Environment and the Indigenous People

History will tell us that the power of the Commonwealth government preceding to World War II was committed to identifying large drape of the country to be set aside as national parks, where logging and mining were disallowed. These areas happened to cover much of the ancestral domains of our indigenous peoples. However the past six decades has seen those national parks and protected areas carved down. They have been unwrapped up to logging and mineral compromised, and in the procedure, the sanctified areas and ancestral lands of our indigenous peoples have been laid waste and their rights trodden.

Cosseted in the tyrannical, bomb shelter-like presidential palace, the so called Chief Executive lives in an everlasting phase of siege, surrounded by flatterers, barriered to by pitiless propagandists, protected by officials who, in their loyalty towards her, have forgotten they must first and foremost be the servants of the people.

From the time when this Chief Executive assumed power, our nation has been in an enduring condition of moral and psychological catastrophe. The energies of the state are dissipated as the President and her courtiers intrigue against each other; the powerful are bribed, or intimidated, but the powerless are ignored.

While there are few who are as powerless, as our Filipino brothers from the indigenous peoples. The privileged democracy we have defines that indigenous peoples are too speckled and considered as minority, to even matter as far as providing a prospect to bring in their votes. They are merely barriers to progress, as defined by the so-called powerful few. On my part as a student of environmental studies, I observed that many groups have helped gather together facts and figures, to demonstrate the extent of the dilemma of our brethren from the indigenous peoples. We must continue this effort, but we must also go further. At this point in time, I think that I need to allocate substantial time and energy in advocating a genuinely fair and humane line of attack to the problems and issues precious to the hearts of indigenous peoples. As a baby in terms of being counter-conscious on the needs of our brother IPs, I perceive that I am merely an apparatus or a tool, a means for encouraging others to offer a hand to a fight that is from the start that of the indigenous peoples have fallen on to .people pretending to be deaf.

On my part as an educator and at the same time a politician, I suggest that this government must not just re-evaluate the facts and figures that tell us what we already savoir faire demoralizing the situation is, and how heartlessly our indigenous peoples are being subdued, in contrast the question is what do we need to act for? Communal rights and interests have been proposed as the rationalization for anti-indigenous people's programs, such as mining and other forms environmental destructions.

As a professor of business and economics, based on studies shows that mining will not be the universal remedy to our economic tribulations if it bears as its worth, unfairness and melancholy for our tribal minorities; but then, we also know that neither will logging nor land-grabbing, the embezzlement of the seas or the forests, are policies favorable to the so called societal majority. Having this administration drunk on realms o power, says otherwise. Just as it has the power to murder those laboring in the people's interest, it has the power to say these things -logging, mining, the setting aside of human rights- are good: and it has congregate the propaganda of the state to survive its regime.

Nevertheless I understand, as well, that the Filipino people, whether the nation in totality, or its sectors such as the, urban poor, laborers, youth, the fishermen and farmers, or the reasons that oblige our sustained advocacy, support and encouragement. The environment, social justice, Filipino identity and our national sovereignty will persist to express awareness, and sustained active defiance.

However, as for the our brother indigenous peoples, when will the time come, that their ethnicity, customs, mores and way of life can be tied together, not by us, but by them, to get up for their rights and ecology in the mode of the youth, the farmers, and the fishermen? History manifest and shows us the manner in which solidarity networks have helped stem the black tide of official killings and human rights violations. As for me, based on numerous experiences, I suggest that there is a need to build as astounding, effective and effective solidarity network for our indigenous peoples before it’s too late.

WHAT AN EXECUTIVE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE ART OF ADMINISTRATION

GREAT deal of effort has been made to describe the characteristics of the effective administrator and those ascribed to the average good citizen.

Certainly the effective administrator must be honest, loyal, trustworthy, and love his fellowmen if he is going to be allowed to run loose in society and not be avoided by his own secretary. It is very doubtful, however, that he can parlay those virtues alone into a successful career as an administrator. Neither does a knowledge of the science of administration seem to assure success in the use of the science. Knowledge of the theories and principles of administration provide important tools for the administration but the value of these tools, like that of all tools, depends upon the manner in which they are used.

It is what the administrator does, or does not do, that produces an effect on the organization. administration is practiced, and it is the practices of the administrator that determine his effectiveness. But any attempt to define good administrative practices ends up pretty much in the same situation as attempts to described the good administrator. Perhaps a more fruitful approach would be to study ineffective administration and attempt to isolate its cause first.

Here are seven causes of ineffective administration that were observed in a study undertaken for such a purpose. These causes represent very human tendencies shared by all administrators and perhaps can never be completely eliminated. Effective administration seems dependent, however, on successfully modifying their effect on administrative conduct.

An awareness that these tendencies do exists, and the ability to recognize them in one’s own behavior, is the first and most important step toward neutralizing them.

Fault No. 1: the Black-or-White Complex

High among the causes of ineffective administration is the tendenby to classify everything as black or white – as good or bad. This tendency denies the fact that the it is the executive’s task to discriminate between acceptable alternatives more often than between right and wrong.

Situations are rarely ever black or white; they are usually varying shades of gray decisions will reach the desk. The easy ones will be settled down the ladder, where the facts are more abundant and better understood.

Fault No. 2: Making Mountains Out of Molehills

Somewhat related to the back-or-white tendency is the failure to recognize the necessity of proportion in administration. This faults manifests itself in several ways in administrative behavior.

One of these is best described by the old expression “ making a mountain out of a molehill. ” This results in overemphasizing incidents and problems that have little consequences to the organization. It not only wastes the energies and attention of the administrator, but it diminishes his influence in matters that are important. Subordinates easily develop organizational calluses, and for this reason both the whip and the sugar should be given only when circumstances warrant.

Fault No. 3: the Perfectionist Approach

One of the most common characteristics of ineffective administration is the tendency to attempt only perfect solutions instead of the accomplishable. This can be described as the all-or-none complex.

Administratively, this all-or-none complex can lead to either of two extremes – both of which are harmful to organization.

On the one extreme it may mean that improvements are never undertaken because the ideal solution isn’t currently available or possible. In such instances, necessary changes are never started because the opportunity for perfect solution rarely comes along. Major changes are always difficult to accomplish, and even the bravest and most energetic executives are sometimes tempted to rationalize their distaste for facing up to those difficulties by holding out for the perfect solution.

On the other extreme it may mean that the action undertaken is too radical, and the organization is subjected to turmoil and violent upheaval. Under these circumstances the changes attempted may be ultimately correct but currently just not accomplishable. Such moves ignore the necessity for administrative timing.

The successful administrator must, on occasions, tolerate conditions of inefficiency rather than court failure by attempting to clear all the obstacles with one big jump. He must determine his goals and evaluate the opposition to them. This permits him to maintain constant pressure toward the desired ends without allowing the pressure to explode into an open break.

Only the most adept and agile of quick-change artists could qualify for a role that calls for so many different faces as some critics would have the administrator present simultaneously:

The administrator or executive is exhorted to serve as a leader but to let the group command; to serve as a social worker but to abhor paternalism; to play Freud but respect the privacy and dignity of the individual; to bring the influence to his organization; to eliminate stress within the organization but to encourage and nurture the nonconformist and the misfit; and to have convictions but be so broadminded he does not know the difference between right and wrong. The overtones imply that high efficiency is somehow equivalent to low morality.

If we want to improve the practice of administration we must first establish firmly what administration is and what it is supposed to do. If we want to prevent its gullibility to each new fad, we need to understand the role of administration sufficiently to determine the relevancy and utility of the new ideas and tools that become available.

Fault No. 4: Yielding to Pressures of the Moment

Before someone interprets the above as an argument that the good administrator is afraid of his own shadow, an opposite characteristic that is equally conducive to ineffective administration should be pointed out.

This is the urge to act from expediency – the attempt to buy one’s way out of problems by yielding to immediate pressures and ignoring the long-run effects of the solution.

Sidestepping an important issue is just as bad as stiff-arming it. In some ways it may be worse, because it permanently weakens the administrator’s influence in the organization. Yielding to the pressures of the moment is an open invitation for a raid by the most aggressive and most vocal members of the organization. It is a sort of “cafeteria” administration, in which everyone strong enough picks out his own policies. It is properly interpreted by other members of the organization as evidence of indecision and uncertainty and, organizationally speaking, the only thing worse than a bad decision is in indecision.

Obeisance to form has been particularly noticeable in administration in recent years and accounts, among other things, for the rapid growth in red tape that has increasingly plagued organizations. Valuable new ideas often prove to be hindrances because of the emphasis given to form over substance.

For instance, much study has been given in the last two decades to communications in administration, and now communications is a much improved tool for administration.

Some of these organizations have developed elaborate means for communicating but do not seem to realize that the quality of the communication counts far more than the form.

Fault No. 5: the Victory Complex

The obsession to win represents another serious handicap of some executives. This is often demonstrated in the attempt to win a “moral victory,” even after decisions have been clearly discredited. Too much emphasis is given in administration to the necessity of saving face and not enough thought paid to the problem of saving respect.

The administrator may silence, but he cannot fool, those responsible for carrying out an impractical decision. If face saving is really important, it would seem better strategy for the administrator to sweep his errors under the carpet as quickly as possible rather than given them the prominence that results from the disgruntlement and ill will of those compelled to operate with them.

Fault No. 6: Getting Too Close to His People

The failure to maintain an impersonal status in the organization often proves to be a serious handicap to the administrator. He must keep a sufficient air of aloofness to permit administrative action without its being taken personally.

Admittedly, he must be responsive and friendly so that his colleagues will not hesitate to approach him. But he must recognize the difference between liking his associates, and liking everything they do. Personal relationships that inhibit detached evaluation and frank criticism represent a disservice to all concerned.

Criticism is fundamental to improvement, and every member of the organization has a right to expect that he will be told when his performance needs improvement. Nothing

shakes the morale of an organization as much as the sudden lowering of he boom on an individual without prior note to improve his deficiencies.

