Luna of our time

I subscribe to the thought that the most compelling evidence of charity or affection is not donating or giving money. Don’t get me wrong, any generosity is right and commendable. My only point is that it does not take much away from a person to let go of some excess. What is a more compelling expression is the gift of one’s time because it becomes personal. How puny this thought is, however, if you are refreshed about what those who lived before us and our convenient lives were required to give.

If Antonio Luna was merely a brave general and great military genius, we would be more consoled had he died in the battlefield. But he had what present-day students and professionals aspire for or even dream of. To begin with, he won a “genetic lottery”, being born of an affluent lineage. At a time when foreign travel took weeks by ship and opportunity for foreign education for Filipinos was rare, he obtained then his Doctorate at the Universidad Central de Madrid. With his pioneering thesis in chemistry and malaria treatment, he was quite on his way to becoming a recognized scientist. His rarity as a global professional set him up to earn tons of money and fame, safely tucked in the comforts of international modern living. But he turned his back on all his entitlements and lived the few remaining years of his life in what would be a showcase of the best traits of a Filipino, and the worst things about what a Filipino can do to his countrymen.

If you ask people on the emotional effect of having watched the film on Luna, particularly whether it brought out the nationalist or patriot in them, it may not be surprising that for many, the honest answer is – not really. How can anyone be blamed for treating Luna as a historical lesson when the conquerors of the nation then that our heroes sought to eject, are the very nations whose support and patronage we now seek to keep.

Our own Constitution, in its declaration of principles, speaks of nationalism and patriotism as values that should be part of what the educational system inculcates. Nationalism and patriotism have been defined and written about, with the former being tagged as more selfish than the latter. For me, the more important concept, although not less confusing, is national interest. It is the sword used flexibly to shape our international relations.

Case in point is the hills and valleys of our relationship with the US, colonizer of the Philippines after Spain and vigorously fought by Filipinos from 1899 to 1902. If there was any vivid evidence of the Philippines and the US being on the same side, it needed to wait until World War II, the last stand in the battle of Corregidor where US and Philippine soldiers fought side by side to their deaths until their supplies ran out. After the liberation, their true colors showed, as they demanded and succeeded in the passage of the Bell Trade Act in 1946 that included the infamous one-way “Parity Rights”. American government and companies can explore natural resources in the country unhindered as Filipinos would. In the name of national interest, it was passed by our legislators so that the Philippines can access war compensation, investments and loans from the US to rebuild the country after the war.

The one-way “Parity Rights” and the presence of US military bases that operated almost autonomously in our own country fueled much of the nationalistic sentiments that resulted to the amendment of the Philippine Constitution. Foreign ownership became limited to 40 percent in companies owning land, exploring natural resources and running public utilities. US bases were booted out of the country after so many public rallies in 1991. National interest, however, justified the signing of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and the continued military cooperation with the US. Today, three decades after ejecting the US bases, its return appears to be one of the possibilities if only to ward off the creeping construction of China into Philippine territory.

Business groups today likewise strongly advocate the relaxation of rigid foreign equity limitations to make the country more competitive with neighboring economies and make the Philippines inch its way from the bottom of favored investment destinations. While it is against the interest of Filipinos in general to have real estate prices rocket to unaffordability in urban areas, it is in our interest to have developments in rural areas that can be made more possible if foreign capital can have more at stake. While there is sense for keeping public utilities under the control of Filipino companies, it is also consistent with national interest to relax foreign equity rules if only to make less costly and better services available for all.

For me, the relaxation of foreign equity rules is not much different in principle with the principle of lowering of tariffs on imports. When petitions were made before the Supreme Court as early as two decades ago against the lowering of tariffs, the Supreme Court said that is not the Filipino manufacturers who deserve protection. It is the Filipino consumers who should be protected from inefficient products or services. More choices in the market indeed improve the level of quality and competitiveness that benefit everyone in the long run.

The world and different economies now thrive on collaboration and interdependence, so much so that national interest now dictates less nationalist but more “internationalist” mentalities. There is no excuse, however, to ignore the lessons from Luna. We do not require our leaders to die for our country, for we do not want wars or dead heroes anymore; but we require them to respect human life, political opponent or otherwise. We do not require our leaders to give their personal wealth to the government, but we require them not to make public office a business and greed a virtue.

Our citizens are not required to take up arms today to be patriots, but we will be better off if each one will be armed with the weapon of discipline for progress. And for all who genuinely feel that if called for, they will risk life and fortune and do what the Katipuneros did – why wait? The battleground is not only in choosing the right leader as if everything depended on your choice. It is in doing something for positive change, for the country, as if all of that change depended on you.

We are not required to give up our entitlements but only to secure a Luna thesis when our history is written in the future. The thesis should not be about “Why I am ashamed to be a Filipino,” but about “Why I am proud to be Filipino!”

* * *

Alexander B. Cabrera is the chairman and senior partner of Isla Lipana & Co./PwC Philippines. He also chairs the tax committee of the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP). Email your comments and questions to [email protected]. This content is for general information purposes only, and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional advisors.