Kaisipang (PRODEM) Progresibo, Responsable at Organisadong Demokrasya

Ni 

Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope

Sa puso ng bawat Pilipino ay naroon ang pagnanais na mamuhay sa isang payapa, ligtas, at maunlad na bansa. Subalit, habang ang araw ay sumisikat at ang mga bata’y naglalaro sa mga kalsada, may mga ulap ng takot na patuloy na bumabalot sa ating lipunan—ang anino ng terorismo.

Hindi biro ang maging isang mamamayan ng isang bansang patuloy na binabagabag ng karahasan at kaguluhan. Ang bawat putok ng baril, ang bawat pagsabog ng bomba, at ang bawat ulat ng pagdukot ay hindi lamang mga headline sa balita—ito ay mga sugat sa pambansang damdamin. Kaya hindi na kataka-taka kung bakit maraming sektor ang nagsusumikap na masugpo ang terorismo. Ang ating mga awtoridad ay pursigidong nagpapatupad ng legal na aksyon. Ang mga sundalo’y isinusugal ang kanilang buhay sa larangan ng digmaan. At ang mga repormista, kasama ang mga lingkod-bayan at aktibistang tulad ko, ay pilit na hinahanap ang kapayapaan sa pamamagitan ng makatao at demokratikong pamamaraan.

Ngunit sa kabila ng lahat ng ito, tila may kulang. Bakit nga ba tila hindi tayo nagtatagumpay nang lubos?

Ideolohiya: Ang Ugat ng Terorismo

Sa aking masinsinang pagsusuri at karanasan sa larangan ng political science, komunikasyon, at public service, napagtanto kong ang terorismo ay hindi lamang isang simpleng krimen o rebelyon. Ito ay isang produkto ng isang matinding ideolohiya—isang ideolohiyang sumisibol sa kawalan ng pag-asa, sa kasaysayan ng pang-aapi, sa kahirapan, sa diskriminasyon, at sa pakiramdam ng pagiging dayuhan sa sariling bayan.

Ang terorismo ay bunga ng isang matagal na pagkakait—ng pagkakataon, ng boses, at ng dignidad. Kapag ang isang sektor ng lipunan ay matagal nang nakakulong sa kahirapan at pagwawalang-bahala, madaling itanim sa kanilang isipan ang paniniwalang ang karahasan ay ang tanging kasagutan.

Kaya’t hindi sapat na labanan ito ng armas. Hindi sapat na basta ikulong ang mga terorista. Sapagkat ang terorista ay maaaring maaresto, ngunit ang ideolohiya ay nananatili. Ang tunay na laban ay nasa isipan—sa paghubog ng kamalayan, sa pagkumbinsi sa puso, at sa pagbura sa mga maling paniniwala gamit ang kapangyarihan ng tama, makatarungan, at makataong ideya.

Progresibo, Responsable, at Organisadong Demokrasya: Isang Kontra-Ideolohiya

Ang aking paniniwala ay malinaw: upang mapigilan ang paglaganap ng terorismo, kailangan natin ng isang mas malalim at matibay na ideolohiya—isang positibong paniniwala na magiging kontra-bisa sa ideolohiya ng karahasan. Dito pumapasok ang konsepto ng Progresibo, Responsable, at Organisadong Demokrasya.

Ito ay hindi simpleng political slogan. Ito ay isang panukalang pamumuhay. Isa itong sistema ng kaisipan na nakatuon sa pagkakapantay-pantay, pagtutulungan, at paggalang sa karapatang pantao.

• Progresibo, dahil kailangan natin ng lipunang umuunlad hindi lang sa ekonomiya kundi sa kaisipan at espiritwal na antas.

• Responsable, dahil bawat mamamayan ay may pananagutan sa kapwa, sa bansa, at sa kinabukasan.

• Organisado, sapagkat kailangan ng malinaw at matatag na mga institusyon at sistemang pampulitika upang maipatupad ang mga reporma.

Sa pamamagitan ng ideolohiyang ito, maaari nating hubugin ang bagong henerasyon ng mga Pilipino na hindi tumatangkilik sa dahas kundi sa diyalogo; na hindi humahanap ng ganti kundi ng katarungan; at higit sa lahat, naniniwala sa kapayapaan na nakaugat sa pagkakaisa, hindi sa takot.

Ang Labanan sa Kaisipan: Mga Halimbawa sa Kasaysayan

Isang mahalagang aral ang matututuhan natin sa dalawang mahahalagang kabanata sa kasaysayan ng mundo: ang Cold War ng Amerika at Russia, at ang Gulf War ng Amerika laban kay Saddam Hussein ng Iraq.

Sa laban kontra Komunismo sa Russia, hindi naglunsad ng total war ang Estados Unidos. Sa halip, ginamit nila ang ideolohiya, media, edukasyon, at kultura upang labanan ang Komunismo. Gumamit sila ng propaganda, pang-ekonomiyang estratehiya, at diplomatikong hakbang upang dahan-dahang mapatunayang ang liberal na demokrasya ay mas matatag kaysa diktadura.

Sa kabilang banda, sa kaso ni Saddam Hussein, naging sentral ang paggamit ng pwersang militar. Ngunit ano ang naging bunga? Sa halip na mapuksa ang banta, lalo pa itong lumalim at naging sanhi ng mas matinding terorismo, tulad ng pagsibol ng ISIS.

Dito natin nauunawaan: ang mga ideolohiya ay hindi natatalo sa pamamagitan ng dahas. Kailangang tugunan ang pinagmulan nito—ang kawalang pag-asa at kaisipang batay sa takot at galit. Dapat itong palitan ng ideolohiyang nakabatay sa pag-asa, pagkakaisa, at kapayapaan.

Ang Papel ng Mamamayan: Mula Indibidwal Hanggang Bansa

Kung nais natin ng tunay at pangmatagalang solusyon sa terorismo, kailangang simulan ito sa pinakaubod ng lipunan—ang indibidwal. Ang pagbabagong nais nating makita ay kailangang manggaling sa loob.

Ang ating edukasyon ay dapat hubugin sa diwa ng peace education. Ang ating mga kabataan ay dapat sanayin hindi lang para maging produktibo, kundi para maging mapagkalinga, makatao, at makabansa. Ang mga pamilyang Pilipino ay dapat pinalalakas upang ituro ang disiplina, hindi sa pamamagitan ng pananakit kundi sa pamamagitan ng mabuting halimbawa.

Ang Simbahan, paaralan, media, at pamahalaan ay may papel sa pagbabagong ito. Ang media ay kailangang tumigil sa pag-romantisize ng karahasan. Ang pulitika ay dapat ilayo mula sa sistemang trapo na lumilikha ng kawalang tiwala. At ang mga pinuno ng bayan ay dapat maging huwaran ng moralidad, pagkakaisa, at malasakit.

Kapayapaan Bilang Ideolohiya

Sa huli, ang labang ito ay hindi laban ng armas kundi ng ideolohiya. At kung nais nating manalo, kailangang mas maging makapangyarihan ang ating ideolohiya kaysa sa kanila.

Ang Progresibo, Responsable, at Organisadong Demokrasya ay hindi lamang kontra-bala sa terorismo. Ito ang ating panibagong pag-asa. Ito ang ating panibagong armas. At ito ang ating panibagong panata.

Hindi sapat na magalit tayo sa terorismo. Kailangan nating yakapin ang kapayapaan. At ito ay hindi lamang gawain ng pamahalaan—ito ay responsibilidad nating lahat.

Sa Dulo: Isang Panawagan

Ngayon, higit kailanman, kailangan nating magsama-sama. Kung tunay nating hangad ang kapayapaan, kailangang yakapin natin ang prinsipyo ng pagmamahalan kaysa galit, ang pagbuo kaysa pagsira, at ang pagkakaisa kaysa pagkakahiwalay.

Ito ang panawagan ng aking puso—bilang isang Pilipinong may paninindigan, bilang isang lingkod-bayan na nananalig sa kabutihan ng bawat isa, at bilang isang anak ng Inang Bayan na uhaw sa tunay na kapayapaan.

Huwag nating hayaang ang ideolohiya ng karahasan ang manaig. Iwasto natin ito gamit ang ideolohiya ng kapayapaan, katarungan, at demokrasya.

Sapagkat sa pagtatapos ng lahat ng digmaan, ang tanong ay hindi kung sino ang nanalo sa barilan, kundi kung paano natin pinanindigan ang dangal ng ating pagkatao—bilang mga Pilipinong may puso para sa kapayapaan at dangal para sa bayan.

___________________________________________________

*Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope is the Founder and National President of the 1st Philippine Pro-Democracy Foundation

 

Communism and the Bible

Communism is an experimental social system based on a set of ideals that, at first glance, seem to agree with some biblical principles. On a closer look, however, little evidence can be seen that the Bible truly supports or endorses communism. There is a difference between communism in theory and communism in practice, and the Bible verses that seem to comply with communist ideals are in fact contradicted by the practices of a communist government.