The rules of fair play are applied more strictly to the executive than to anyone else, and these rules require that a person be told where he stands and why.

Fault No.7: Believing That People Act Logically

This matter of human conduct brings us to another cause of ineffective administration. This is the mistaken assumption that people act logically. Individuals do not usually act either logically or illogically when they are personally involved. In such instances they are most apt to act nonlogically.

This is because they are human beings and bring to every situation their own personal experiences, biases, desires, and needs. Situations are seen from each individuals uniquely personal perspective. This requires that the administrator must, at time, temper his decision so as to allow for the personal equation, and work toward the modification of preconceived notions of those affected by his decisions.

An effective administration designs the organizational structure so as to encourage creativeness and the transmission of ideas. It attempts to create a climate in which the enterprise has the greatest possible gain from the ideas generated at all levels within the organization.

The organization needs the obedient rebel who thinks on his own, but it cannot function efficiently and tolerate the rebels who have no sense of the responsibilities to which they must be obedient.

Mission of Administration

The mission of administration is obviously to accomplish the purposes of the enterprise.

Its sole purpose is to secure the ends of the enterprise through influencing the behavior of all concerned in achieving those ends.

The sorts of behavior that administration may seed are dictated by the ends the enterprise is intended to serve. Administration is a process and , like all processes, it works within a set of dimension varies with the ends sought by the particular enterprise.

At least four such dimensions of administration can be identified. One id the efficiency dimension, best defined as performance-oriented. It is based on the concept that the purpose of the organization is to produce the best possible product of service at the least possible cost.

This one must be tempered by the second, which can be classified as the human dimension. It is personnel-oriented and is based on the concept tat the purpose of the organization is to provide the greatest possible benefits to the members of the organization. This is the dimension to which unions attach almost complete attention.

Both of these dimensions must in turn be compromised with the public dimension. This dimension is community-oriented and represents the concept that the welfare of the public is paramount. Our public-regulated enterprises, such as the utilities, are example of enterprise where this dimension has been highly emphasized.

Finally, there is the institutional dimension with strengthening and enlarging the enterprise itself. There is a sharp differences between the goals of the enterprise and the goal of maintaining and perpetuating the enterprise. This is best illustrated in the nonprofit and noncompetitive enterprises that fight to survive long after the purpose for which they were established have been fulfilled.

Filipino Psyche

The Filipino is resilient, we keep hearing. I've been in urban shanties where 15 people share 15 square meters of living space and yes, on the surface, everyone seems happy TIME Magazine once had a cover story featuring Filipinos as the happiest people in the world, unfazed by the most difficult of circumstances. One photo had a group of men drinking away in the middle of knee-high floodwaters. But the scenes of smiling and laughing Filipinos, singing and dancing (and drinking) away can be deceptive. Quite often, we deal with stress by trying to be "happy." I put that in quotes because the Filipino term is masaya, which is really more of an externalized merriment. Masaya is social camaraderie, it's making cheer and quite often we do it precisely because there have been unhappy events, stressful events. The best example is that of a death — our wakes are notorious for its merry-making, but that, precisely, is part of our stress-coping mechanism.

We have indigenous psychology, as well as indigenous psychiatry, at work here, Filipinos aware of how dangerous it is to allow stress to consume us. We warn people about excesses as a cause of illness, and that includes the excessive emotions generated by stress. The word dalamhati is graphic, describing an inner sadness (from the Malay dalam, inside and hati, the heart or the liver, believed to be seats of our emotions) that slowly consumes the person.

But for all the talk about our communitarian orientation, of helping friends to overcome stress, social pressures in the Philippines can also be counterproductive with the way we sometimes force people to repress the stress. "Enjoy!" we urge them, not realizing there are limits to resilience. There are power dimensions to all this, such as those found in gender. Contrary to stereotypes about women being more expressive, Filipinas are actually more prone to dealing with stressful situations through tiis (endurance) and kimkim (repression). Check out the local scenes of merriment: it's usually men having a good time, bringing out the beer and toasting their problems away, while their women look for ways to make ends meet. Men, too, are expected to keep their feelings in check, but more out of masculine values of strength and stoicism. Men are generally not allowed to cry, much less to go into hysterics; and this probably helps to explain why more men suffer from cardiovascular disease. Many Filipinos will express their stress by complaining about recurring headaches, or abdominal pains, accompanied by dizziness, nausea, fatigue. Doctors used to dismiss these as being all in the mind, but it has become clear the physical pain and distress may be quite real, that the pent-up stress is expressed through the body.

These vague symptoms have been labeled as "somatization syndrome," and are often hard to treat, partly because medical professionals still haven't figured out the biological processes involved. Culturally, too, people may attach labels that don't quite reflect the actual part of the body that's affected, as when they say that they're suffering from nerbyos or "nerves." Nerbyos doesn't necessarily mean being nervous; it's often hypertension or high blood pressure, for example, and a health professional or caregiver may miss the problem.

Then, too, there's the intriguing bangungot, those sudden deaths, usually at night, associated with nightmares. The term itself is derived from bangon, to rise, and ungol, to moan. Young healthy men, like the late actor Rico Yan, die mysteriously and the diagnosis is immediate: bangungot. The medical world remains stumped, attributing the deaths to everything, from pancreatitis to congenital defects in the heart, but too little has been done to explore the stress angle. Similar "culture-bound" illnesses are found also in other neighboring countries and the deaths tend to be reported in international medical journals because they often occur in people who are away from home. The first cases reported in U.S. medical literature involved Filipinos in the U.S. Navy. In recent years, medical reports have included Thai men doing construction work in Singapore, and Indochinese refugees who have just relocated to the United States.

I wouldn't be surprised if bangungot is reported as well among our 8.5 million overseas Filipinos. The Filipino is so attached to home and hearth that we even have a term namamahay, missing home, to describe a range of symptoms, from insomnia to constipation that plagues us when we are away from home. That's stress too. And with men, given the cultural imperative of suppressing their distress, we might expect nightmares, some with fatal endings. They said political economy of stress involved, meaning power relations shape the way one experiences and expresses stress. Common sense tells us the poor suffer much more daily stress, from battling the traffic while commuting, breathing in more of the toxic fumes, dealing with tyrannical bosses and snakepit offices. Poor women are doubly burdened, having to deal with the tribulations of work, as well as of the home, running after the needs of husband and children. Public health analysts in Western countries have produced voluminous literature on how poverty interacts with stress to cause illnesses and death. Earlier research tended to be simplistic, explaining high illness and death rates among the poor as being due to their lack of access to good health care. But more recent research has shown that the problems of poverty also relate to power and autonomy. The poor are less healthy because they suffer more stress, not just from what I described earlier, but also from the inequities in power. The poor are more prone to feeling helpless and will have less self-esteem — all that contributes to a more rapid deterioration of health when confronted with stressors. Men may be more prone to the problem of this "political economy of stress," since they have to live up to higher expectations of gender. A jobless man, for example, may be more adversely affected by stress because of a loss of pride. Machismo also blocks him from taking up jobs that he thinks are beneath his station. So he ends up drinking with the barkada, which is then interpreted as "resilience" and an ability to be happy. His wife, meanwhile, will pick up odd jobs here and there, doing laundry, mending clothes; ironically, that again generates stress for him, as he feels his masculinity threatened. The macho imperatives around stress are inevitably tied to alcohol and drugs. Younger male Filipinos are particularly vulnerable, given their struggles with identity, masculinity and self-esteem, unable to express their frustrations and resentment. Drugs are one way of dealing with the stress, with all its attendant problems. It's significant though that the most abused drugs are metaphetamines, which are "uppers" or stimulants. Again, the Filipino response to stress is to look for more stimulation. The nerve cells fire away until, frayed and exhausted, the user develops paranoia (borrowed into Filipino as praning) and then psychosis. Others take out their frustrations through violent behavior. The phenomenon of the amok, favorite fare for our tabloid newspapers, used to be the subject of racialized descriptions from Western anthropologists, who thought that those belonging to the "Malay race," including Filipinos, were especially prone to going on a violent rampage, sometimes with hostage-taking.

The racial angle is total nonsense of course. Running amok has nothing to do with race. It's, quite simply, a person reaching the end of the line, or put another way, the bottom of the heap. It's the poorest, most disempowered men, who tend to run amok. A stressed rich man takes out his frustrations on those lower in a pecking order; the amok has no one, not even the dogs at home, to vent his anger, so he turns to random violence.

The Condition of the Philippine Environment

The Republic of the Philippines is an archipelago of some 7,100 islands and islets, majestic in their splendor. The numerous islands support a broad range of highly productive ecosystems, tropical forests and mountains, mangrove swamps and coral reefs.

Ours is a developing country with a population of almost 85 million Filipinos. The Philippines is a paradise for those who love the sun, beach, surfing and the exotic life at a very low cost. But even in paradise, we endure problems caused by a high incidence of poverty, by industrial expansion, and by rapid population growth. There is considerable abuse of our natural resources -- the destruction of coral reefs, poison and dynamite fishing, slash and burn farming on our mountains, and the pollution of our lakes and rivers. We have been involved in the effort to diminish four major problems of the Philippine environment, the problems of deforestation, air pollution, water pollution, urban waste and garbage.

Deforestation.

At the start of the 20th century the forested area of the Philippines was some 21 million hectares or almost 70 percent of the country's total land area of 30 million hectares. Today our remaining forest cover is below one million hectares. Moreover, on the average, our rate of deforestation was 203,905 hectares annually while our rate of reforestation was only 9,398 hectares. This means that for every tree planted, 21 are cut down. The effects of deforestation have been tragic and devastating. Some 6.5 million tribal Filipinos have lost rich hunting and inland fishing grounds. Species of flora and fauna have been lost forever. Biological diversity has been greatly diminished and there are periodic erosion and floods everywhere.

