The Contemporary Filipino Architect and Patriot

Architecture is a social art, so one speech of the former first lady Imelda Marcos is
entitled (Marcos in Maramag, 1978). The truth of this statement lies precisely in the reality
that architecture exists for the human person. Prehistoric architecture, which as it seems is the
basis of the architecture that present society experiences today, shows us that architecture
provided primarily for the need of the human person for a shelter: one that serves as a
necessary addition to the intrinsic human body defenses (Manahan, 1994). But architecture
communicates to the human person not only in terms of a basic physical need, but also
through that which is actually spiritual; and it did not have to take long for this to be realized.
Since prehistoric times, together with the development of the human mind, which learned to
appreciate beauty and order in nature, establish primitive forms of communities and
therefore, also certain territories, and above all, recognize the existence of a higher Being
than himself or herself: thus the monumental architecture was born. Concretely, this
architecture includes the Menhir and the Cromlech, both of which seem to be the early
beginnings of assembly places which contain in themselves something of value, an object
(not necessarily material) that people who gather there share. And it is precisely in this
sharing of something of value, that the social nature of architecture takes its life. Architecture
cannot be enclosed to answering the need of only an individual, but rather, it also inevitably
accommodates society as a whole, because by his very nature, the human person is not an
isolated reality existing only for himself alone.
It is said that architecture takes its form according to two main factors: context and
culture. The second factor directly relates to society as a people, while the former pertain to
things outside of the human person, usually the background of a scene as in a play. Much in
the same way that these two factors determine the kind of architecture, so are they
indispensable elements to society, wherein people interact with one another, and to go even
further, to other peoples outside their own society, who in turn, may belong to other societies.
The reality that there are actually different contexts and cultures, even within a given society,
no matter how small, as in the case of a subdivision, makes distinction a necessary action, so
that one is rightly identified from the other. In terms of national societies, context and culture
are intricately woven into each other and together they form what can be called a national
identity, which, according to Majul (1971) refers to those values in a national community
believed to be conducive to individual happiness and what is conceived to constitute order in
society or social well-being. It is important to note that even though individual fulfillment is
an important element of national identity, the common good, termed as order in society or

social well-being is just as important. The concept of sharing of a good (something of

value) in a society cannot be overemphasized therefore. Among the goods that can be shared
in common in a national community, and which in particular takes an important place in
identity, is patrimony. Patrimony, according to Villalon (2001), is that which is entrusted to a
succeeding generation, and which in itself is something of value. In terms of architecture,
patrimony seems to be a given purpose, thinking that since architecture is meant to be
permanent, then surely the succeeding generation is expected to receive it and treasure it as a
gift.
The great civilizations of the West were recognized as such because those who
discovered them gave a high regard for what the earlier societies have established; there is a
positive and constructive acceptance of what was inherited, even if the old society was
already long gone. Villalon (2001) explains that architecture is a record of history. The study
of Western architecture would show that the West valued the concept of patrimony in a
profound manner. The fact that books about the history of architecture of the West exist,
proves precisely that in giving value to their history, they value that which is a record of the
same history. In this way were they trained to take pride in their patrimony and share it to
others with great ease (Villalon, 2001). Seeing a European city will make this point clear.
Take for instance, the city of Rome. Rome has a charm of its own that is simply
overwhelming not only because the architecture is beautiful in itselfthough in truth it really
has a charming beauty that seems intrinsicbut precisely because it was preserved in such a
delicate way. The different ruins, like that one of the Coliseum, the one of ancient aqueducts,
of ancient paved roads, among others, showcase the patrimony that was left to present-day
Romans (or Italians for that matter) by true and ancient Romans. The city, as well as other
parts of Italy, is also filled with Renaissance basilicas and churches, as well as palaces, that
seem to tell the people from all over the world who happen to pass by them or intentionally
see them, that they are the works of the great Italian architects of the Renaissance. They can
claim each particular building by its name, and furthermore, by the name of its architect:
whether it may be Bramantes, or Berninis, or Albertis, each work is noted in history, each
is proudly claimed as Italian patrimony. The claim can even go as far as to say, These
architecture are truly Italian, not Spanish, nor French nor German! The factor of skill and
talent pertaining to the architect himself is of course, an important one; the idea of developing
a particular style out of ones creativity is undoubtedly necessary to make a good impression
so as to deserve to be written down in history books. But it can be seen that even in styles that
did not appeal much to some historical writers (as in the case of Gothic architecture and Sir