There is a surprising sentence in a description of the church in Acts 2 that has led many people to wonder whether the Bible supports communism, and has led some people to defend strongly the idea that communism is actually biblical. The passage reads, “All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need” (Acts 2:44-45). This statement seems to imply that communism (which has, at its heart, a desire to eliminate poverty by “spreading the wealth around”) is found here in the earliest of Christian churches. However, there is a crucial difference between the church in Acts 2 and a communist society that must be understood.

In the Acts 2 church, the people were giving to each other out of their own good will to those who had a need, and they were giving freely, without regulation of how much they were to give. In other words, they shared what they had out of a shared love for one another and a common goal—living for Christ and glorifying God. In a communist society, people give because a system of government forces them to give. They don’t have a choice in the matter as to how much they give or to whom they give. This, therefore, does not reflect on who they are; it says nothing about their identity or character. Under communism, the cheerful, generous giver and the stingy man are both required to give exactly the same amount – namely, everything they earn.

The issue is one of cheerful giving (which the Bible supports) vs. forced giving. Second Corinthians 9:7 says, “Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” After all, the Bible contains a great number of references to helping the poor, being generous with what we have, and looking out for those who are less fortunate. When we obey in this area with cheerful hearts with the proper motivation, our giving is pleasing to God. What is not pleasing to God is giving out of compulsion, because forced giving is not giving out of love and therefore profits nothing in the spiritual sense. Paul tells the Corinthians, “If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:3). But that is the inevitable result of communism.

Capitalism is actually a better system, when it comes to giving, because it has proven to increase individual wealth, which allows its citizens to give out of their increase. Communism has proven to simply make all its citizens poor, except the very few in power who decide where the wealth goes. But even capitalism won’t work, by itself, as a system for aiding the poor. It depends on its citizens to be diligent (Proverbs 10:4) and generous with the fruits of their labor (1 Timothy 6:18), and to give out of love for God and their neighbor. Thus, we see that God has designed for the physical and financial needs of the poor to be met by Christian individuals, rather than by any system of government.

All Communist governments have several things in common, tyranny, repression, totalitarianism, and a suppression of religion. Each Communist government in existence has proclaimed atheism. Karl Marx, the founder of Communism himself, called religion an opiate of the masses.

Marx had a rather pessimistic view on religion. He believed that religion was created by the upper class to control those below them. In other words, "You can't oppose us because God says that you must serve us." According to Marx, religion was meant solely to distract the workers and keep them from learning of their "depraved condition."

The Soviet Union under both Lenin and Stalin suppressed religion. The official Communist Party (the Party that ran the Soviet Union) line was Marxist. Therefore, organized religion was ended. Church lands were stolen by the government, clergymen (as Russia was mainly Christian) were imprisoned or executed, private schools were closed, and schoolchildren were indoctrinated to believe that God did not exist. Despite this, the Church survived in these areas, with the now Pope John Paul II championing the Catholic Church's cause in occupied Poland, up to celebrating Mass in all weather outdoors in an open field.

Communist China under Mao Zedong and his predecessors also attempted to scourge religion. He conducted a cultural revolution to rid himself of all threats and to "purify" China. This horrible act was carried out by thousands of brainwashed children wielding the little red book. In it, his soldiers killed clergymen of all religions, burned places of worship, not to mention killed millions of "subversives." Even as recent as today, China has suppressed religion; this summer it was busy jailing members of a religious sect conducting peaceful worship (it called their beliefs dangerous).

Cuba possibly the most pathetic of all of the Communist countries, also suppressed Christianity (again the dominant religion) up until the Pope's visit in the late '90s. Fidel Castro, Cuba's dictator even claimed that Christmas had to be cancelled because it interfered with crop harvesting! With the arrival of the Pope, Castro attempted to get back into the good graces of the world and allowed open religion again.

Now, it is impossible to destroy religion, people take it very seriously and even give their lives for their beliefs. Therefore, when the Communists ban religion, they replace it with a person. That is, the rulers form a cult of personality around their leader. Stalin made himself into a god for the Soviet Union; everything that turned out well was attributed to him. He even had Lenin's body embalmed after Lenin died so that people could "pray" to him. Mao also formed a cult of personality around him. George Orwell portrays this in his famous dystopia 1984. Big Brother, the all powerful ruler of the world in 1984, was created by the ruling class as a god of sorts. Religion had been completely destroyed, only the Party could be worshipped. Therefore, the Party created a face to rule Oceania, the super-state of Orwell's world. This person was basically worshipped by the people and represented an all-knowing omnipresence. All of Oceania's citizens had their religious drives channeled into serving the State in the form of Big Brother.