We responded to this problem in two ways. One was a proposed legislation which will ban commercial logging for 25 years, and this legislation is now being carefully deliberated. Our second response was to introduce "Luntiang Pilipinas" or Greening the Philippines Movement. The goal of this movement is to create a tree park in every city and town plaza with at least 100 trees of forest varieties. Each tree park serves as "lungs" of the community, beautifying the plaza and raising community consciousness about the environment at the same time. The movement has created forest parks in over 1,800 towns and cities, and the number is rising each month.

Smog and Air Pollution

High levels of industrial emission and the increasing number of motor vehicles on our roads have seriously degraded air quality in urban areas. The consequences are rising levels of respiratory and lung ailments in our population, fatigue and poor concentration among adults, and nervous disorders in children.

Our response was the sponsorship of legislation which became the Philippine Clean Air Act of 1998. Among other things, this law provides an air quality management fund, imposes new vehicle emission standards, and provides incentives for pollution abatement and prevention.

Water Pollution.

Forty-eight percent of our water pollution is caused by household wastes, compounded by the lack of an adequate sewerage system. At present, only 7 percent of the settlers in Metro Manila are connected to a sewer system. Sixteen of the Philippines’ major rivers, including five in Metro Manila, are biologically dead during the summer months. The World Bank estimates that in the Philippines, the economic losses caused by water pollution are about $1.3 billion or P62 billion per year.

In this regard, we came up with the Water Crisis Act of 1995 that stipulated the creation of a commission to undertake nationwide consultations on water crisis and recommend measures that will ensure continuous monitoring of water supply and distribution.

As of 2003, 86% of the total population has access to an improved water source, with 79% and 91% access in urban and rural areas, respectively. Citing the World Bank Philippines Environment Monitor 2004, access to sanitation is rising slowly and urban access to piped sewerage in Metro Manila is about 8%.

Waste and Garbage.

Solid waste disposal remains problematic with only 9 of 117 cities and 46 of 1,500 municipalities in the Philippines have solid management programs. In Metropolitan Manila, where some 15 million people work and live, some 6,000 tons of garbage is generated daily. An estimated 24 percent is illegally dumped in vacant lands or thrown into our rivers or waterways. This exacerbates the flooding of streets during the rainy season and the poor sanitation conditions of many communities. In addition, the capacity of garbage landfills has long been exceeded, and there is a need to develop new landfill sites. The annual waste generation is expected to grow by 40% by 2010.

Our response was to author a bill which was enacted as the Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 2001, the first legislation signed into law by our present President, Her Excellency Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. This law created a structure to provide technology, research, organization and facilities to alleviate the waste problem and reduce health hazards.

The Philippine Agenda 21

Philippine Agenda 21 is part of the country's response to fulfill its commitments in the historic Earth Summit in 1992, where government and key sectors of society agreed to implement an action agenda for sustainable development, known as the Agenda 21.

The Philippine Agenda 21's concept of development is grounded on both an image and a shared vision of the Filipino society. It recognizes the key actors in sustainable development as the government, business and civil society and the functional differentiation of modern society into three realms--economy (where the key actor is business), polity (where the key actor is government) and culture (where the key actor is civil society). The three realms are interacting, dynamic and complementary components of an integral whole.

Philippine Agenda 21 advocates a fundamental shift in development thinking and approach. It departs from traditional conceptual frameworks that emphasize sector based and macro-concerns.

Philippine Agenda 21 promotes harmony and achieves sustainability by emphasizing:

• a scale of intervention that is primarily area-based; the national and global policy environment builds upon and support area-based initiatives;

• integrated island development approaches where applicable; this recognizes the archipelagic character of the Philippines which includes many small island provinces;

• people and the integrity of nature at the center of development initiatives; this implies the strengthening of roles, relationships and interactions between stakeholders in government, civil society, labor and business; basic sectors have an important role to play in achieving equity and in managing the ecosystems that sustain life.

Philippine Agenda 21 does not duplicate but builds on existing and ongoing initiatives related to sustainable development. Hence, sustainable development in the Philippines is the accumulation of conceptual and operational breakthroughs generated by the Philippine Strategy for Sustainable Development, Social Reform Agenda, Human and Ecological Security, among others. Sustainable development is also a product of the process itself, of engaging various stakeholders and of working in global national and local arenas.

The persistence of serious natural resource depletion and environmental degradation years into the Philippine Agenda 21 means that much remains to be done. The continuing problems are not just due to the delay of the program but due to the fact that environmental problems are resilient and take time to contain. Our government can more effectively implement Philippine Agenda 21 by way of addressing the various issues still at hand.

Sustainable Development

The most common definition of Sustainable Development is: ‘Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’

This definition is further qualified by a common acceptance of there being ‘three pillars of Sustainable Development’. These pillars are identified in the slogan used at the World Summit for Sustainable Development ‘Care and respect for People; Planet and Prosperity (Commercial activities)’. It is recognised that these three pillars are of equal importance – if any one aspect is ignored or given a higher priority than others, the effect will be to unbalance and destabilise all three aspects, because they are inter-connected and interdependent. It is also recognised that these three aspects need to be addressed simultaneously – we cannot address them on a one-at- a-time basis as this would also create an imbalance.