Banister Fletcher), it seems that what it does not take so much pride in order to write an
architecture as a record of history, and no doubt it will take its place among the architecture
of patrimony. From here then, it can be observed that the West has a strong sense of
patrimony that reflects itself in how they intend to build their architecture; it seems that they
have intentionally and deliberately made their buildings to last forever, and the generations
who came after them received it quite gladly and with a lot of pride, claiming it truly as their
own.
For many a Filipino, the concept of architectural patrimony seems difficult to take in
and understand (Villalon, 2001). There is a want in seeing and appreciating the monuments,
buildings and public open spaces built through Philippine history as part of the patrimony
handed down to the Filipinos of today by their forefathers (Villalon, 2001). Villalon (2001)
further explains that as it were, Filipinos view these architectural patrimonies as obstacles to
the path of the nations progress. How did this mindset come about, that seems to be so
pessimistic about Philippine history that even the records of which many Filipinos would like
to put aside? Zialcita (2005) explains that, Filipinos do not want the influences of Hispanic
culture on pre-colonial Filipino culture (the indigenous and non-Christian tribes that existed
in the country even before the arrival of the Spaniards). In fact, according to his interviews
with some Filipinos who themselves were educated, they pertain to artifacts of Filipino
culture as bastardized and mongrel, or in a more discreet but nonetheless demeaning
way, imitative or derivative (Zialcita, 2005). It seems, for Villalon (2001) that there is
lacking in the consciousness of Filipinos that theirs is a truly global culture worth claiming
as ones own and just as worthy to be proud before the gaze of other nations. This pessimism
in terms of architectural patrimony is well illustrated in the example of Villalon (2001) as he
tries to dissect the construction and reconstruction of Old Manila. He says:
On the 24th of June 1997, Manila celebrated the 426th anniversary of its founding.
What amazement it is that Manila does not show her age. The city certainly does not
look like she has been around for that long a time. On the other hand, she does not
glow with youth either. The sad truth is that she does not look like anything and
radiates no special aura at all unlike other cities in the world. (p. 42)
What did he mean? He meant precisely the way history was forcefully pushed back to the
darkest depths of the Filipinos memory, treating old architecture as useless and irrelevant to
the present as much as a child would hurry to leave his old toy at the corner at the sight of a
new one just seen at the toy stores window. But far deeper than the throwing of an old
useless toy, what happened to Old Manila, as described by Villalon, is actually a profound

loss of character and Philippine personality (2001). This, so much unlike the attitude of the
West when it comes to patrimony, is an attitude that needs to be corrected, if not totally
rejected and uprooted, in order to put in its place a love for the nations pastbased on a true
and sincere patriotismthat manifests itself in a careful and thoughtful use of the old
buildings, treating them still relevant and very much a part of ones daily life. Without this
connection to national roots, it is but utterly impossible to renew oneself and likewise to
move forward (Villalon, 2001).
All hope is nevertheless not lost. Though there are many, not all regard the colonial
past of the Philippines as something negative and a dark memory. This is good news.
However, there comes to pass the tendency of Filipinos, described by Villalon (2001) to form
an internalized bond towards national roots, but not reaching what is external and tangible,
which is precisely what is needed for architectural patrimony conservation. Thirty years have
passed since the first establishment of a large-scale national conservation effort in the
Philippines, that is, the Intramuros Administration, and the effort has brought about the idea
of re-making the visual and spatial character of the Spanish colonial period in Philippine
history (Villalon, 2001). The Filipino tendency as said earlier (that of internally realizing a
national root) works well to balance the superficial tangible work of architectural
conservation. For it is neither right, in the name of a heritage home conservation, to dismantle
old houses in order to relocate them to a place that is detached from context, as in the case of
Las Casas de Acozar in Bataan (Villalon, 2001). The truth remains that in architecture,
context and culture always come together, to keep the integrity of architecture.
A more optimistic perspective of the Philippine past actually existed. This time, this
mindset did not only limit itself in the conservation of architectural patrimony. Instead, the
new Filipino mind took it as a serious obligation to look at the past, and more so because
there had been, as it were, a growing deep-seated sentimental longing for architecture that is
relevant to Filipino behavior, space needs and culture (Manahan, 1994). The birth of this
mindset coincided with the postmodernism period in the history of world architecture. The
context that was at work during the first stages of its development was the end of the two
World Wars, and as one can expect, everyone was thirsting for independence, so much so that
the world witnessed the emergence of various independent states (Majul, 1971). Many
ideas blossomed since the beginning of this period, as what would be seen on springtime,
when flowers just seem to be blossoming from everywhere and everything just seems to be
very alive once again, after the lifeless winter. And so it is in this period that new ideas in
architecture emerged, aiming precisely to break-off with established norms in the way good

