Official Website of Dr. Jose V. Abueva


Home arrow About JVA arrow Research and Publications arrow NISMED Auditorium, U.P. Diliman
Sunday, 05 September 2010
Main Menu
Home
Commentaries
Postings
Links
About JVA
Writings/Publications
Search
Newsflash

The Filipino Nation: A Boholano View

The Bohol Chronicle, July 18, 2010

  

By Jose “Pepe” Abueva

  

A diverse, Global Nation

  

“Boholano” is Spanish, English or Filipino for “Bol-anon,” the identity I prefer if I were writing in “Binol-anon” or “Binisaya.” I grew up in Bohol in my first 19 years, after my birth in Tuburan, Cebu (Sugbo) in 1928. I was born of a Bol-anon father, Teodoro (Doro) Lloren Abueva, and a Sugbo-anon (which I prefer to Cebuano) mother, Purificacion (Nena) Gonzales Veloso. Therefore, my ethnic identity is Bol-anon-Sugbo-anon or simply Bisaya, which is my mother language and geographic identity.

 

 

But Bisaya connotes all of the Visayas which should include the peoples of West, Central, and Eastern Visayas, and all the peoples there who speak Ilongo or Hiligaynon, Kinaray-an, Sugbo-anon, Waray, and Binol-anon. I say “peoples” to emphasize our plural ethnic-linguistic-cultural identities: how we identify ourselves as a people or community in regard to other Filipinos.

 

 

By law (the Constitution) we, mga Bisaya, and all other Filipinos, are citizens of the Philippines. The “Filipino nation” as our inclusive community is only presumed. It is not specifically defined—in the 1935, 1973, and 1987 constitutions. The Malolos Constitution was explicit: “Article 1. The political association of all Filipinos constitutes the nation, whose state shall be known as the Philippine Republic.”   

 

We, mga Bisaya, and many more ethno-linguistic peoples of the Philippines make up the Filipino Nation. To mention only a few others: the Tagalogs, Ilocanos, Ifugaos, Bicolanos, Maranaos, Maguindanaos, Lumads, Tausugs, Palaweños, Mindanaonons. We speak no less than 15 major Filipino languages, not just “dialects” as we wrongly call them.

 

 

The survival of our many mother languages shows their vigor and tenacity and our resilience as separate ethno-linguistic-cultural communities through many years of Spanish and American colonialism, and the much shorter Japanese occupation. For this our fragmented geography has been a major factor. On the other hand, many Filipinos learned English under American influence. This is a unifying element in Filipino nation-building and a distinct advantage in a globalizing world. But English is also a divisive and alienating force for Filipinos who mainly speak it, and those who don’t speak it and prefer their mother tongue, or our national language.

 

 

Like it or not, the legal imposition and learning of Filipino as the “evolving” national language and an official language based on Tagalog is unifying the nation. After all Filipino is an indigenous or native lingua franca propagated by the schools and the mass media, official usage, and domestic travel. In 1988, as President of the University of the Philippines, I initiated the policy on the development and use of Filipino as a language of undergraduate instruction in the University at par with English, and encouraged as well the development and use of other Filipino languages.

 

 

However, it should also be admitted that the widening use of Filipino is weakening and even killing our other Filipino languages, undermining our multicultural and linguistic heritage as a nation. Thus the urgency and importance of the nascent Mother Language Education (MLE) initiative that will teach our children their Mother Tongue as their bridge in learning science, mathematics, Filipino, and English.

 

 

We should realize that we are a fast-growing, developing nation and aspiring democracy. With our population of 94 million, the Philippines is now the world’s 12th most populous nation, although in land area our homeland is among the smallest (in 71st place). With some 10 million Filipinos abroad as permanent residents or transient workers, we are truly a Global Filipino Nation, far more multi-lingual and multi-cultural than ever before.

 

 

A weak but awakening Nation

  

Despite more than a century of nation-building, however, one of the reasons for our inability to develop and democratize effectively has to do with the failure of our leaders to unite, challenge and inspire our diverse peoples as one nation and to solve our problems of poverty, inequality, unemployment, and injustice. Too many of our leaders particularly, as well as citizens, may not love our country enough to transcend our selfish personal and family interests when called upon to obey the laws, elect leaders, support change and reforms, and sacrifice to promote our common good and national interest.

 

 

These deficiencies mark us as a weak nation in the face of our grave problems and challenges. We are unhappy when we observe the national unity and progress of the Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, and Singaporeans.

