“The Future Still Awaits: A Nation at the Crossroads”

“The Future Still Awaits: A Nation at the Crossroads”

As the clock struck midnight and the world entered 2025, the air in the country was filled with mixed emotions. The joy of new beginnings, the embrace of a fresh start, and the glimmer of optimism that accompanies every New Year were present. Families and friends gathered together, sharing stories of the past year, reflecting on their personal journeys, and setting their sights on what could be. Yet, amidst the celebrations and hopes for a better tomorrow, the reality of the nation’s struggles still loomed large. 

The country, still entrenched in the patterns of its past, faced a future that seemed not so different from the years before. The weight of poverty hung over millions, with no easy solutions in sight. Corruption continued to weave its way into the fabric of governance, rendering efforts for change increasingly difficult. Dependence on foreign powers remained a painful reality, with the nation unable to fully claim its autonomy and chart its own path. And perhaps most disheartening of all, the erosion of moral values seemed to undermine the very foundation on which the country was built. 

Despite these harsh truths, the people had not given up. There remained a spirit of resilience, of hope that things could one day be different. However, the question that lingered in the hearts of many was simple yet profound: Until when will the people continue to endure? How much longer would they bear the weight of these inconvenient realities, the same struggles that had plagued the nation for so many years? 

In the face of such challenges, the future seemed uncertain. Would 2025 be just another year marked by the same struggles? Would the promise of change fade away, like so many before it? Or would the people finally rise to take the future in their own hands, determined to break free from the cycle of stagnation and forge a new path forward? 

The nation stood at a crossroads, its future hanging in the balance. The road ahead was not easy, and the obstacles were many. But as the New Year began, there was a flicker of possibility — a flicker that, if nurtured, could light the way to a brighter, more prosperous future. It was a question of will. It was a question of whether the people could rise above the forces that sought to hold them back and take the future that rightfully belonged to them. 

For now, the future remained uncertain, but the hope of a better tomorrow, however fragile, was still alive. The only question was — how long would it take before the people decided that enough was enough and chose to shape the future for themselves? 

Same old problems, but "hopefully" new found hopes

Same old problems,

but "hopefully" new found hopes

A New Year's day message in a time of organised crisis 

The dawn of 2025 arrived with the weight of its predecessors’ struggles, but with the whisper of new hope still fluttering in the air. The world, though scarred by ongoing crises, stood at a precipice — teetering between despair and the faintest hint of resolution. 

In the Philippines, news like the rift between the Marcos and Duterte factions has left a series of intrigue and criticism, ranging from misuse of people's funds to exposing various political scandals. This problem may continue to persist as politician-bureaucrats from both wings, as well as its supporters trying their "best" to defend their leaders with their own narratives. Whereas Sara Duterte was criticised for her "confidential funds", so is Marcos Jr. for proliferiation of "assistance programs" meaning wastage of public funds and worse, corruption. The threat of climate change continued to escalate, leaving a trail of devastation such as from Typhoon Agaton that had ravaged the central regions. A report from The Philippine Daily Inquirer on January 3, 2024, emphasized that “despite recovery efforts, disaster preparedness remains in its infancy,” casting doubt on whether the nation’s systems could truly withstand the growing wrath of nature. 

Across the Pacific, the United States still grappled with the aftermath of the 2024 elections, where partisan divisions seemed insurmountable. News outlets like The New York Times on January 2, 2024, noted how “the deeply polarized political landscape is not only a symptom of internal strife but also a reflection of a world increasingly dominated by self-interest and fragmented narratives.” Yet, even in the face of these struggles, the report ended on an unexpectedly positive note: “New alliances are beginning to form, and though the path ahead is uncertain, the desire for unity is not completely gone.”

In Europe, geopolitical tensions simmered under the surface. Russia, under the shadow of its actions in Ukraine, remained a critical point of contention in global politics. A recent broadcast from BBC News emphasized how the war “continued to redefine borders and the future of Europe’s security,” yet it acknowledged that “more nations were stepping up to mediate and offer diplomatic solutions.” Though peace seemed elusive, the voices of reason were slowly finding ground in unexpected places.