Now, why would tyrannous governments want to stop religion? Well, the most obvious answer to that is simple: competition. Communist governments do not want to have to compete for the loyalty of their followers, without God, these governments don't need to worry. Another reason is the "moral barometer." God, whether you believe in Him or not, represents all of the goodness in the world. Contrary to Marx's opinion, religion gives people a reason to fight tyranny, namely that it's wrong. If Communist governments acknowledged the existence of God, then their citizens would realize how horrible their governments really are. This is much too dangerous an option. Instead, God must not exist. To accomplish this, Communists create the "cults of personality" described above to channel all religious drive into the State. The State, represented by a Big Brother or a Stalin or even a Lenin, is the supreme good for which all people must slave for. The government can never be wrong if the government is God! Therefore, it seems that Communists don't not believe in God, they fear Him. Unfortunately for oppressors, as time has shown us, the suppressed movement is never destroyed; fortunately some religion or resistance remained, and even thrived, under the tyranny of Communism.

A covert war for Sabah

That is the basic reason why two governments normally send such claims for mediation with another government that both consider as neutral. It is up to the honest broker to mediate the talks and lead to an agreement.

In the case of the talks between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, can Malaysia be considered as an honest broker? The Philippines still has an existing claim on Sabah, which Malaysia contests. The claim has been dormant and to date, four Philippine administrations did nothing to press the Philippine claim.

A thorny history

The beginning of the dispute is generally believed to have began in 1878 when Baron von Overbeck, a consul of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in Hong Kong bought concession rights for Sabah, then known as North Borneo. The seeds of the Philippine claim were sown.

According to Rozan Yunos in a feature article published in the Brunei Times on Sept. 21, 2008, Overbeck played both sides of the street. When he formed the Dent Company with Alfred Dent of Hong Kong, Overbeck apparently agreed to pay leases to all who claimed land in Sabah, namely the Sultan of Brunei and the Sultan of Sulu. Other records state Overbeck agreed to pay $12,000 annually to the Sultan of Brunei on Dec. 29, 1877 and $5,000 to the Sultan of Sulu on Jan. 22, 1878.

When Overbeck failed to get funding support from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, he sold his rights to his business partner, Dent. Dent then obtained a royal charter from the British Crown, forming the British North Borneo Company. The company also took over the liabilities of the original company formed by Overbeck and Dent. “In awarding the Royal Charter, the British government assumed a form of sovereignty over the state especially its foreign relations,” wrote Yunos. “Because of this, the other western powers in the area immediately took renewed interest in Borneo and Malaya. However the Spanish agreed to British control over northern Borneo because the British accepted Spanish control over the Sulu Archipelago. The Germans also accepted British control over Sabah because the British agreed to accept German control over New Guinea.”

Yunos added: “It was the Dutch that tried to claim some land near Sandakan in 1879 but the British North Borneo Company objected to it. To solve the problems, both the Dutch and the British agreed to divide Borneo into a British area in the north and a Dutch area in the south.” This was later known as the “Madrid Protocol.”

British North Borneo Company effectively ruled Sabah for six decades, ending when the Imperial Japanese Army occupied the region at the onset of World War II.

After the war ended, a bankrupt British North Borneo Company, which could no longer afford reconstruction costs, ceded its rights to the British government on July 15, 1946. On Aug. 31, 1963, the British granted self-government to Sabah, Sarawak, and Malaya.

An overt and covert war

The post-war Philippine government under President Diosdado Macapagal began asserting its claim on Sabah on Sept. 12, 1962.

This was a period of tension in the region when diplomatic relations between Malaysia (then still known as Malaya), Indonesia and the Philippines were still shaky.

At around this time, Indonesian leader Sukarno, Malayan Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman and Macapagal met in Manila in what was publicly declared as talks for the formation of a new regional grouping to be known as Maphilindo (Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia).

But away from the public eye, the three leaders were actually pressing their respective territorial claims.

Aware of the brewing difficulty, the British government on Aug. 31, 1963, granted self-government over the states of Malaya and North Borneo.

According to a Time Magazine article on Aug. 9, 1963, Tunku was initially hesitant of getting self-government for Malaya early.

“The British government applied some needed stiffening to Tunku’s back by telling him bluntly that they were pulling their troops out of Sarawak and North Borneo (Sabah) on schedule, thereby opening both territories to possible Indonesian infiltration and terrorism,” the Time article said.