While the above definition and explanation of the three pillars of Sustainable Development is conveniently short and concise, they do not convey or provide an adequate depth of understanding regarding the intellectual, moral and spiritual values that underlie the concept of Sustainable Development.

Firstly, it needs to be understood that Sustainable Development is essentially about ‘a value system‘. It is not a scientific formula that can be intellectually or mechanically applied to a situation. The concept of Sustainable Development is an evolutionary step forward in human consciousness, awareness and behaviour – leading to a more holistic and balanced value system.

To illustrate the evolutionary process of human thinking in very simplistic terms: humanity, at its lowest level of consciousness, operates in a purely survivalist mentality. Once having achieved the ability to survive, humanity moves forward in awareness, seeking to satisfy the desire for comforts and pleasure. Once a level of comfort has been achieved, desire for self-expression and individuality motivate the thinking and behaviour of an individual.

The concept of Sustainable Development invites us all, as individuals, to evolve beyond pure self-gratification and short-term thinking into an awareness and understanding that harm to one will eventually cause harm to all.

It invites the individual to step beyond current norms of thinking and behaviour to become conscious of the absolute interconnectedness and inter-dependence of all things.

Becoming aware that allowing poverty to exist is harmful to all, including the wealthy, and also impacts on the delicate balance of nature on Earth.
Becoming aware that allowing wasteful damage and the destruction of biodiversity and the Earth’s natural resources will have a detrimental effect on human wellbeing and our commercial activities.
Becoming aware that commercial and wealth-generation activities that ignore social and environmental consequences will in the long run be harmful to commerce and industry themselves.

But it is critically important to reiterate that if we give priority to one of the three aspects – be it people (poverty alleviation) or planet (conservation) or prosperity (business development) – we will unbalance the whole, with detrimental effect to all. We need to address all three aspects simultaneously – with equal importance attached to each of the three pillars.

In the face of environmental degradation, loss of biodiversity, poverty and ill health, and the increasing cost of doing business as a result of increased social taxes and higher resource costs, the reality of the inter-connectedness and inter-dependence of People, Planet and Prosperity have become abundantly clear. The negative consequences that we see are a direct result of previously imbalanced thinking.

To highlight how different commercial Sustainable Development behaviour is from past patterns of ‘profit at all costs‘, see the article by Dr Eureta Rosenberg, ‘Sustainable Development – Maintaining Profits or Sustaining People and Planet’ in the Sustainable Development section. To gain an insight into the value system that underlies Sustainable Development, see the Topics ‘Deep Ecology and the more detailed ‘Earth Charter’.

Together, these three articles provide a clearer explanation of the intellectual, spiritual and practical value systems of Sustainable Development.Without an in-depth understanding of the value system that underlies the concept of Sustainable Development, and a commensurate change in our thinking and behaviour, no true Sustainable Development can be implemented.

To quote Albert Einstein: ‘The world we have created today has problems which cannot be solved by thinking the way we thought when we created them.’

But with a more evolved understanding of the value system as encapsulated in the simple definition of Sustainable Development, we can indeed improve the way that humanity lives, works and interacts with the diversity of Earth’s human and non-human co-inhabitants.

RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR

Although responsibility, like the public interest, is a nebulous, often honorific term, it is a basic democratic ideal, bound up with the of one’s obligation to some external body or standard of behavior. Public administrators, for example, are responsible to the rule-of-law doctrine, which provides a fairly effective standard for judging some administrative decisions. Political responsibility is similarly involved with the idea of government’s control by public opinion, political parties, and the community. Responsibility is also commonly used to denote the obligation of an individual to behave according to certain ethical and technical norms. In public administration, responsibility has often had a negative connotation: we have usually

Responsibility and accountability should be differentiated. Accountability refers to the hierarchical or legal locus of responsibility. Responsibility, on the other hand, has personal, moral connotations and is not necessarily related to formal role, status, or power, although it is probably true that greater power brings greater responsibility. Thus, a department head is accountable for the actions of his entire subordinate, although in the actual fact he is not responsible for their use of the power, which he must delegate to them. This, in part, is the basis upon which President Nixon defended his position regarding the Watergate affair.

On the other hand, in exercising discretion every official is morally responsible for his decisions, although he is often not legally accountable. In practice, responsibility must be shared; it percolates throughout the entire administrative apparatus. Accountability, which concerns the formal relationships among and within the executive, legislative and judicial branches, can never be shared. The bureaucracy is regarded as being accountable to elected representatives and to the courts that apply the rule of law doctrine. Within the executive branch, accountability is sought through a hierarchy of offices and duties that seems to make possible a line of command from the top to bottom. The heads of the various departments must answer to the President as general manager. Bureau, section, and division chiefs are legally accountable in turn to department heads. Upon the President falls the monumental job of coordinating and directing the whole executive branch, under the constitutional mandate that gives him executive power and directs him to insure that the laws are faithfully cited.