Yet, even as these heavy issues remained at the forefront, there was a subtle yet undeniable shift — a growing awareness that change, though hard-earned, was possible. The New Year had arrived not with grand promises, but with small, deliberate steps towards realisation of hopes.

In Manila, and other parts of the country and around the world, as people gathered with families and friends to greet the year, the air was thick with conversations about what 2025 could bring. Many spoke of the lessons learned from the past, lessons that had not yet led to a perfect world but had allowed for new possibilities. Those familiar, age-old problems remained, as persistent as the tropical storms, as divisive as the political rhetoric. However, the “hopefully” was what mattered now, the unspoken belief that through collective effort, through empathy and understanding, a better tomorrow could be realized.

The echo of 2024’s struggles reverberated, yes, but within it, a thread of optimism wove its way through the hearts of those determined not to surrender to cynicism. They faced a world that had changed, but they refused to let it dictate the narrative. In this new year, there was still time to rewrite the ending. 

Rizal’s Satyagraha: Revolution Through Character in the Age of Social Movements

Rizal’s Satyagraha: Revolution Through Character

in the Age of Social Movements

By Lualhati Madlangawa Guererro

José Rizal’s approach to revolution is often characterized by his deep belief in the power of character-building as the foundation for achieving true freedom. For Rizal, revolution was not merely an act of violent resistance; it was a moral and intellectual struggle for the soul of the nation. He envisioned a society where the Filipino people, through education, moral fortitude, and self-discipline, would earn the right to self-rule. Despite not using the term itself, Rizal’s satyagraha—a concept that resonates with the idea of “holding on to truth”—was rooted in the belief that justice could be achieved not only through peaceful means but also through the development of the people’s moral and intellectual capacities.

However, this notion of revolution through character can appear overly idealistic in the context of the 19th century, a time when nationalist and social movements across the world were increasingly intertwined with violent struggle. In comparison to other global leaders like India's Mahatma Gandhi, Rizal’s vision of "revolution" seems tempered by his recognition of the necessity of armed resistance, even as he treated it as secondary to his emphasis on gradual reform and moral upliftment.

Rizal’s Satyagraha: a "Revolution" of Truth and Justice

Rizal’s concept of satyagraha can be viewed as his unique interpretation of “holding on to truth” within the framework of colonial oppression. Although the term is most commonly associated with Mahatma Gandhi and his philosophy of non-violent resistance, Rizal’s approach was rooted in a similar commitment to truth but diverged significantly in its implications and applications.

For Gandhi, satyagraha represented an unwavering dedication to non-violence and moral strength, emphasizing that the struggle for justice could be achieved through peaceful means. He famously articulated, “Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.” This perspective underscores Gandhi’s belief that truth and justice could only be attained through peaceful resistance, appealing to the conscience of oppressors and fostering a shared humanity.

In contrast, Rizal acknowledged the harsh realities of colonial rule and the limitations of solely peaceful methods in confronting such oppression. In a letter to Ferdinand Blumentritt, he candidly expressed his belief that if Spain continued to deny the Philippines its rightful independence, that freedom might only be won through armed struggle. He stated, “We cannot be freed by anyone except by ourselves, and it is through our own efforts and sacrifices that the day of our redemption will come.” This quote reveals Rizal’s recognition that while he favored peaceful reform and moral development, he was pragmatic enough to understand that achieving true independence might require more than moral appeals and intellectual discourse.

Rizal’s view of satyagraha—translated as “holding firmly to truth” or “truth-force”—reflects a deeper commitment to exposing the injustices of Spanish rule and advocating for the rights and dignity of the Filipino people. He once wrote, “The youth is the hope of our future,” emphasizing the importance of education and moral integrity in the fight against oppression. Rizal believed that educating the masses about their rights was fundamental to instilling a sense of empowerment, enabling them to stand against tyranny.