architecture is perceived. Just a few years back, architecture was seen as a utilitarian reality
that was intended to be really devoid of human emotion, passion, and the sense of freedom: in
a word, an architecture without a heart. Postmodernism changed this perspective radically,
and perceived of architecture not just as a machine that is only concerned of doing its work,
but of an architecture that the present world knows of today: the architecture for the human
person, and thus, also for the society. Among the different ideas that emerged during the
postmodern period, this paper will only be concerned with one, and that is, critical
regionalism, for the sole reason that this directly relates to patrimony and a nations culture
and history. The advent of critical regionalism in the world sought to recognize and express
in architecture those differences in cultures that coexist, amidst their different contextual
realities. In the Philippines, it is romantic pragmatism that draws its lineage from the said
postmodern idea, where architecture identifies itself with the locale (Manahan, 1994). It is
good to return once more to the context wherein these ideas were born. It has been said
earlier that after the World Wars, there was the rise of various independent states (Majul,
1971). Many of these independent states were previous colonies of powers directly involved
in the war that just ended, and many of them too, consisted of groups with diverse cultural
identities (Majul, 1971). It is precisely this groups wherein as Majul (1971) explains, the
problems of national identity and integration arise. There is thus the emergence too of a
pluralistic society, where because of the existence of many different values owing to different
cultures, there is a competition that is internally happening within the nation, aiming to
contest for a set of values that are fit to be adapted as the values of the whole nation (Majul,
1971). The Philippines is undoubtedly one among these emerging independent states and
pluralist society; and it is in this context that the ideas of national identity and national
integration became more deeply rooted in the Filipino consciousness, which in turn,
manifested itself in the local architecture. It was in this period of history that the architect was
given more reign in design, and the Filipino architect chose to look at the past and use
tradition as a trampolineif it can be rightly saidin order to fly towards a better
understanding of the icons for Philippine architecture (Manahan, 1994). It is worth noting
how Manahan praises Filipino architects in their articulation of pluralistic Filipino culture in
architecture. He says:
They [Filipino architects] are very much aware that the architecture is a language
perceived by means of codes; and that codes, thus actual experiencing, differ in every
culture. Hence, there is a continuing struggle to express cultural coherence and
historical continuity by using architectural forms as communicating signs which a

wider Philippine public can understand. (p. 70)