This appreciation of accountability, however, is formalistic and misleading. Although senior executives appoint subordinates and thus exercise some control over their character and behavior, in specific cases they exercise little or no control. The President’s control is limited by the vast size and conflicting loyalties of the bureaucracy, as well as by the diffusion of power in our political system. He cannot hope to be aware of, much less supervise, all the activities of the some one hundred agencies for which he is constitutionally accountable. Executives at many levels face similar problem. As a result, legal accountability often becomes a mere façade, like the public interest rhetoric of a regulatory agency commissioner who is in fact the captive of his most vocal clientele group. In such cases, the authority and prestige of the state are bent to the service of private groups, and responsibility to the public and the chief executive becomes tenuous. As we have seen, this situation is encouraged by the size and scope of government, by the whirlpools of power that form in our political system, and by the unofficial representative apparatus provides by private interest groups.

Ecological Footprint

How many hectares of natural resources, on land and sea, are needed to carry you? It’s a stratagem question, and a simple way of restating what an "ecological footprint" is. Just to give you a rough idea, each person on earth today needs about 2.0 hectares of land and sea to support his or her lifestyle. The dilemma is that the planet’s bio-capacity, the total available resources, comes up to only about 1.8 hectares per person, which denotes we are incurring an ecological shortfall. Those figures are global averages, representing extensive differences among nations and, within countries, among economic classes. I’ll get around to giving some of the current estimates, including those for the Philippines, but let’s first scrutinize this ecological footprint in greater detail. The footprint is calculated by looking at different aspects of our lifestyles: food, housing, mobility, energy. It looks mainly at consumption, but also accounts for the resources needed to take care of the wastes we generate. Each country has a calculated bio productive resource base, meaning land and sea resources that can be used. The footprint becomes an educational tool for individuals and households by making you conscious about how your choices determine its size. For starters, you might want to try”www.myfootprint.org”, which has a simple questionnaire to help you determine what your footprint is supposed to be.

Grasping the footprint quiz got me alternating between ecstasy and melancholy. One moment, I was quite proud that my large diet was minimal in terms of ecological impact. On average, you need about 0.78 hectare to produce a ton of crop-based food (cereals, grains, vegetables); on the other hand, you would need 2.1 hectares to produce a ton of animal-based food. But that pride gave way to shame answering the questions on mobility. I do drive a lot, often alone, and chalk up several thousand miles of air travel each year. In terms of housing, I can claim some conservation measures, from using solar heating to recycling and composting, but my footprint grew because I’m still largely reliant on traditional sources of energy. Not that I haven’t tried, but even my solar heating supplier couldn’t come up with a system to support even emergency energy needs in the house. I nearly choked when I finally got my footprint calculation, which I’ll share with you shortly but let’s look first at national footprints. The Global Footprint Network’s latest calculations list the following five countries as having the largest footprints, expressed in hectares per person: the United Arab Emirates (10.5), the United States (9.7), Canada (7.5), Kuwait (7.3) and Australia (7). In contrast, the five smallest footprints are those of Pakistan and Zambia, each with 0.6, Bangladesh and Cambodia each with 0.5, and Somalia with 0.2. And the Philippines? We needed about one hectare per person. For my urbanite readers, one hectare is 10,000 square meters. The footprint concept should give us a new lens for looking at the environment. All that land we see in rural areas isn’t really "empty" -- it is needed for food production, for shelter, for erosion control, for landfills. Most importantly, it is land we share with all kinds of animal and plant life that keep a precarious ecological balance. Talk with fisherfolk and they’ll tell you about their frustration with going out to the sea an entire night, casting nets over wide areas of ocean and yet hauling in tiny fish catches. The footprint figures also alert us to the issue of equity. Note that each American needs 10 times more biological resources than a Filipino would. Here’s another catch: even within countries, the differences can be quite wide. I try very hard to be eco-friendly with my lifestyle and yet the ecological footprint quiz I took, however rough, estimated that I needed 14 hectares. Shame, shame! I figured that if I need 14 hectares, then people in developed countries would need easily more than 50 hectares each. It’s mind-boggling, especially when you think of the lower end of the spectrum -- the people living on 0.2 hectare of resources. It all boils down to a question of responsibility. There are many publications now, and Internet sites, giving suggestions for individual decisions that will make a difference: using bikes rather than cars, drying clothes out under the sun rather than the electric dryer, even, gulp, foregoing that liquid plasma TV. Some of the Internet resources talk more about collective action, for example, as a guide for public policies. For example, one estimate places London’s footprint at 21 million hectares, yet the city itself has only 170,000 hectares of land. Cities, not surprisingly, tend to rack up a larger ecological deficit and public policies need to complement individual decisions. You can’t get people to bike more if you don’t have more bike lanes. The bottom line then is that cities thrive at the expense of the countryside and, globally, rich countries in a sense live off poor countries. Just look at the recent controversy over the Philippine-Japan free trade agreement, and the possibility that we might end up being a dump for Japan’s wastes. The footprint can become a powerful educational tool, raising public awareness about the choices we need to make for more sustainable development. The footprint calculations, which date back to the 1990s, have already shown some decreases in footprints for countries that are more ecologically conscious, with the Western European countries leading the way. The footprint statistics also show us that development need not involve large consumption like those of countries in North America and the Middle East. The Netherlands, for example, has a footprint of only 4.4 hectares per person, half that of the United States and the United Arab Emirates.