Yet, Rizal also understood that merely advocating for truth without the means to back it up could lead to disillusionment. His writings reveal a complex understanding of resistance, combining moral conviction with the necessity of practical action. For instance, Ninoy Aquino, also a believer of freedom as that of Rizal, remarked, “The Filipino is worth dying for,” a powerful affirmation of the inherent value and dignity of the Filipino people, which called for both self-awareness and a willingness to fight for one’s rights.

This interplay between idealism and pragmatism in Rizal’s philosophy illustrates a critical tension in revolutionary thought. He championed moral character and intellectual uplift, yet he recognized that the fight for independence would require the courage to confront oppression directly. Rizal’s satyagraha thus embodies a nuanced approach that insists on the importance of truth while also acknowledging the need for strength in the face of systemic injustice.

In essence, Rizal’s interpretation of satyagraha serves as a reminder that the struggle for justice is multifaceted, demanding both moral resolve and an understanding of when to take decisive action. His commitment to truth, justice, and the empowerment of the Filipino people remains relevant today, inspiring contemporary movements that seek to address social injustices and uphold the dignity of marginalized communities.

Character-Building in an Age of Social Movements

The 19th century was a time of profound social and political upheaval, characterized by movements that sought to assert national identity and rectify social injustices. In Latin America, leaders like Simón Bolívar and inspired revolutionary fervor, demonstrating that freedom was often seized through armed struggle. Similarly, the European revolutions of 1848 such as in France and in Germany revealed the intertwined nature of nationalism and social justice, as citizens fought not only for self-governance but also for economic rights and social equity.

Within this context, José Rizal’s focus on satyagraha—nonviolent resistance through personal and societal moral upliftment—represents a unique, albeit idealistic, approach to achieving Philippine independence. Rizal believed that the path to freedom lay in the moral and intellectual development of the ilustrado class. He famously asserted in El Filibusterismo, “What is the use of independence if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow?” This sentiment captures his conviction that true freedom required an educated and morally responsible citizenry capable of self-governance. Rizal envisioned a transformation not only in political structures but also in the character of the people themselves.

However, this idealism risks appearing too narrow, especially when viewed through the lens of contemporary social struggles. Rizal’s idealism has been critiqued by scholars such as Zeus Salazar, who pointed out that the ilustrado class, including Rizal, often failed to fully engage with the harsh realities faced by the Filipino masses. Salazar argued, “The struggle for independence cannot be separated from the struggle against exploitation,” emphasizing that the fight against colonial rule must also encompass the socio-economic structures that kept many Filipinos in poverty and servitude. For Salazar, Rizal’s intellectual reforms, while significant, did not adequately address the systemic injustices perpetuated by colonialism, particularly through exploitative systems such as the encomienda and hacienda that kept Filipino peasants in a state of servitude. While Rizal critiqued the abuses of the Spanish friars and landlords, his emphasis remained on intellectual reform, which did not fully address the need for a broader social revolution.

Futhermore, Filipino anthropologist F. Landa Jocano critiqued Rizal’s emphasis on the ilustrados as the primary agents of change as also points out that Rizal’s emphasis on satyagraha—his notion of revolution through moral reform—was deeply influenced by his own ilustrado background. He posited that Rizal’s vision was too focused on intellectual and moral reform, arguing that it “did not adequately reflect the broader social realities of the time.” Jocano contended that Rizal’s revolution was an “intellectual one,” aimed at reforming the colonial system through the actions of the educated elite (who Rizal belived would lead the people toward self-rule) rather than mobilizing the masses. And although noting that while Rizal’s vision of moral reform was important, Jocano suggested that true national revolution necessitated a more inclusive approach that recognized the role of common people in the struggle for independence and social justice.

Both Salazar and Jocano highlighted the limitations of Rizal's approach when viewed through the lens of contemporary social struggles. They underscored the necessity of integrating moral and intellectual reform with a robust engagement with economic realities and the lived experiences of the Filipino people. Salazar articulated that “the revolution must be holistic, addressing not only political sovereignty but also the socio-economic conditions of the masses.”

In reflecting on Rizal’s contributions, it becomes clear that while his emphasis on character-building and moral integrity holds significant merit, achieving true independence requires a collective effort that includes the voices and struggles of all Filipinos. The interplay between idealism and the harsh realities of social movements continues to inform contemporary discourse, reminding society that the pursuit of justice and equity is as critical as the fight for political autonomy. Rizal’s vision, while noble, serves as a call to recognize and engage with the broader social fabric in the quest for genuine freedom and justice.

Rizal and Gandhi: A Comparative Lens

In comparing José Rizal and Mahatma Gandhi, one can observe that both figures shared a profound belief in the transformative power of truth and moral reform. However, their approaches to revolution were fundamentally different, shaped by their distinct contexts and philosophies.

Gandhi’s concept of satyagraha was deeply rooted in the principles of ahimsa, or non-violence, and was characterized by mass participation. His approach allowed even the poorest members of Indian society to engage in non-violent resistance through acts of civil disobedience. Gandhi famously stated, “Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind,” underscoring his conviction that moral power could prevail over oppression without resorting to violence. His vision extended beyond political independence to encompass rural self-sufficiency and economic justice, reflecting his broader notion of swaraj—self-rule that included social and economic dimensions. Gandhi believed that true independence meant not only political sovereignty but also the empowerment of the people at all societal levels. He argued that “Swaraj is not merely political independence; it is self-control and self-restraint,” indicating that his vision of freedom involved personal and communal responsibility.

In contrast, Rizal placed his hopes in the educated elite, believing that gradual reform and education were the keys to achieving independence for the Philippines. He once wrote, “The Filipino is worth dying for,” (eventually quoted by Aquino) emphasizing the inherent dignity and potential of his countrymen. However, his interpretation of satyagraha was not centered on mass mobilization or economic self-sufficiency; rather, it was about demonstrating to the colonizers that Filipinos were intellectually and morally capable of self-governance. Rizal believed that if the Spanish authorities could see the capabilities of the Filipino people, they would be more inclined to grant them the rights to self-rule. He wrote in El Filibusterismo, “What is the use of independence if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow?” This quote captures Rizal’s understanding that moral and intellectual development were prerequisites for true independence.

While both men sought to empower their respective nations, their methods and underlying philosophies reveal critical differences. Gandhi’s revolution was inherently inclusive, drawing strength from the collective will of the masses. His emphasis on economic self-sufficiency and social justice aimed to uplift all segments of society, ensuring that the struggle for independence was also a fight for equality and dignity. He articulated this sentiment when he said, “The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others,” highlighting his belief in the interconnectedness of individual and collective liberation.

Rizal, on the other hand, envisioned a top-down approach where the enlightened elite would lead the way for the masses. He argued for reform through education, believing that the ilustrados would guide the nation toward progress. Rizal’s focus on the intellectual development of the elite, while noble, limited the scope of his revolutionary vision and left the broader Filipino populace less engaged in the struggle. He recognized this limitation when he remarked, “I die without seeing the dawn brighten over my native land. You, who will see it, welcome it and forget not those who have fallen during the night.” This poignant statement reflects his awareness that while he may not witness the fruits of his labor, the responsibility of the coming generation would be to continue the fight for justice.

In summary, the comparison between Rizal and Gandhi illustrates two distinct paths to social and political transformation. Gandhi’s inclusive approach sought to harness the power of the masses, advocating for a revolution that engaged every level of society. His strategies fostered a sense of collective agency and empowerment, reflecting a vision that combined personal growth with societal change. On the other side, Rizal’s focus on the educated elite revealed a more constrained vision of revolution. While he championed moral character and intellectual uplift, his strategy did not fully mobilize the broader Filipino populace, which limited its effectiveness. His belief that intellectual advancement would convince colonial powers of the Filipinos’ readiness for self-governance highlights his faith in reform through education rather than through collective action.

