By "Plaridel" (Marcelo H. del Pilar).
Three centuries have passed since the blood of Legaspi and of Sikatuna
mingled in a cup of which both partook in token of eternal friendship,
thus ratifying their oaths to fuse thenceforward into a single
ideal the aspiration of Spain and the Philippines. But the passage
of time, instead of making firmer this fusion, has only strengthened
the predominance of the religious orders who have turned the islands
into a colony exploited by friars.
No one is ignorant of the rebellion of the friars against the highest
political and religious authorities of the archipelago; nor is anyone
ignorant of the violent death of some, the coercion exercised on
others and the vexations visited upon all those who in governing the
country have dared to place the interests of the motherland of the
Catholic religion before the convents.
The immunity of those implicated and the predominance of the rebellious
elements compel the unhappy belief that Spain has already abdicated
the sovereignty in favor of Philippine friarism.
So it is worth while to dissipate this erroneous impression. Sad is it
to think that the planning of Charles V and Philip II, the efforts of
Magellan and Elcano, the sufferings of Villalobos, the prudence and
the valor of Legaspi, the sacrifices of Salcedo, Lavezares, Goiti,
and the others, only served as a stepping-stone for enthroning the
friar orders.
The Filipino people are passing in these moments through an interesting
period. Already they have manifested their aversion to the friars,
and I believe the time has come to draw attention to the aspirations
which palpitate in their bosoms.
On the one hand their future and on the other the attitude of China,
Japan and other nations which from Europe and Asia have fixed their
gaze on the map of Oceanica, offer to the thoughtful man problems of
deep seriousness which perhaps may be resolved in time to forestall
and smooth out future difficulties.
Luna's palette has revived the recollection of the "Blood Compact"
between Legaspi and Sikatuna, and the Filipino cannot view without
regret the powerful intervention of the friar interests which,
blocking every tendency toward fraternity between Spain and the
Philippines, are creating a difficult situation by increasing the
former's unfriendliness and the latter's burdens. For this they rely
on the difference of language between the governing and the governed
classes; and to maintain that difference, to impede popular instruction
and to prevent at all cost that the people and their government shall
come to understand each other is the best way to maintain them in
perpetual antagonism.
How far this plan has already gone can be estimated by analyzing the
relations of the friarocracy with the official institution which makes
up the organization of the towns of the Philippines. As everywhere
else, in the Philippines the relation of residents to the municipal
officers is of the utmost importance. The petty governor, or chief of
the village, in each locality constitutes the channel of communication
and the agency for carrying out the ideas of the government, and
according to the activity or inertness of this element the plan of
the higher authorities works out effectively or suffers sad shipwreck.
The parish priest has no vote in these elections, but controls them
because in his hands is the veto power. In forwarding the returns for
the ratification of the election result, the parish priest makes two
reports: one is public in character and is limited to setting forth
the grade of instruction of the candidate in the official language;
the other is confidential and under no restrictions whatever.
The candidate who has no legal impediment, unless he is of the
priest's following, will turn out disqualified in some other way,
thanks to the confidential report. He will be anti-Spanish, an agitator
(filibustero), separatist, and if this report cannot be controverted
the candidate of the town meeting will be thrown out. The parish
priest, in the final result, is master of the situation.
In carrying on their municipal duties, the local authorities are
dependent upon the parish priest. For a report on the conduct of a
resident, a hundred of the principal men are not enough; the vital
point is having the "O. K." of the parish priest. In turning in the
tax rolls of the neighborhood, his signature is necessary. For the
calling to the colors of the young men to whom the lot has fallen
to serve as soldiers, the parish priest's "approved;" to validate
accounts and other official documents, the parish priest's "approved;"
in everything and for everything there is demanded as the essential
requisite the approval of the parish priest.
In exchange there exists no corrective provision which regulates the
conditions under which the parish priest may grant or withhold this
approval. He grants or withholds it according to his own free will or
as he is directed by his ecclesiastical superiors. The chief local
authority is the only one on whom falls this burden of regularizing
his acts with the indispensable approval of the parish priest. If
the parish priest refuses it, then the chief incurs the discipline
of his superiors.
Manifold are the functions of the chief local authority in the
Philippines. Aside from his judicial duties, he has charge of the
administration, of the tax collecting, of the port, etc., and, given
the dependence upon the parish priest in which he finds himself,
it is not to be wondered at that the latter controls even to the
official correspondence, in fact retaining the right to authorize
its transmission.
Orders from above are complied with when it so pleases the Most
Reverend Parish Priest. If the higher authority attempts to impose
and require energetic compliance with his commands, the parish
priest communicates it to one of the superiors of his order, and this
obtains the overthrowing of the official. For it he has an argument
incontrovertible and of magic effect, to wit, that it endangers
the national indivisibility. If it is an effort to open a road and
the parish priest doesn't want it, then it endangers the national
indivisibility. Or if the public health requires that dead bodies
should not be taken into the church, still it is no reason,--it would
imperil the national indivisibility.
And in everything, the same tendency.