that these are sister languages and therefore mastery of Pilipino is infinitely
easier for a Visayan or a Pampango than mastery of English, if only there were no psychological
roadblocks arising from colonial conditioning. We must not equate good education with proficiency in
English.

Education can be a powerful weapon in propagating nationalism. A nationalist education would place
great importance on the teaching of Philippine history from the point of view of the Filipino people.
This will develop an anti-colonial, anti-imperialist orientation based on our historical experience as a
people. Such a history should clarify how, why, and for whose benefit our people have been exploited
and oppressed.

A nationalist education would also emphasize a critical study of the Philippine economy so that as a
people we will learn to be wary of economic programs proposed by foreign governments and
institutions. Moreover, we should know how the world capitalist system operates so we will understand
in what way economic development will affect our people. In history as in economics, we must use only
one yardstick. We must judge past events and present developments in terms of whether or not they
served or will serve the best interests of the people.

The Filipino people have the right to decide what kind of society they want, what is best for them. They
should strive to have the fullest political and economic independence to chart their own future. This is
the essence of nationalism.

Source: Issues Without Tears, A Layman's Manual of Current Issues, Volume II (1984),
Teacher Assistance Program (TAP) - Leticia R. Constantino, Director