*Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD, DM
When we ask whether a public figure has betrayed the nation, we must move beyond emotion and look squarely at actions, context, and implications. The comparison between Felipe Buencamino and Rodante Marcoleta forces us to confront uncomfortable truths about calculated preservation, political realism, and the perception of alignment.
Historically, Buencamino began as a functionary under Spanish rule, later joined the revolutionary government of Emilio Aguinaldo, served as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and participated in the Malolos Congress. He was not initially anti-revolution; he helped institutionalize it. But as the Philippine-American War intensified and American forces overwhelmed Filipino resistance, Buencamino advocated negotiation and eventual pacification. He later became a prominent leader of the Partido Federalista, openly supporting American sovereignty and even U.S. statehood for the Philippines. That shift from revolutionary independence to support for American annexation remains the core of the historical controversy. To uncompromising figures like Antonio Luna, this was surrender. To Buencamino, it was the calculated preservation of the belief that institutional continuity and the protection of Filipino lives under American rule were preferable to a prolonged and unwinnable war.
In the present era, Marcoleta operates within a sovereign Philippine Republic. His influence is exercised through legislative hearings, public inquiries, and policy debates. His method is unmistakably legalistic. He approaches national issues through statutory interpretation, constitutional argument, and procedural scrutiny. In debates concerning the West Philippine Sea, he has emphasized legal definitions, jurisdictional limits, and the importance of precise framing. He has questioned rhetorical strategies that lean heavily on confrontational symbolism without equal emphasis on enforceable legal boundaries.
It is here that perception becomes geopolitically sensitive. The People’s Republic of China continues to assert expansive claims in the South China Sea and rejects the 2016 arbitral ruling in favor of the Philippines. When a Filipino legislator questions assertive national narratives or tempers confrontational rhetoric, critics argue that such positions, whether intended or not, can be interpreted as softening resistance. In this sense, some observers claim that Marcoleta’s actions and framing impliedly align with China’s preferred narrative, not through formal endorsement, but through strategic posture that appears less confrontational. In geopolitics, implication can carry as much weight as declaration.
This is where the concept of calculated preservation must be carefully examined. Calculated preservation is the philosophy that national survival and institutional stability should take precedence over symbolic defiance. Buencamino’s calculated preservation meant accepting American sovereignty as a transitional reality, believing that survival within an imperial framework would allow Filipinos to rebuild and eventually progress toward self-government. Marcoleta’s calculated preservation, in the eyes of his supporters, emphasizes legal discipline, diplomatic restraint, and institutional continuity rather than escalation. Both approaches prioritize structural stability and domestic survival over emotional confrontation and rhetoric nationalism.
However, calculated preservation carries risks. It can be perceived as weakness. It can be misunderstood as accommodation. It may protect institutions in the short term while eroding public morale in the long term. National loyalty is not only about technical correctness; it is also about collective confidence and strategic messaging. Leaders must therefore weigh not only the legality of their arguments but also the psychological and diplomatic signals they transmit.
So are they betrayers of the nation? Betrayal requires deliberate abandonment of national interest in favor of a foreign power. The historical record shows Buencamino ultimately aligned himself with American sovereignty after military defeat, an act many interpret as abandonment of revolutionary independence. In Marcoleta’s case, what exists is a controversy over implication and strategic framing rather than explicit renunciation of Philippine sovereignty. Disagreement with his positions does not automatically equate to disloyalty. Yet in matters of territorial integrity, even perceived softness can trigger serious public concern.
The debate surrounding these two figures reveals an enduring national dilemma. Should loyalty to country be measured by uncompromising resistance or by cautious institutional preservation? Should leaders prioritize symbolic assertion or legal defensibility? These questions continue to divide opinion across generations.
In the end, judgment must be anchored in evidence and context, not solely in emotion. Calculated preservation may be a strategy of survival, but it must always be balanced with visible commitment to national interest. Otherwise, perception may overshadow intent.
History will continue to scrutinize Buencamino. Contemporary politics will continue to scrutinize Marcoleta. But as a nation, we must learn to distinguish between controversial strategy and genuine abandonment of national loyalty. Only then can our discourse mature beyond accusation and toward principled evaluation.
__
*About the author:
