REPUBLIC ACT NO.

1425

AN ACT TO INCLUDE IN THE CURRICULA OF ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS, COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES COURSES ON THE LIFE, WORKS AND WRITINGS OF JOSE RIZAL, PARTICULARLY HIS
NOVELS NOLI ME TANGERE AND EL FILIBUSTERISMO, AUTHORIZING THE PRINTING AND
DISTRIBUTION THEREOF, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

WHEREAS, today, more than any other period of our history, there is a need for a re-
dedication to the ideals of freedom and nationalism for which our heroes lived and died;

WHEREAS, it is meet that in honoring them, particularly the national hero and patriot, Jose
Rizal, we remember with special fondness and devotion their lives and works that have
shaped the national character;

WHEREAS, the life, works and writing of Jose Rizal, particularly his novels Noli Me Tangere
and El Filibusterismo, are a constant and inspiring source of patriotism with which the minds
of the youth, especially during their formative and decisive years in school, should be
suffused;

WHEREAS, all educational institutions are under the supervision of, and subject to regulation
by the State, and all schools are enjoined to develop moral character, personal discipline,
civic conscience and to teach the duties of citizenship; Now, therefore:

Section 1. Courses on the life, works and writings of Jose Rizal, particularly his novel Noli
Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, shall be included in the curricula of all schools, colleges
and universities, public or private: Provided, That in the collegiate courses, the original or
unexpurgated editions of the Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo of their English
translation shall be used as basic texts.

The Board of National Education is hereby authorized and directed to adopt forthwith
measures to implement and carry out the provisions of this Section, including the writing
and printing of appropriate primers, readers and textbooks. The Board shall, within sixty (60)
days from the effectivity of this Act, promulgate rules and regulations, including those of
disciplinary nature, to carry out and enforce the provisions of this Act. The Board shall
promulgate rules and regulations providing for the exemption of students for reasons of
religious belief stated in a sworn written statement, from the requirement of the provision
contained in the second part of the first paragraph of this section; but not from taking the
course provided for in the first part of said paragraph. Said rules and regulations shall take
effect thirty (30) days after their publication in the Official Gazette.

Sec. 2. It shall be obligatory on all schools, colleges and universities to keep in their
libraries an adequate number of copies of the original and unexpurgated editions of the Noli
Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, as well as of Rizal's other works and biography. The said
unexpurgated editions of the Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo or their translations in
English as well as other writings of Rizal shall be included in the list of approved books for
required reading in all public or private schools, colleges and universities.

The Board of National Education shall determine the adequacy of the number of books,
depending upon the enrollment of the school, college or university.
Sec. 3. The Board of National Education shall cause the translation of the Noli Me Tangere
and El Filibusterismo, as well as other writings of Jose Rizal into English, Tagalog and the
principal Philippine dialects; cause them to be printed in cheap, popular editions; and cause
them to be distributed, free of charge, to persons desiring to read them, through the Purok
organizations and Barrio Councils throughout the country.

Sec. 4. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as amendment or repealing section nine
hundred twenty-seven of the Administrative Code, prohibiting the discussion of religious
doctrines by public school teachers and other person engaged in any public school.

Sec. 5. The sum of three hundred thousand pesos is hereby authorized to be appropriated
out of any fund not otherwise appropriated in the National Treasury to carry out the
purposes of this Act.

Sec. 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Rizal Law not being followed

By Ambeth Ocampo
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 23:06:00 02/21/2008
While the Senate is now looking for other anomalies to investigate, of course in aid of
legislation, maybe we should go back to the laws of the land that have not been fully
implemented. I’m sure there are a lot of these around, but just recently I was reviewing some
specific provisions of Republic Act 1425, more popularly known as the “Rizal Law.” This law
turned half-century last year, and one wonders how much of it has been complied with, how
much of it is continuously being applied. True, Jose Rizal is studied in school, but the manner of
teaching is inconsistent, the textbooks and reading materials while voluminous vary a great deal
in quantity and quality.
The last time RA 1425 came to public attention was when then-President Fidel V. Ramos
ordered the Commission on Higher Education to fully implement the Rizal Law. Memos were
exchanged, opinions were sought, then the issue was forgotten. One wonders about the real state
of the teaching of Rizal in Philippine schools, colleges and universities today.
Young people today are different from the youth half a century ago. Can we force Generation X
to read the novels when their generation is more attuned to moving pictures than hard text?
Would it help if the “Noli” and “Fili” were available as graphic novels or short YouTube video
clips? With the continuing decline in English and the nearly extinct reading proficiency in
Spanish, how can we make Rizal’s novels better known, better read? I’m thinking aloud here and
soliciting suggestions.
I read through the law last year to prepare for a seminar on the teaching of the Rizal courses, and
I noted that Section 1 of the law says: “Courses on the life, works and writings of Jose Rizal,
particularly his novels ‘Noli Me Tangere’ and ‘El Filibusterismo,’ shall be included in the
curricula of all schools, colleges and universities, public or private; Provided, That in the
collegiate courses, the original or unexpurgated editions of the ‘Noli Me Tangere’ and ‘El
Filibusterismo’ or their English translations shall be used as basic texts.”
When my students took their Noli/Fili test last week, I saw that many had the versions of the
novels I required: Soledad Lacson Locsin for those who read English and those of Virgilio S.
Almario for those who preferred to read in Filipino (the original Spanish is the best, of course,
but nobody opted for it). Walking on the aisles as they took the test, I saw students with the
awful “komiks” [comic-book] version. Others came with their high school textbooks, actually
dated primers, readers and textbooks that provided chapter summaries and guide questions.
Some downloaded material from the Internet -- chapter summaries again -- while a minority
studied in groups and came with such very detailed notes on every character and event in the
novels that I think they missed the point. It pained me to think that they read Rizal to pass the
test rather than for pleasure, but then that is what the law requires.
I did not stress the fact that there is a little-known escape clause in the law that grants exemption
from the reading of the novels based on religious belief, but not from the course. We are told that
until now nobody has applied for this exemption simply because anyone who wants to avail of it
will not know how to go about it. I have challenged students to make history and test the limits
of the law. So far, no takers.
What has not been complied with are two sections of the law making the novels available and
accessible: “It shall be obligatory on all schools, colleges and universities to keep in their
libraries an adequate number of copies of the original and expurgated editions of the ‘Noli Me
Tangere’ and ‘El Filibusterismo,’ as well as Rizal’s other works and biography. The said
unexpurgated editions of the ‘Noli Me Tangere’ and ‘El Filibusterismo’ or their translations in
English as well as other writings of Rizal shall be included in the list of approved books for
required reading in all public or private schools, colleges and universities. The Board of National
Education shall determine the adequacy of the number of books, depending upon the enrollment
of the school, college or university.”
Will we find enough copies of the novels on the shelves of libraries to serve entire school
populations? What was the intent of the law? To make copies available for free for every
student? Or just enough for reference? Section 3 makes this clear:
“The Board of National Education shall cause the translation of the ‘Noli Me Tangere’ and ‘El
Filibusterismo,’ as well as other writings of Jose Rizal into English, Tagalog and the principal
Philippine dialects; cause them to be printed in cheap, popular editions; and cause them to be
distributed, free of charge, to persons desiring to read them, through the Purok organizations and
the Barrio Councils throughout the country.”
This last section is a financial bonanza for textbook publishers. Now, try walking into your
barangay hall and ask for “Noli Me Tangere.” We have so many laws and yet we continue to
craft new ones. With RA 1425 as an example can’t we just make sure old laws are fully
implemented before we resume investigation in aid of legislation?
***

Nationalism can refer to an ideology, sentiment, a form of culture, or a social movement that
focuses on the nation.[1] While there is significant debate over the historical origins of nations,
nearly all specialists accept that nationalism, at least as an ideology and social movement, is a
modern phenomenon originating in Europe.[2] Precisely where and when it emerged is difficult to
determine, but its development is closely related to that of the modern state and the push for
popular sovereignty that came to a head with the French Revolution in the late eighteenth
century. Since that time, nationalism has become one of the most significant political and social
forces in history, perhaps most notably as a cause of both the First and Second World Wars.
As an ideology, nationalism holds that 'the people' in the doctrine of popular sovereignty is the
nation, and that as a result only nation-states founded on the principle of national self-
determination are legitimate. Since most states are multinational, or at least home to more than
one group claiming national status,[3] the pursuit of this principle has often led to conflict, and
nationalism is commonly associated with war (both external and domestic), secession, and even
genocide in contexts ranging from imperial conquest to struggles for national liberation.
Nationalism does not always lead to violence, however, and it plays an integral role in the daily
lives of most people around the world. Flags on buildings, the singing of national anthems in
schools and at public events, and cheering for national sports teams are all examples of everyday,
'banal' nationalism that is often unselfconscious.[4] Moreover, some scholars argue that
nationalism as a sentiment or form of culture, sometimes described as 'nationality' to avoid the
ideology's tarnished reputation, is the social foundation of modern society. Industrialization,
democratization, and support for economic redistribution have all been at least partly attributed
to the shared social context and solidarity that nationalism provides.[5][6][7]
Nevertheless, nationalism remains a hotly contested subject on which there is little general
consensus. The clearest example of opposition to nationalism is cosmopolitanism, with adherents
as diverse as liberals, Marxists, and anarchists, but even nationalism's defenders often disagree
on its virtues, and it is common for nationalists of one persuasion to disparage the aspirations of
others for both principled and strategic reasons. Indeed, the only fact about nationalism that is
not in dispute may be that few other social phenomena have had a more enduring impact on the
modern world.

Jose Rizal’s imprints on the Philippine Revolution

Inquirer
First Posted 04:05am (Mla time) 01/01/2007
IN HIS DEC. 25 COLUMN, MANUEL L. Quezon III counters his review of Harold
Augenbraun’s excellent English translation of Jose Rizal’s “Noli Me Tangere” with a plug for
a tendentious biography of Rizal by Javier de Pedro. A member of the Opus Dei, De Pedro can
only see “Rizal Through a Glass Darkly.” The Catholic Church in the Philippines had, after all,
banned “Noli Me Tangere” and burned copies of it for being anti-friar and anti-government.
Quezon noted that even as De Pedro sees Rizal as a “patriot,” the priest doesn’t see him as a
“nationalist.” De Pedro is utterly wrong in asserting that in the “Noli,” Rizal did not treat our
country as a “nation” under colonial bondage. In the novel, the boatman Elias, after
complaining of the common brutalities and cruelties of the friars and the Spanish government,
appealed to Ibarra, the “Noli’s” protagonist, to “Take up the people’s cause, unite the people,
don’t ignore their voices, be an example to the rest, give them the concept of what one calls a
nation!”

In that part of the novel, Ibarra still expressed his loyalty to Spain. But in “El Filibusterismo,”
the sequel to the “Noli,” Ibarra metamorphosed into Simoun, the terrorist and revolutionary.
Through Basilio, another victim of clerico-fascism, Simoun plots to bomb a gathering of
Spanish officials, priests and Chinese businessmen, and trigger an uprising against the colonial
rule.
Contemporaries of Rizal, like Andres Bonifacio, a member of Rizal’s revolutionary La Liga
Filipina, correctly interpreted Rizal’s “Noli” and “Fili,” together with his other writings, as a
call for revolution, and so they formed the Katipunan. The Katipuneros used Rizal’s name as a
rallying cry for the nationalist revolution.
In his definitive biography of Rizal, titled “Rizal: Filipino Nationalist and Patriot,” another
Englishman, Austin Coates, wrote: “The awakening of Asia to the concept of nationalism, and
to the demand for independence from the colonial powers—the Asian independence movement
—began in the Philippine Islands with the publication of Rizal’s ‘Noli Me Tangere’ in 1887.
From that date till 1901, the Philippines provided the main scene of this movement, the
continental nature of which was not yet apparent.”
One hundred ten years after his execution by the Spanish government, Rizal remains
controversial, despite the common tao’s undeniable veneration of him, because of the Catholic
Church’s and the ruling class’ ceaseless efforts to misinterpret, distort and obfuscate his
teachings and actions. The Rizal Law, enacted through the efforts of nationalists Claro M.
Recto and Jose P. Laurel, is now practically a dead law, as Rizal courses on his unexpurgated
writings have been suppressed in both public and private (sectarian) schools. The colonial
mentality, as shown by our government’s position on the Smith rape case, persists.
—MANUEL F. ALMARIO, spokesman, Movement for Truth In History (MOTH), via e-mail

Filipino Nationalism
The Philippines nationalist movement was the earliest of its kind in Southeast Asia. Many of its
leaders saw their movement as a beacon for other Southeast Asian colonies. In reality it had little
impact. Nationalism took a decidedly different course in the Philippines than elsewhere in
Southeast Asia. Philippine intellectual and political elites identified themselves more with Spain
and later the United States than they did with anti-colonialists elsewhere in Southeast Asia.
Philippine export crops were grown predominantly on land owned by the Chinese mestizo
community. The haciendas developed by powerful regional families were worked by tenants.
The landowners became rich and powerful while the tenants became increasingly impoverished,
trapped in a grossly unequal relationship with the landowners. Here lie the origins of the major
Philippine families who continue to control the rural Philippines in the 1990s and from this
economic base continue to exert enormous political power. Their wealth by and large continues
to be based on large estates, even though many have diversified their investments in recent
decades. The landed elite which emerged in the 19th century, unique in Southeast Asia for its
social, economic and political power, educated their children in Spanish schools, seminaries and
universities. Their Spanish-educated children, known as ilustrados, were influenced by the liberal
reforms in Spain after 1868. From the 1870s they began to demand the same rights as Spaniards,
including representation in the Spanish parliament.
Avowedly anti-clerical, they demanded the separation of state and church, the expulsion of the
Spanish friars who dominated rural areas and the introduction of native clergy. Their demands
were disregarded by both the colonial government and the Catholic Church. In the 1890s,
disillusioned by Spain’s refusal to treat them as equals and its dismissal of their proposals for
social and economic reform, the ilustrados began to call themselves Filipinos.
They were led by Jose Rizal, a wealthy fifth generation Chinese mestizo. Hitherto the Spanish
had appropriated the term Filipino for Spaniards born in the Philippines, referring to natives as
Indios. The term Filipino now became a symbol of nationalism.
The ilustrados – the educated, wealthy mestizo elite – wanted to rid the Philippines of clerical
domination in order to assume leadership of their society. In contrast to their moderate
nationalism, in 1896 a rebellion broke out in Manila organised by a far more radical group
known as the Katipunan and led by Andres Bonifacio, a relatively poorly educated Manila clerk.
Fighting broke out in the Manila area between Katipunan forces and the colonial army. The
Spanish responded by arresting not only Katipunan leaders but also many ilustrados as well.
Rizal was arrested, charged with treason and publicly executed. Philippine nationalism now had
a martyr.
At the same time as Spain was confronted by open rebellion in the Philippines it was fighting a
major rebellion in its central American colony of Cuba. The drain on its limited resources was
immense. United States intervention in Cuba resulted in the American–Spanish war. As a
consequence the United States Pacific fleet sailed into Manila Bay, destroyed the Spanish fleet
and laid seige to Manila. Philippine nationalists took advantage of a weakened Spain by
declaring independence on 12 June 1898 under the ilustrado leader Apolinario Mabini. The
Filipinos were the first people in Asia successfully to fight their colonial power and create a
modern nation-state.
Unfortunately for the nascent Philippine Republic the United States decided that occupation of
the Philippines would provide it with a base in the western Pacific from which it could promote
its political and economic interests in East Asia. Early in 1899 warfare broke out between the
Philippine Republic and the United States, eventually involving more than 10,000 United States
troops. Most hostilities ended in 1901 when the United States effectively bought off the ilustrado
elite, promising to maintain their wealth and power in return for collaboration with American
colonial rule. However, the Muslim south remained under American military jurisdiction until
1913. Even then sporadic violence continued against American authorities for some years.
The agreement of 1901 consolidated the power of the landed Chinese mestizo elite enabling
them to dominate the political and economic structures of the Philippines in the 20th century. It
also created a Filipino elite that looked to the United States not only for economic and political
patronage but also as its intellectual and cultural model. The ilustrado elite in the Philippines was
a powerful landed elite with no parallel elsewhere in Southeast Asia. Its members’ social and
political power stemmed from an economic base independent of the colonial state.
United States colonialism
It has been argued that if Spain occupied the Philippines for ‘the glory of God’ then the United
States occupied the Philippines for ‘the democratic mission’. Certainly, Americans were uneasy
about their status as an imperial nation. It ran counter to their self-perception as a people who
had thrown off the colonial yoke to become the beacon for free, democratic and egalitarian
values in the world. Americans’ own history of anti-colonialism ensured that there were
significant differences in United States rule in the Philippines from colonial rule elsewhere in
Southeast Asia. From the start the United States made clear that its goal was to lead the
Philippines to independence. Nationalism was a legitimate force, if possible to be moulded in its
own image of course, but not to be distrusted and repressed. It followed from this that the role of
the colonial state was to tutor Filipinos in the administration of a modern nation-state in order
that they learn the skills necessary for independence as quickly as possible.
Given their views of themselves as being in the Philippines for the best of reasons – ‘the
democratic mission’ – it is not surprising that United States colonial administrations stressed the
development of education, health and democratic processes. Electoral systems were introduced
at all levels of society and the national parliament was encouraged to invigilate officials and
influence colonial policies. By 1934 the United States Congress mandated Philippine
independence within twelve years. As a first step, in 1935 a Philippines Commonwealth was
established, autonomous in domestic affairs with Manuel Quezon as its first President. Political
developments in the Philippines were unique in Southeast Asia, though in the long run the effect
was to increase the wealth and power of the landed elite.
The United States government expended money on the Philippines rather than extracted money
from it – another unique occurrence in colonial Southeast Asia. Much of this money was spent
on developing education and health systems far superior to anywhere else in the region. At home
the United States was committed to mass education at all levels, in contrast to Britain, France
and Holland which restricted access to high schools and believed that a University education was
only for a small elite.
Education policies in the Philippines reflected American domestic educational philosophies, in
the same way as education policies in British, French and Dutch colonies reflected their domestic
policies. The contrast between the Philippines and Indonesia on the eve of World War II is
illustrative of these differences.
In the Philippines in 1938–39 there were 7,500 students at the University of the Philippines in
Manila. In the same year in Indonesia there were a mere 128 students at Colleges of Law,
Medicine and Engineering. In 1941 the literacy rate in the Philippines was five times that in
Indonesia.
Nationalist movements in most of colonial Southeast Asia flourished from the 1910s, demanding
independence, by and large rejecting colonial cultural mores and vigorously debating the need
for radical social and economic reform. They were generally led at the ‘national’ level by the
western-educated sons of either the traditional aristocracy or the bureaucratic elite and at the
local level by upwardly mobile clerks, schoolteachers and government officials. There was a
wide spectrum of parties, ranging from conservative ones, which wanted independence and little
social or economic change, to the communist parties which wanted revolution. The Philippines
was once again an exception. Its nationalist movement was dominated by the Nationalist Party
under the leadership of Manuel Quezon.
Leaders were from the landed elite, even more wealthy and powerful under American rule than
they had been under Spain. While publicly demanding immediate independence, in fact their
personal economic interests were well served by continued United States rule.
Enjoying self-government after 1935, and under a relatively benign colonialism, the Filipino
nationalist elite remained pro-American. In many ways they were bi-cultural. The shape of
Filipino nationalism – in ideology, myths and symbols – was very different from elsewhere in
Southeast Asia. With no need to foster a strong ‘national’ consciousness and few ‘national’
symbols, regionalism and regional loyalties based on regional landed elites remained strong. This
had significant consequences after 1945. Filipino nationalists were barely conscious of the events
going on elsewhere in Southeast Asia. It left a legacy of separateness from the rest of Southeast
Asia which had only partially changed by the 1990s.