With this statement, he was able to point the continuing effort of the Filipinos to take more
seriously the question of national identity. The means by which Filipino architects wanted to
reach a Filipino architecture was through a careful study of pluralist Filipino culture, very
much a part of which is patrimony: for history plays a vital role in the development of
cultures. Since then, there has been equal regard given to both Hispanized and nonHispanized Filipino culture, at least in terms of architecture. When there seem to be only
disgust towards Spanish colonial architecture and the culture therein, Villalon gives an
example of how contemporary Filipino architecture made present the traditions contained in
that period. He cites architect Leandro Locsin, whose houses, as he describes, follow the
bahay na bato tradition in the use of space, the suitability to the climate, and in openness
(Villalon, 2001).
Looking back to the past, appreciating and receiving with gratitude what is handed
down by earlier generations, that is, patrimony (and here it refers specifically to architectural
patrimony), seem to have been resolved. After all, Filipinos have shown a genuine growth in
the awareness of the treasure that lies within historic centers, buildings and the like; though
with the same genuineness, there is still a long distance to go in order to deepen this
awareness. The next problem lies in moving forward through the present, given the context
and problems of its own. Villalon (2001) cites the Ministry of the Environment in Denmark
when it said that the desire to preserve architectural patrimony is as important as the way it is
conducted. And specifically it refers to a way that acknowledges contemporary aesthetic,
economic and functional needs (Ministry of the Environment of Denmark in Villalon, 2001).
The source of the statement just said already gives a hint as to what precisely is the concern
of the global contemporary society. The negative impact of certain human activities to the
environment, particularly those directed to industrial growth and economic development, has
been continually felt since the middle of the 20th century. The question of sustainability is
always in mind since then, because of the fear that if the present human population does not
curb its exploitation of non-renewable resources, or if it does not control the deposition of its
toxic wastes to the environment, then it might as well be the end of the human beings
dominion over nature (environment) and in turn, it is humanity that will take the retribution
of its unrestrained activities forgetful of its mission to be the custodian of nature. On top of
this concern for the environment, add the urbanization of many rural towns in the Philippines;
the conversion of agricultural lands to housing communities, as well as the growing
apartment lifestyle or high-rise living in urban centers. All of these mentioned, point to the

dominant culture of the global community, that is, commercialization. In fact, when speaking
of globalization, it is but inevitable to think of it. The truth is, the world has reached the peak
of development, so much so that it realizes it already has achieved much, but that there is just
so much that they cannot be kept but rather, better to be sold and commercialized so as to
even make profit. It may be quite obvious that when referring to the world here not all
nations are included, but only developed countries who themselves propagated the very
notion of globalization. In fact, the issue of environmental sustainability and economic
development are closely tied that more often than it is realized, the two are seen as opposing
forces and that the pursuit of one is but an obstacle for the success of the other. The local
panorama of this phenomenon is quite disturbing. Manila for example, is notorious for its
flooding, pollution, traffic that is abominable, and its congested population. And yet,
notwithstanding all of these, the start of skyscraper building has made itself felt (Villalon,
2001). What then, will Filipino architecture be in the next 20 years? The truth is, there are but
two options with which Filipino architects can choose to direct the development of the
country by means of architecture. The first is to go with the flow, a progress that is driven
by blind inertia and therefore cannot recognize the errors that were undoubtedly committed
by the other. The second is to go against the grain, where it is possible to step into progress
without having to tread the same roads treaded by those who went ahead. As it seems
obvious, the first one is doomed to destruction while the second one seems idealistic but
undoubtedly it presents a need for sacrifice (Marcos in Maramag, 1978). Nonetheless, the
basic principle still applies, and the challenge has always been the same: to design
architecture that answers the needs of the human person as an individual and as a member of
society.
It might take one aback, to realize that in the next 20 years, the young students of
architecture today are precisely the architects of then. It is therefore in their hands that
Filipino architecture might finally take another turn, and hopefully for the good. The bulk of
this essay has focused on growing in the love for patrimony and the necessity for it in order to
progress through the present. And it is precisely in this that Filipino architecture students of
the now are ought to be trained, despite the pressure to see architecture as a mere means to
become a tycoon. To put it bluntly, Philippine architecture will not look wealthy in the next
20 years, sad to hear perhaps to those who aspire for such. But this does not mean a lack of
elegance and grandeur. Rather, it is just a way of saying that Filipino buildings are not meant
for mere selling and commercialization; they are meant, as always, to be felt by the heart, as
an invaluable treasure, as patrimony.

References

Majul, C.A. (1971). Cultural diversity, national integration and national identity in the
Philippines. Pasig City: One Man Show Studio.
Manahan, G.V. (1994). Philippine architecture in the 20th century. Metro Manila: Kanlungan,
Inc.
Marcos, I.R. (1978). Architecture: The social art. In I. Maramag (Ed.), The ideas of Imelda
Romualdez Marcos, volume I (pp. 29-34). Metro Manila: National Media Production
Center.
Villalon, A.F. (2000). Lugar: Essays on Philippine heritage and architecture. Makati City:
The Bookmark, Inc.
Zialcita, F.N. (2005). Authentic though not exotic: Essays on Filipino identity. Quezon City:
Ateneo de Manila University Press.