Because of the British pressure, Tunku and his allies organized a referendum wherein people in Sarawak and Sabah were asked if they wanted to join the Malaysian federation.

According to a retired Filipino military officer who was in Sabah during the referendum, Tunku “rigged” the polls. The officer told the Philippines Graphic that for a period before the polls, Tunku’s allies embarked on a policy of encouraging Malaysians to settle in Sabah while deporting those residents of Sabah who were of Filipino descent. He added that he sent his intelligence reports to another Filipino military officer based in Singapore.

The officer said he and his team of Filipino soldiers had the job of observing the referendum. When asked if they also had considered interrupting the polls, he declined to answer.

In another meeting in Manila, “Tunku pointedly reminded Sukarno that he had taken over West Irian without a plebiscite and that the legislatures of North Borneo and Sarawak had passed resolutions in favor of the new federation.” Publicly, Macapagal was posturing to be the peacemaker. However, because of intelligence reports received from the Filipino team in Sabah, events were to turn worse.

Manila broke relations with the newly formed Malaysia, whose capital was Kuala Lumpur, after it was confirmed that Sabah had joined the federation.

Sibling rivalry

At the same time, a shooting war erupted between Malaysia and Indonesia with Manila on the sidelines.

Ironically, just a month before the fighting started Macapagal had described the three countries as “triplets who became separated at birth, who were placed under the care of different foster parents but who have now come of age and are trying to rediscover their common origin and shape their common destiny.”

Manila, with strong ties to the United States, could not openly side with Indonesia against Malaysia, which was supported by the United Kingdom. Philippine involvement consisted of inserting teams of US-trained Filipino commandoes in some Indonesian.

According to various reports at that time, the British government sent 50,000 troops and 70 warships to defend Malaysia in the three-year war. There was no way that Manila, a US-backed nation, could openly go against British-backed Malaysia because of the huge British military involvement. Macapagal and the next President Ferdinand E. Marcos, knew this.

Operation Merdeka

Since Marcos was aware that Malaysia had just gone through a rough border war with Indonesia and was still reeling with the secession of Singapore in 1965, a new team of Filipino commandoes, many of whom were known as “third country operators” were tasked to destabilize Sabah.

Under the plan, codenamed Merdeka, once Sabah was embroiled in violence, Philippine troops would intervene to protect Filipinos in Sabah. With Malaysia still weakened with its border war with Indonesia, it was thought to be a plausible diplomatic excuse.

“I was already in Sabah, just waiting for orders from another officer in Singapore,” the officer told the Graphic.

The Philippine plan also called for recruiting young men from Sulu who were familiar with Sabah, training them and eventually sending them out on covert missions in Sabah.

Malaysia’s counter move

According to this officer, Malaysia launched a covert operation to disrupt the Philippine plan. It had to be a covert operation because Malaysia was still not strong enough to engage the Philippines openly. Besides, with both opposing sides having the the U.K. and the U.S. as firm partners, two major countries would firmly put their foot down to stop a shooting war between Kuala Lumpur and Manila.

As part of the Malaysian covert operation, the Malaysians established a commando unit in Sabah.

The Malaysian countermove, said the officer basically consisted two phases: Infiltrating the Filipino recruitment effort and then sowing dissension within the ranks of those recruited.

“They were successful in both phases,” the officer said.

The Graphic asked Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, who was defense secretary during much of the Marcos administration, if he had heard of such a Malaysian move.

Enrile said he had no knowledge of such an operation. When told of Enrile’s answer, the retired officer replied, “He’s right, he wouldn’t know. He was not part of the operation.”

Jabidah “Massacre”

With Malaysia successfully infiltrating the Filipino recruitment effort, the Malaysian commando unit ordered its men, believed to be Filipino Muslims who favored Malaysian control over Sabah, to begin the second phase. The second phase, sowing dissension, reaped its fruit in Corregidor when several trainees for the Philippine Sabah operation began complaining of poor pay and living conditions.

The officer related that several “trainees” attacked his colleagues at night. Most of the officers of the training cadre were in pup tents when the “trainees” crept up to them, he said.

One lieutenant was immediately killed and several other soldiers and officers were wounded in that attack, the retired officer claimed. Fortunately, others were able to fight back. At dawn, the remaining trainees were rounded up. Unsure of which of them had taken an active part in the night attack, they were mowed down.

One escaped and was able to swim ashore to Cavite where he was later presented to Congress and the press.