Entry Number: 00273108

The evolution of Filipino nationalism
Nationalism is intrinsically second nature to all Filipinos. The spirit of nationalism came to exist
even before the era of Spaniard occupation of the Philippines. The ardent bravery and the heft
fortitude to fight the conquerors to preserve the land of our own and the future generation were
inherent in our blood.
Several factors paved the way for the developmental gestation of Filipino nationalism. Tracing to
the root where nationalism first came to emanate, history tells that the racial prejudices of the
Spaniards against the natives had proved to be one of the strongest unifying factors. The racial
discrimination controversy that led to the execution of the fathers Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez
and Jacinto Zamora led to the birth of Filipino nationalism in the year 1872.
The powerful force that charged it all out, igniting a fresh volley of courage was the time of Dr.
Jose Rizal's martyrdom. We experienced three centuries of Spanish rule but our ancestors always
attempt to resist the colonizers, and never desist on dissenting the Spaniards imposing nefarious
laws to the natives.
U.S intervened in the year 1898, but they never succeeded in stifling the Filipinos' love for his
country and made her submit to their authority. U.S. recognized the ballast of Philippine
nationalism, and they established Commonwealth of the Philippines in 1935, which eventually
led to Philippine independence in 1946. In 1986, Marcos was forced out from the Malacanang
palace by an overwhelming massive revolt, which led to the parturition of "People Power". The
Philippines is the First South East Asian country to experience political and cultural nationalism
that touched even our Asian brothers and gained fine adulations all over the world from many
enlightened figures. Time and again Filipinos did the same thing in behavioral genealogy of
expressing frustration and indignation sentiments by ousting Ex-president Erap from the power
of presidency, forcing him to leave Malacanang and left him swimming into an ocean of lawsuit
charges.
And now in the age of 21st century world working at full pelt, Filipinos' spirits are still felt
diametrically raging with a different sense of nationalistic gamut, even in a fast paced time zone
where science and technology is highly galvanized by transporting us to a different world of
luxurious convenience. And where global information and communications revved up an
undulating wave in making us all au courant to the events and most talked about issues of the
world. But with all these information superhighway breakthroughs, Filipinos remained
traditional in spirit, never fading in character, and yet always dauntless and vigilant to rampart its
freedom, peace, and democracy.
The heroism of overseas Filipino workers abroad is a paragon proof of human sacrifice for the
love of family and the love for country. To be away from home and deal with the difficulties of
life in a country whom you knew no one and to risk yourself into a lot of foreboding perils are
exemplary especially when serving a well-formulated mission of helping the needs of our family
back home by sending remittances that would in turn help boost the country's economy, making
it more stable through the dollar reserves. For most Filipinos, the essence of existence is to make
their family and their country a part of their lasting commitment. They may even express
commitment to unpopular decisions that are born to benefit the majority (meaning, our extended
families). We feel a strong attachment to our commitments. Filipinos make an all out effort
working around the clock over the weekend drudgeries, and making personal sacrifices. These
values, teamed with bottomless reservoir of patience, were inculcated to our young minds by our
beloved parents.
Aling Ising is one of our many domestic helpers that have proliferated from Hong Kong,
Singapore, Taiwan and as far as Israel. She should be regarded with great veneration for she is
our first line of defense. She hesitantly leaves her motherland to a foreign country, had there any
signs of an ailing economy in the Philippines, making her own family's day to day living
unbearable. Aling Ising is on her 40s and yet she still thrives to work. She constantly sends
dollars in the hope to give her children the passport for a better future. She dreams that her
children would turn out to become responsible, educated, and highly skilled members of the
society. These future Filipino warriors would one day emancipate our country from being poor to