Both figures remain inspirational in their commitment to truth and justice, yet their differing strategies offer valuable lessons about the dynamics of revolutionary movements. Gandhi’s legacy emphasizes the importance of inclusive participation and mass mobilization in the quest for freedom, while Rizal’s story serves as a reminder of the need to engage all members of society in the struggle for liberation. Together, their philosophies reflect a rich tapestry of thought on how to confront oppression and seek justice in the face of adversity.

The Idealism of Rizal: Revolution and its Limitations

Rizal’s emphasis on character-building as a form of revolution reflects a profound idealism rooted in his belief that justice could be achieved through moral and intellectual upliftment. However, historian Renato Constantino points out that Rizal’s failure to fully engage with the broader social struggles of his time limited the effectiveness of his revolutionary vision. Constantino critiques Rizal for focusing primarily on the ilustrado class and for underestimating the urgent economic and social grievances of the Filipino masses, particularly the peasants and laborers who suffered under colonial exploitation. He argues that “Rizal’s vision lacked a concrete plan to address the systemic injustices affecting these marginalized groups.”

Zeus Salazar echoes this sentiment, emphasizing that Rizal’s approach often overlooked the realities faced by the broader populace. Salazar contends that true liberation must encompass not only political sovereignty but also socio-economic justice, a dimension that Rizal’s reformist vision inadequately addressed. He states, “The struggle for independence must be intertwined with the fight against the exploitative structures of colonial rule,” highlighting that Rizal’s emphasis on intellectual reform did not sufficiently tackle these urgent issues.

F. Landa Jocano further critiques Rizal’s focus on the educated elite as the primary agents of change. Jocano argues that while Rizal’s commitment to moral reform was admirable, it ultimately did not capture the broader social and economic struggles necessary for a true revolution. He notes, “Rizal’s reliance on the ilustrados to lead the charge for independence alienated many ordinary Filipinos who felt unrepresented in the movement for change.” Jocano asserts that a more grassroots-oriented approach could have mobilized a wider swath of the population, thus fostering a more inclusive revolutionary spirit.

Teodoro Agoncillo also emphasizes this limitation in his works, arguing that Rizal’s idealism failed to mobilize the masses effectively. He contends, “Rizal’s belief in peaceful reform and the capacity of the educated class to guide the nation did not resonate with the realities of widespread poverty and oppression experienced by the majority of Filipinos.” Agoncillo stresses that a revolution rooted in mass participation and collective action would have been more likely to address the pressing needs of the people.

Despite these critiques, Rizal’s legacy remains significant and impactful. His unwavering commitment to justice, education, and moral integrity continues to inspire generations of Filipinos. While his approach to revolution may have been idealistic, it underscores the importance of truth, justice, and intellectual development in the fight for freedom. Rizal’s notion of satyagraha—his insistence on holding on to truth—serves as a powerful reminder that revolution is not solely about armed struggle; it is also about the moral and intellectual transformation of society.

However, Rizal’s story also highlights a crucial lesson: idealism alone may not be sufficient to overcome the violent realities of colonialism. This understanding resonates deeply in contemporary struggles for justice and freedom, urging activists to engage with the complex social and economic issues that affect marginalized communities. The ongoing dialogue surrounding Rizal's contributions encourages a more inclusive approach to revolution—one that acknowledges the necessity of mobilizing all sectors of society, particularly those who have historically been disenfranchised.

Ultimately, Rizal’s life and works compel reflection on the multifaceted nature of revolution. They remind society that while moral integrity and intellectual enlightenment are vital, true liberation must also address the systemic inequalities that persist. In doing so, Rizal's legacy not only honors the past but also informs the ongoing quest for a more equitable and just future.