Once this was blown, the Malaysians had succeeded in thwarting the Philippine plan.

“It can be said, in a way, that Malaysia and the Philippines waged a covert war for Sabah,” the officer said. “Apparently, it was the Malaysians who won.”

Reference:http://philippinesgraphic.com

Perspectives in the Population Debate Today

By Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope

I’ve long believed that the question of population — its growth, distribution, and implications — is far more complex than the political soundbites or development slogans we hear every day. As I navigated the corridors of policy work, community development, and academic study, I often encountered people and groups so passionate about population — some in fear, others in hope — and it became clear that each had their own lens, their own story. It wasn’t enough for me to know what the data said. I had to understand the philosophies driving the discourse.

I remember coming across the work of Frank Furedi, who offered a map of the population debate that mirrored much of what I had been observing quietly. His classification wasn’t just academic — it felt like a compass for someone like me, who stood at the crossroads of development, governance, and human rights. Let me share, through my own reflections, what these perspectives mean to someone who has walked among policymakers, parents, priests, and the poor.

The Developmentalist: The Optimist Who Measures Growth in Smaller Families

There was a time in my earlier public service when I heard “development” and immediately thought of economic statistics — GDP, per capita income, industrial zones. I didn’t question then why population was always part of the conversation. Developmentalists argue that rapid population growth is a barrier — draining state resources and undermining infrastructure. And I understand why they feel that way. I’ve seen towns where schools are overcrowded, where clinics run out of medicine, where water can barely meet the needs of a growing city.

But I also saw something deeper: the belief that if we could just modernize — bring more jobs, improve healthcare, upgrade lifestyles — people would voluntarily choose smaller families. I remember meeting a young mother in Taguig who told me, “Sir, kung may trabaho lang asawa ko, dalawa lang sana anak ko.” That’s developmentalism in real life.

The Redistributionist: The Advocate for Social Justice

Later in my career, I found myself working more with NGOs and grassroots organizers. Their views challenged mine. They didn’t see population as the enemy — they saw poverty as the root. These were the redistributionists. Their argument was simple but powerful: people have large families not because they want to, but because they must. It’s a response to insecurity — economic, social, even existential.

One woman told me, “Hindi ko alam kung ilang anak ko ang aabot sa high school. Kaya marami ako.” That stayed with me.

Redistributionists call for education, especially for women, land reform, and access to reproductive health. They don’t think population growth causes poverty — they believe the reverse. And the moment I opened my heart to that truth, I started seeing public policy differently.

The Limited Resources Perspective: Counting the Planet’s Breath

As I worked with environmental advocates and urban planners, another view became hard to ignore — the limited resources perspective. Here, the issue wasn’t about poverty or wealth, but about the Earth itself. Clean air, fresh water, arable land — these aren’t infinite. And even if we could feed 100 million Filipinos, could we keep our rivers clean? Could we protect our forests?

In this view, population isn’t just a demographic issue — it’s ecological. And in a country as naturally rich but politically fragile as ours, the concern is real. In Palawan, I once spoke to a community leader who said, “Bago dumami ang tao rito, punong-puno ng isda ang dagat namin. Ngayon, wala na.”

I don’t see this perspective as alarmist. I see it as a sobering reminder that sustainability is not optional — it is survival.

The Socio-Biological Lens: When Fear Shapes Policy

This next perspective troubled me deeply. Socio-biological arguments take environmentalism to a darker place. They start to talk about people as polluters — as threats. I remember reading policies in some Western countries that spoke of “controlling fertility in the global South” with a coldness that reminded me of colonial manuals.

It made me think: Who gets to decide when a population is “too much”? I’ve seen how such thinking breeds racism, xenophobia, and cruel immigration policies. It reduces human lives to numbers, and mothers to liabilities.

This view is dangerous when left unchecked. Because once we start believing that the poor reproduce “too much,” we start justifying eugenics. And history tells us where that road leads.

The People-as-Instability Argument: Fear of the Future

In international summits and geopolitical briefings, I noticed a new language creeping in — one that linked population growth with global instability. The logic went like this: “If too many poor people feel disillusioned and powerless, they will rise up. They will migrate. They will destabilize our order.”

I saw this after the Cold War, when the West began seeing the Global South not just as aid recipients but as potential threats. And I couldn’t help but feel the subtle blame: as if the mere existence of frustrated, poor, young people was the ticking time bomb.

But I have met these young people. I’ve taught them. I’ve laughed and cried with them. They are not threats. They are potentials unrealized — hopes waiting to be activated. If the world fears them, the world must ask why it has failed them.