The Philippines shouldn’t be complacent about our small footprint. Even at 1.0 hectare per person, we’re still running a deficit of 0.4 hectare per person because of our limited natural resources and large population. We will need to figure out how we can develop in dollar and peso terms without continuing to rack up an ecological deficit. In a sense, we’ve already gone into debt with nature, and the interest costs will build up. We see these "green" costs with landslides and other ecological disasters. Eventually, these could easily wipe out the small gains we’re making in the economy. Worse, we may end up surviving only at the cost of using up resources that were meant for the future. As one African proverb goes, the environment was not given to us by our parents; rather it is lent to us by our children.

On Environmental Degradation

REMORSELESS environmental degradation is one of the worst challenges threatening the Philippine economy, the national life and its future. The rape of the environment destroys finite natural resources, defaces communities and erodes the quality of life. It has the potential to kill businesses big and small, wipe out industries and dislocate people. The threat to public health is immense. The losses to productivity are incalculable. Alarming are the implications for public safety. A country beset by an endangered environment is anathema to foreign investors, tourists and casual visitors.

Day by day, a part of the country on almost every island is being violated by greedy businessmen, inconsiderate citizens and ravenous aliens. Our waters, air, natural wealth and other facets of the environment are constantly under siege. A World Bank report estimates the economic cost of water pollution at P67 billion a year. A second WB study says the yearly economic losses from air pollution to health and productivity in the metropolitan Manila region alone reaches P350 million.

One should read the other reports of the international and national organizations on illegal logging, overfishing, the destruction of corals and other such stupidities to appreciate their extent, the cast of villains, the irresponsibility of government, their costs to the economy and what they portend for our future.

Part of the problem is poor enforcement of environmental laws. Policing, monitoring and supervision are lax. Arrests are few and prosecution is limp. And the courts are not only handicapped by vacancies and backlogs: the judges also give low priority to violations of environmental laws, giving weight to criminal and civil cases.

We need to draw the line and declare an uncompromising war on the predators or we lose much of our finite resources and leave very little to the succeeding generations. The Supreme Court has realized the danger and has acted. The High Court has approved the creation of 117 environmental or “green” courts to speed up trials related to violations of environmental laws. The Court acted on the recommendation of the Philippine Judicial Academy to create environmental courts as one of the options to expedite adjudication. Data from the Academy show that 3,120 cases are pending in the lower courts for infringement of environmental legislation.

To strengthen its program, the Court shall conduct capacity-building and training programs for the staff of the lower courts and appellate courts. The Puno Court has designated 45 lower courts as Forestry Courts. Forty-eight first-level courts and 24 second-level trial courts will handle cases involving violations of Republic Act 8550, the Fisheries Code, and RA 7586, the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992.

All single-sala first and second-level courts shall be considered special courts to hear and decide environmental cases, in addition to their regular duties. First-level courts are the Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts in Cities. Second-level courts refer to Regional Trial Courts. This places the entire judiciary on the frontline for environmental safety. Chief Justice Reynato Puno said in a speech last year before the Asian Justices Forum on the Environment that having a sound and healthy environment is a basic human right. Under his leadership, the Supreme Court regained its prestige, influence and power as an activist sala and as a proactive arm of the national government. Among its achievements in 2007 were the first national summit on summary killings, landmark decisions on controversial Executive orders and the introduction of the writ of amparo for victims of enforced disappearances.

For the first time, the courts will give environmental protection higher attention, running after violators, dispensing justice and making public officials accountable. The courts suffer however from a shortage of salas and judges. The program calls for greater initiatives from local governments and the citizens.

Veneration Without Understanding *

by Renato Constantino

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 med- [p. 125] ical 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. Other in fact [p. 126] 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 [p.127] 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 [p.129] 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 worshipper. 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 [p.130] 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, wht 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 [p. 131] 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 [p. 132] 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 in- [p.133] troduction 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. The 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. [p. 134]

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 [p.135] 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 Filipino 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 Fiipinos 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 - rly] mestizos began to call themselves Filipinos, especially after the abolition of the tribute lists in the 1880s and the economic [p. 136] 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 wich 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 [p. 137] 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" Filipinos

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. [p. 138] 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 Fili- [p.139] busterismo 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 Precursors 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. [p. 141]

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 ilus- [p.142] trado 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 cul- [p. 143] tural - 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, [p. 144] 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. [p. 145]
_______________

* Renato Constantino, Third National Rizal Lecture, December 30, 1969.

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]