Conclusion

Rizal’s revolutionary vision, though idealistic, was rooted in a deep moral belief in the transformative power of education and character. While his satyagraha shares commonalities with Gandhi’s commitment to truth and justice, Rizal’s approach to revolution was far more focused on gradual reform and intellectual upliftment. His recognition of the necessity of armed struggle, even if treated as secondary, distinguishes him from Gandhi’s strict adherence to non-violence. Yet, Rizal’s focus on character-building and peaceful reform may have been too limited in an era where social movements and national struggles were increasingly intertwined with violent resistance. Through comparisons with thinkers like Salazar, Jocano, and Gandhi, it becomes clear that while Rizal’s vision remains significant, it must also be understood within the broader context of 19th-century global movements that demanded more direct and immediate action against oppression.

***

References

Constantino, Renato. The Philippines: A Past Revisited. 1975.
Salazar, Zeus A. Philippine Nationalism: A Historical Analysis. 1990.
Jocano, F. Landa. Filipino Value System: A Cultural Definition. 1997.
Agoncillo, Teodoro A. The Revolt of the Masses: The Story of Bonifacio and the Katipunan. 1956.
Gandhi, Mahatma. The Story of My Experiments with Truth. 1927.

Rizal’s Work: A Product of a Tortured, Existentialist Mind?

Rizal’s Work: A Product of a Tortured, Existentialist Mind?

José Rizal’s Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo are more than just political novels; they are profound reflections on human suffering and the search for meaning in a world shaped by oppressive systems. Through the combined lenses of naturalism and existentialism, these works emerge as expressions of a tortured mind, grappling with both personal anguish and the larger existential dilemmas of freedom, identity, and agency. 

The Naturalist Context: A World of Determinism 

Rizal’s novels are grounded in the naturalist tradition, portraying a society where characters are shaped and constrained by heredity, environment, and historical forces. Colonial Philippines serves as a deterministic landscape, where individuals are subject to the oppressive systems of Spanish rule.

1. Heredity and Social Determinism 

Characters like María Clara are victims of circumstances beyond their control. Her illegitimate birth dooms her to a life dictated by societal hypocrisy, making her a tragic embodiment of how rigid colonial hierarchies destroy innocence and agency. Crisostomo Ibarra, despite his education and wealth, cannot escape his identity as a perceived threat to the Spanish regime. His eventual transformation into the vengeful Simoun illustrates how environment and systemic oppression can warp even the most idealistic minds.

2. The Crushing Weight of Oppression 

The colonial system in Rizal’s works operates as a vast, impersonal force, reducing individuals to cogs in its machinery. Elias, the noble outcast, and Simoun, the embittered revolutionary, struggle against this system, yet their efforts seem futile. In the naturalist tradition, Rizal shows how human lives are shaped—and often destroyed—by the inexorable weight of social and historical forces.

Existential Struggles in a Determined World 

Despite the deterministic backdrop, Rizal’s works are also deeply existential. His characters confront the absurdity of their existence, searching for meaning and authenticity in a world that offers little hope.

1. Ibarra and Simoun: An Existential Evolution 

 

Ibarra’s transformation into Simoun reflects an existential journey through hope, despair, and nihilism. In Noli Me Tangere, Ibarra embodies the idealist, believing in reform through reason and education. By the time of El Filibusterismo, this idealism has given way to existential despair as Simoun, whose nihilistic embrace of violence and revenge highlights the corrosive effects of disillusionment. His eventual suicide represents not just the collapse of his revolutionary ideals but also an acknowledgment of life’s inherent absurdity. 

 

2. Elias as the Absurd Hero 

Elias, a character marked by stoic sacrifice, represents the existential hero who confronts absurdity head-on. A man of principle, he fights for justice even when he knows that his efforts may amount to nothing. His self-sacrificial death is an acknowledgment of life’s lack of inherent meaning, yet, like Camus’ absurd hero, Elias finds purpose in the struggle itself.

Faith and the Absurd 

Rizal’s critique of religion reflects his naturalist skepticism and existential concerns. While he exposes the Church’s complicity in colonial oppression, he also examines the spiritual void left in its absence.