Women and Human Rights: The Feminist Truth

This perspective speaks the most to my belief in dignity and choice. High birth rates, some argue, aren’t just economic or cultural — they are political. They reflect a denial of women’s rights. I’ve seen this firsthand. I’ve met teenage girls forced into early marriages. Women who bore seven children without ever being asked if they wanted to.

When women are empowered — through education, healthcare, and voice — fertility rates decline naturally. And joyfully. They choose fewer children, not because they’re afraid or poor, but because they have agency.

I remember a workshop in Nueva Ecija where a young woman said, “Ngayon lang ako tinanong kung gusto ko pa ng anak.” That one question symbolized centuries of silence being broken.

The People-as-Problem-Solvers: The Hopeful View

Let me tell you about my grandfather. He was born poor, in a time when families had ten or more children because survival was uncertain. Yet he became an educator, a leader, and a father who raised us to think critically. He was proof that population isn’t always a burden—sometimes it’s a blessing.

That’s the heart of this final perspective. More people means more minds, more hands, more creativity. I’ve seen this in community enterprises where innovation didn’t come from millionaires but from farmers and fisherfolk solving problems with heart.

This approach reminds us that humans are not just mouths to feed—they are minds to empower. Investing in their potential could expand the limits of nature through human imagination.

A Final Reflection: Beyond the Numbers

In the end, none of these perspectives fully capture the complexity of population issues in the Philippines — or anywhere. But taken together, they form a mosaic. Some views focus on scarcity, others on justice. Some fear growth, others celebrate it.

I learned that the question is not how many we are, but how well we live and care for each other and the Earth that sustains us.

I remain cautious of policies that reduce people to figures or treat fertility as a crisis. I advocate for policies that provide people—especially women—choices, access, and dignity. I believe in solving problems by investing in human potential, not erasing it.

Population growth isn’t a threat. The real threat is inequality, exclusion, and the stubborn refusal to see people — especially the poor — as part of the solution.

Let’s not forget: every demographic number we discuss is a life, a story, a soul.

 

Scientific Origins of Eugenics

by Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD

There are stories in science that carry both brilliance and burden—stories that reflect our most profound attempts to better humanity and yet reveal how deeply flawed those efforts can become when driven by a dangerous moral certainty. One of those stories is eugenics.

The term “eugenics” might sound clinical or academic to many today, a relic buried somewhere between forgotten biology textbooks and World War II documentaries. Yet, in its time, it was not only a scientific idea—it was a movement, a philosophy, and even a political agenda. It promised a better human race through the selective encouragement or discouragement of reproduction. But as we peel back the layers, what is uncovered is less a tale of scientific progress and more a narrative of misguided moral ambition, cloaked in the language of science.

The Galtonian Dream: The Roots of Eugenics

It was Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, who first coined the term “eugenics” in 1883. Galton envisioned a noble goal: to improve the human race through careful selection, much like the selective breeding of animals. His idea, now referred to as positive eugenics, emphasized the encouragement of the “best and brightest” to reproduce more abundantly. For Galton, the pursuit was moral; he believed that science had the potential to elevate humanity to unprecedented heights (Kevles, 1985).

But even early on, there was a darker twin to this dream—negative eugenics. While positive eugenics hoped to inspire reproduction among the fit, negative eugenics aimed to prevent the unfit from reproducing at all. And in time, it was this second philosophy that gained more traction in state policy, especially in the United States, Germany, and Scandinavian countries.

Degeneracy Theory and the Fear of “Bad Blood”

A belief system known as degeneracy theory planted the seeds of eugenics centuries earlier. This theory, which held sway well into the 19th century, claimed that social and biological failures—mental illness, criminality, even poverty—were hereditary conditions caused by the deterioration of the human stock (Pick, 1989). Environmental toxins, moral decay, and yes, even masturbation (then called “onanism”) were believed to damage not just the body but future generations.

Such beliefs were not just idle superstition. They shaped law and medicine. In 1899, Dr. Harry Clay Sharp, a prison physician in Indiana, began sterilizing inmates—men he believed were degenerates. By 1907, the first state-mandated sterilization law was enacted in Indiana, requiring the sterilization of prisoners, the mentally ill, and other individuals deemed “unfit” (Lombardo, 2008).

Scientific Ideals and Agricultural Analogies

Early in the 20th century, eugenics started to adopt a scientific approach. Its proponents borrowed freely from agricultural science and genetics, applying Mendelian inheritance theories to human populations. The idea was simple: if a farmer could breed a stronger horse or a more fruitful plant, why not a healthier human being?

The Eugenics Record Office, established by Charles Davenport and Harry Laughlin, exemplified this trend. These men, who originally worked with chickens and crops, now turned their attention to humans. They charted family trees, documented criminal records, and declared the need to remove "bad stock" from the human gene pool (Davenport, 1911).

What’s striking is how clinical and unemotional their rhetoric was. The language was efficient, like that of a botanist pruning a tree. But behind it were real people—patients, prisoners, immigrants—individuals who were institutionalized or sterilized, often without full consent or understanding.

The Jukes, the Kallikaks, and the Demonization of Poverty

The movement also drew on social research to build its case. Richard Dugdale’s study of the Jukes family in 1877 painted a bleak picture of hereditary criminality and poverty. Similarly, Henry H. Goddard’s infamous work on the “Kallikak Family” claimed to demonstrate how a single act of indiscretion—one illegitimate child—had bred generations of “feeblemindedness” (Gould, 1981). These studies were often cited as proof that poverty, criminality, and mental illness were genetically determined.

Such research, later discredited, had real consequences. Immigrants were refused entry at ports, children were institutionalized, and families were torn apart—all under the banner of improving the race.

Eugenics and Medicine: The Pathologizing of the Poor

It wasn’t just scientists and politicians who promoted eugenics. Doctors, too, embraced it. Some viewed social deviance as a form of illness—a hereditary disease to be prevented, not cured. Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso declared that criminals were evolutionary throwbacks, “atavisms” of a more primitive human past.

In Germany, public health physician Rudolph Virchow blended the ideals of racial hygiene with state medicine. German-trained physicians, who championed "preventive eugenics," exported his ideas to America. As institutions became overcrowded with individuals deemed "undesirable," sterilization was viewed as a "humane" solution. If they could not be helped, they could at least be prevented from reproducing.

Doctors like Harry Sharp argued that sterilization was not punishment but compassion. It spared patients from lifelong institutionalization and spared the public the cost of their care. But beneath this reasoning was a terrible assumption—that some people were simply unworthy of existence as full members of society.

When Eugenics Becomes Policy

By the 1930s, more than 30 U.S. states had passed sterilization laws. By 1940, over 60,000 Americans had been forcibly sterilized. Many of these were women of color, immigrants, the poor, or those with disabilities.

These practices were supported by the U.S. Supreme Court, most notoriously in Buck v. Bell (1927), when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. infamously declared, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” It was a ruling that echoed for decades.

Germany took the logic of eugenics to horrifying extremes. The Nazi T4 program, which began with forced sterilizations, culminated in the mass murder of those deemed “life unworthy of life.” It was not a deviation from eugenic logic, but its full realization (Lifton, 1986).

The Turn Away—But Not Completely

After World War II, eugenics became a taboo word. The horrors of the Holocaust forced many nations to confront the dangerous paths that pseudoscience can take. Yet, the ideas behind eugenics—about who is worthy, who is fit, who is “better”—never completely disappeared.

Even today, modern genetics and reproductive technology raise challenging ethical questions. Where is the line between choice and coercion? Between prevention and discrimination?

In retrospect, what began as a hopeful dream for some—a dream of curing illness, ending poverty, and perfecting mankind—was built on a foundation of fear, classism, racism, and ableism. It is a cautionary tale that reminds us: when science becomes untethered from compassion, humility, and human rights, it can become a dangerous ideology.

A Personal Reflection

As an educator, public servant, and advocate for justice, I, Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, reflect on this chapter of human history not with detachment, but with a deep sense of responsibility. We cannot afford to forget how easy it is for science to be weaponized when we lose sight of the human beings behind the data.

Eugenics, though wrapped in the promise of human progress, was ultimately an ideology that divided, hurt, and dehumanized. It’s a reminder that the worth of a human being is not found in their IQ, lineage, or productivity—but in their inherent dignity as a person.

May we never again mistake precision for wisdom or ambition for ethics. And may we always remember: science serves humanity, not the other way around.

References (APA Style, Pre-2010)

• Davenport, C. B. (1911). Heredity in Relation to Eugenics. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

• Gould, S. J. (1981). The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

• Kevles, D. J. (1985). In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

• Lifton, R. J. (1986). The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide. New York: Basic Books.

• Lombardo, P. A. (2008). Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

• Pick, D. (1989). Faces of Degeneration: A European Disorder, c. 1848–c. 1918. Cambridge University Press.