 

 

One scholar has suggested that we accept the reality that we, Filipinos, are really many different nations, not one. Another has raised the question whether Mindanao belongs to the Philippines, Mindanaonons being essentially and historically “a Southeast Asian nation.”

 

    

Every nation needs social and political trust as “social capital.” In this regard the Filipino nation has a troubling deficit. In my national U.P. survey in 2001 majority of our respondents agreed with these test statements: (1) “Most Filipinos do not trust each other” (57 percent) ; and (2) “Most Filipinos would know what is for the common good but care only for what is good for them and their family” (73 percent). Moreover, there is social class animosity as may be shown by the response to this test statement: “In our society, the poor people are oppressed or exploited by the rich and powerful people” (65 percent). 

 

All Filipinos enjoy religious freedom. However, Muslims resent their relative poverty, deprivation, exploitation, repression, and underdevelopment compared to the dominant Christians. Thus the perennial Moro struggle for political and cultural autonomy, if not secession, and the Moro rebellions since the early 1970s. Some Muslims regard themselves more as Moros, or Maranaos, Maguindanaos, and Tausogs, than as Filipinos.

 

 

On the other hand, the so-called Maoist Communist rebellion dates back to 1968, succeeding the Soviet-oriented Communism that began decades earlier. Most NPA rebels feel the noted grievances of the Muslims more than they share a Maoist communist ideology.

 

 

There is growing resentment of our highly centralized, Manila-centric governance expressed in the term “Imperial Manila.” This fuels the legitimate demand for regional and local autonomy and even federalism, to achieve national unity and development in diversity.

 

 

Ideas for nation-building and unity focus on what may be done to strengthen our weak Filipino nation. Led by Senator Leticia R. Shahani and Dr. Patricia B. Licuanan, The Moral Recovery Program in 1988 urged our people to develop: “(1) a sense of patriotism and national pride, a genuine love, appreciation and commitment to the Philippines and things Filipino; (2) a sense of the common good, the ability to look beyond selfish interests, a sense of justice, and a sense of outrage at their violation; (3) a sense of integrity and accountability, an aversion towards graft and corruption in society and an avoidance of the practice in one’s daily life; (4) the value and habits of discipline and hard work; and (5) the value and habits of self-reflection and analysis, the internalization of spiritual values, the emphasis on essence rather than form.”

  

We celebrate our national unity in ending the 14-year Marcos dictatorship peacefully in 1986, which the world acclaimed. We proudly commemorated our Centennial of the Filipino Revolution and the First Philippine Republic in 1996-98. We take pride in Gawad Kalinga  as a people’s movement in confronting poverty and nation-building. We rejoice in every victory of Manny Pacquiao and applaud the recognition of outstanding Filipinos in other global competitions.

 

 

More than before we may want to work as one in the wake of our generally peaceful 2010 elections, with hopes of national unity, good governance, and much less corruption. Instead of pitying ourselves as victims of our colonial past and “a damaged culture,” we should assert our national identity and destiny as Indios Bravos in a borderless world.

 

  
 
NISMED Auditorium, U.P. Diliman PDF Print E-mail
Written by Administrator   
Monday, 26 July 2010

Introduction of Dr. Jose V. Abueva on his

U.P. Centennial Lecture July 22, 2008,

 NISMED Auditorium, U.P. Diliman  By Professor Gemino H. Abad

University Professor Emeritus, CAL, U.P. Diliman   

 

President Roman, Regent Nelia Gonzales, Members of UP’s Board of Regents, Vice President for Academic Affairs Amy Guevara, Chancellor Gerry Cao, Officers of Administration, Colleagues, mga Iskolar ng Bayan, Friends of the University. 

To know a man in his heart of hearts is to know his dream.

 

Those of us who have had the good fortune and honor to be fellow-servants and friends of Dr. Jose V. Abueva call him "Pepe" - with great affection and admiration because we know his dream.

 

Pepe's dream: a just, caring, and humane society.

 

All Pepe's words and actions flow like a great river toward giving voice and body to that dream.

 

It must have been that dream that fired up the young U.P. student from Bohol. In 1951 he finished his bachelor's degree in Arts / Law in U.P. Diliman where he worked as library assistant, earning 50 centavos an hour. By 1959 he had obtained his Master's degree in public administration and Ph.D. in political science at the University of Michigan, and in 1962, he was one of "Ten Outstanding Young Men" in our country.