1. María Clara and the Failure of Redemption 

María Clara’s unwavering faith does not shield her from betrayal and suffering. Her retreat into the convent is less a spiritual resolution than a surrender to despair. Rizal critiques how organized religion, rather than offering meaning or solace, often perpetuates the systems of oppression it claims to transcend.

2. Simoun’s Nihilism and Rejection of Faith 

Simoun, by contrast, rejects faith entirely, embracing a worldview devoid of moral or spiritual absolutes. His disillusionment mirrors Rizal’s rejection of dogma, yet his nihilism leaves him adrift, consumed by bitterness. His ultimate failure underscores the existential reality that neither blind faith nor total nihilism can provide a satisfying answer to life’s absurdity.

Rizal’s Tortured Mind: The Personal and Political Nexus 

The existential themes in Rizal’s work are deeply personal, reflecting the struggles of a man caught between opposing forces—idealism and despair, action and inertia, faith and reason.

1. The Personal Burden of Genius

Rizal’s brilliance came with a heightened sensitivity to the injustices around him. His exile in Dapitan, far from the intellectual circles of Europe and the revolutionary fervor in Manila, must have felt like a prison for his mind. Like Ibarra and Simoun, Rizal was a man torn between his ideals and the crushing weight of his reality.

2. Martyrdom as Existential Freedom 

Rizal’s decision to face execution rather than flee reflects a profound existential courage. By accepting his death, he affirmed his freedom to choose authenticity over survival. In this act, Rizal transcended the deterministic forces of his environment, transforming his personal suffering into a collective symbol of hope and resistance.

Naturalism, Existentialism, and the Filipino Experience 

Rizal’s works resonate with the broader struggles of the Filipino people under colonial rule. They capture both the deterministic realities of oppression and the existential yearning for freedom and dignity. His characters’ fates—whether marked by despair, defiance, or sacrifice—mirror the collective plight of a nation searching for meaning and agency in a world shaped by external forces. 

Conclusion: A Cry from a Tortured Brain 

Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo are not merely political manifestos; they are the confessions of a tortured mind. Rizal’s genius lay in his ability to turn personal anguish into universal truths, capturing the naturalist realities of oppression while probing the existential questions of freedom and meaning. 

Rizal’s life and work remind us that the greatest art often arises from the deepest suffering. His novels stand as testaments to the human spirit’s capacity to confront absurdity, defy determinism, and find meaning—even in the face of despair. In a world shaped by forces beyond our control, Rizal’s legacy endures as a beacon of hope and authenticity, urging us to embrace the struggle and, in doing so, affirm our humanity. 

"Pledge of Loyalty"

"Pledge of Loyalty" 

by Francisco "Dodong" Nemenzo 

Used in  2003

 I solemnly pledge as graduate of the University of the Philippines that where I go and whatever I do I will always bring honor to my Alma Mater. 

I will live to her values and ideals. 

I will try to excel in whatever profession I pursue.

 I will treasure the things that elevate the mind and strengthen the character.

 I will remain a student for life, so I pace with the developments of knowledge and never become a deadwood. 

I will retain the habit of critical thinking, so I will never be a blind follower of anyone. 

I will promote gender equality and help destroy patriarchy. 

I will always stand on the side of freedom against tyranny and the side of justice against oppression.

 I will oppose war as an instrument of national policy, even if the reward of endorsing the coalition of the willing is to create overseas jobs for those who cannot employ at home. 

I will contribute to the elimination of poverty but never use the poor as tools for a partisan cause.

 I will protect the environment and preserve it for future generations. 

I will never soil my hand with graft and corruption.

 I will defend the sovereignty of our nation and not be fooled by the promise of globalization. 

I hereby renew my commitment to serve the people. 

Reviving the “Panday Pira Spirit” through Science, Technology, and Industry for the Filipino People

Reviving the “Panday Pira Spirit” 

through Science, Technology, and Industry for the Filipino People

In Philippine history, Panday Pira is revered as the “Father of Filipino Cannon-Making.” A master blacksmith during the 16th century, Panday Pira’s ingenuity fortified the pre-colonial city of Manila, providing the tools for its defense against foreign threats. His legacy stands not merely as a tale of craftsmanship but as a powerful symbol of Filipino innovation, resilience, and sovereignty. 