a developed industrialize nation. And even afar our fellow "Kababayans" are united together by
being always on the rescue of each other by forming non-governmental organizations that would
help the traumatized fellow Filipinos who are in a morass predicament, easing their pain to a
degree lower through moral and financial supports and outpouring commiserations.
Ka Mario has been in the Middle East for 10 years and he has been successful in combining
Filipinos belonging to different ethnic dialects together by putting up programs and activities that
will develop nationalism, unity, camaraderie, encourage sportsmanship, and creativity that would
in turn prevent the frequent strikes of the pangs of homesickness, which all of them are not
exempted to suffer. With his wife Ka Josie shading the occasion with more color by consistently
presenting the culture of Filipino gustatory delights through sharing Filipino home-made dishes,
like "adobo", "lechong paksiw", "menudo", "sinigang na baboy", hmmmm and many more. This
is where eating and drinking involved strain the toughest gastric stamina, under fine friendship,
good cheer, and grandiose conversations - a very remarkable traits of a Filipino.
Our engineers, nurses and caregivers strewn all over the world are world class professionals,
intelligent and supremely empathetic to the grueling demands of their work and even in terms of
emotional whims of their foreign employers. Even with the chromatic experiences of their
explorations abroad they have always been Filipino at heart, conservative in values yet
aggressive at work. They are fraught of achievements and yet remained low-profiled. Mrs. Liza
Cruz is a computer programmer in one of the most respected and reliable company here in Japan.
Mrs. Anna Casis is also working in a well-established Nippon company. Both of them are
playing the role of a loving wife, and at the same time, caring mothers to their respective
children. Noteworthy to say that our Filipino women are also jostling their way up to the
precipitous corporate ladder and not only confined to the bounds of a talent occupation. Mmes.
Liza and Anna are the modern day Filipino women who are able to manage both success at work
and family, without sacrificing their growth to learn and achieve more, and fulfill their duties as
a devoted wives and doting mothers to their children. This is an exemplary Filipino tradition of a
happy and a complete family, with a tinge of the 21st century attitude.
Nationalism is also self-evident especially in spite of Filipino diaspora all over the world. More
than 8 million Filipinos now outside the Philippines support Philippine-made goods and
products. With the advent of information-based world economy propelled by free trade, market
economy, and open capital markets, everything is possible. I especially like mangoes (from
Guimaras), avocado, and papaya. We have bought clothes from Guess (Japan), with a brand
"Made in the Philippines". The Philippine products in all modesty meet the quality standards of
global competition.
The migrant Filipinos who practically grew most of their lives abroad almost always come back
to the Philippines and explore our beautiful beaches and the feature sights offered by a country
comprising of 7,107 islands. Filipinos like me and most housewives keep a regular subscription
of TFC to get in touch with everything Filipino, to forget homesickness while in abroad, and to
instill the Filipino values we see on TV to our children that we be able to preclude our
propensities of adapting or copying the culture of our adopted country.
Everywhere you go you will recognize a person a Filipino because he or she has always been
respectful to the elders and others, using the hackneyed but definitely classic "ho", "oho", "po"
and "opo". And even while in abroad we have kept ourselves in the prism of our national
uniqueness with our passionate affair to our political, social and economic freedom as the zenith
of our concern. We may be full of plurality in terms of our divided islands, language, religion,
and ethnicity but we do share a common LOVE for our country, and vision for a better
Philippines.
Time may have changed, technology may have advanced, and Philippine history may have been
written down with stories of different characters, time, scenarios, and events. Yet the message
and the theme of the story remained clear - Patriotism, Nationalism, and Heroism. To this day,
we have been fighting for our principle, and we have never budged in. Filipinos are like
diamonds, the more we chip it the more it shines.