 

In the early '60s, Pepe was a leading force in what is now the National College of Public Administration and Governance, founding its quarterly journal, developing with his colleagues its doctoral program, and undertaking path-breaking studies in many areas which are now embodied in the College's Center Leadership, Citizenship and Democracy.

 

And soon enough Pepe was involved in our country's affairs outside academe. Among numerous engagements, he was in 1970 Executive Director of the joint executive-legislative Local Government Reform Commission, and from 1971 to 1973, he was Secretary of the Constitutional Convention, elected to that sensitive position by the delegates themselves. Much later on, he served in 1989 as Chairman of the Legislative-Executive Bases Council which prepared the Comprehensive Conversion Program for Alternative Uses of Military Baselands; this became the framework for the conversion of Subic, Clark, and other military camps. Pepe also served in 2005 as Chairman of the Consultative Commission to propose revisions of the Philippine Constitution.

 

But Pepe was also an international public servant as expert and specialist, as consultant, as member of advisory boards and task forces. And for ten years since 1977, Pepe was Secretary of the UN University's governing board and later, its Director of Planning and Evaluation before he took the helm of the University of the Philippines as its 15th President in 1987.

 

In the spirit of EDSA, Pepe ran the University's affairs as a democratic and collegial president. Soon enough, as with all his predecessors, the UP proved a fiery crucible, but Pepe was not one who would run away or hide. He listened and stood his ground for whatever was right and fair.

 

One controversy dealt with a basic reform in the system of tuition fees and subsidies; in this arena, Pepe had to counter the organized resistance of both upper-class students accustomed to their privileges and militant students who wanted a totally free university education. But for Pepe, the goal was very clear, there was no way he would be prevented from achieving it: equal opportunity and social justice through equitable tuition fees and redistribution of State subsidies, the students assessed on their capacity to pay, and the poor among them exempted from payment and granted more subsidies besides.

 

Another controversy, perhaps the most bitter, concerned the rights of six students who were prevented by their faculty from pursuing their studies. The faculty leaders brought Pepe and the Chancellor all the way to the Supreme Court, but Pepe prevailed, for the basic issue was fairness and equity.

 

Academic excellence and public service: that is what U.P. is all about, and what makes her noble and great. Pepe knew that and upheld it, and challenged his colleagues, for he also knew that in U.P. as a community of scholars there are "ecosystems of excellence, ambivalence, and mediocrity." He stressed interdisciplinary research and dialogue, outreach programs, commitment to addressing national issues and problems and offering policy options and programmatic solutions. In all these endeavors Pepe wanted to deepen everyone's awareness of the practical competencies and moral and ethical obligations of citizenship and leadership. For "authentic development," he says, "is essentially moral in character."

 

Aware as Pepe is that the immense task of nation-building is never fully done, his vision of U.P. is wedded to the Constitutional vision for our country. All his efforts as UP President aligned the University's objectives with the necessary many-faceted social transformation which would enable us to achieve the "Good Society" envisioned in our Constitution. To mention only a few landmarks – the Oblation scholarship and the highest academic rank of University Professor, the Sentro ng Wikang Filipino, the University Center for Women's Studies, the series of Assessments of the State of the Nation, the series of Anthology of Filipino Socio-Political Thought, the Dictionary of Cultural Literacy for Filipinos - these are part of UP President Abueva's legacy to our people. "One of my deepest satisfactions," Pepe writes in his latest book, "is that my concept... of UP as the National University, and my proposal to exempt UP from the salary standardization law, ... were finally embodied in the UP Charter of 2008 ... signed into law on April 27, 2008."

 

When Pepe retired, he didn't - instead, he founded Kalayaan College at Riverbanks Center in Marikina. Today Pepe is a staunch advocate of a federal republic with a parliamentary government and the requisite revision of our country's Constitution. Pepe has always been a person of sturdy principles and robust convictions, and is never fazed by any controversy or opposition; he would fearlessly come to terms with it toward a just resolution.

 A prodigious scholar, with numerous works published here and abroad, and many awards and citations to his name; an exemplary indefatigable public servant of his country and of the world; a man of compassion, with a gentle sense of humor; a generous soul, congenitally incapable of malice; a friend to all, openhanded with warmth and cheer - I give you such a man, Dr. Jose "Pepe" Veloso Abueva. 18 July 2008
Last Updated ( Monday, 26 July 2010 )
 
Next >
Design by KC Web Development Team