Today, the challenges of the 21st century—ranging from technological dependence to economic vulnerability—demand that the Filipino people revive the Panday Pira spirit. The same resourcefulness and mastery that empowered a society centuries ago must be reimagined and directed toward building a future rooted in science, technology, and industry. 

Science and Technology: The Foundation of Sovereignty 

Panday Pira’s cannons were more than instruments of war—they symbolized a society’s determination to protect its sovereignty. In much the same way, technological independence today is crucial for safeguarding the Philippines’ economic and national security. The absence of this independence, as noted by nationalist economist Alejandro Lichauco, perpetuates a “neo-colonial economy,” where dependence on imported goods and technology leaves the nation vulnerable to external forces. 

Lichauco once emphasized that a nation’s survival lies in its ability to produce what it consumes: 

“No people can be genuinely sovereign, or free, without the capacity to produce the material goods which sustain life, industry, and defense.” 

And yet, there are those who cater to neoliberalism and globalization who would downplay the idea of harnessing innovation and creativity through the promotion of industrialization. Ironically, these same forces preach global competitiveness—demanding “world-class” talents and products—while dismissing calls for national industrialization and the encouragement of local enterprises. What kind of progress can exist when industrialization is ignored and local resources go untapped? 

Such promotion by the current order reflects nothing but shallow pride. It is a hollow triumph to boast of global competitiveness while the country remains reliant on imports, exporting its raw resources and talents rather than expanding domestic industry to meet the needs of its people. The Philippine economy, driven by consumption rather than production, hemorrhages foreign currency that could otherwise be saved through local resource utilization and self-reliance. What good is science and technology if it is not harnessed for the benefit of the people? 

In truth, necessity is the mother of invention. The more the country faces sanctions and external pressures, the more it can innovate, adapting creatively to its circumstances and forging progress through self-reliance. This harsh reality can be a catalyst for a technological and industrial renaissance—a testament to the resilience of the Filipino spirit. 

Filipino Ingenuity and Industrial Strength 

Filipino ingenuity has long been a source of pride, with the nation's engineers, scientists, and innovators consistently showcasing their capabilities across various global platforms. From architects of cutting-edge technologies to groundbreaking scientific discoveries, Filipinos have proven their prowess. However, as history and contemporary examples suggest, talent alone is insufficient to fully harness the potential of a nation. Sustainable growth and innovation require a deliberate, collective effort that transcends individual achievement and permeates society at large. For the Philippines to cultivate an environment where innovation and technology can thrive, coordinated action from both the public and private sectors is crucial. 

The government has an essential role in creating policies that incentivize investment in key sectors such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), as well as industrial research and development (R&D). This includes not only financial support but also the development of infrastructure and regulatory frameworks that foster innovation. Moreover, public-private partnerships are crucial in translating research and technological advancements into tangible products and services that benefit the broader population. On the other hand, the private sector plays an equally significant role in driving industrial growth and innovation. By investing in research, nurturing local talent, and establishing robust industries, private companies can become key drivers of economic transformation. 

Collaboration between private companies and educational institutions also plays a critical role in creating a pipeline of skilled workers capable of meeting the demands of emerging industries. Such partnerships can bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application, ensuring that innovations are not only conceived but also effectively brought to market. One of the cornerstones of fostering innovation is the development of a strong foundation in STEM education. The Philippines must prioritize equipping its youth with the skills and knowledge necessary to excel in fields that drive industrial growth. This includes strengthening the curriculum at all educational levels, from primary schools to universities, to ensure that students are well-versed in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. Moreover, investing in STEM education should also involve cultivating creativity and critical thinking, as these are essential for innovation. 

Alongside academic learning, practical experience through internships, mentorships, and collaboration with industries can help students understand how science and technology can be applied in real-world scenarios. Establishing innovation hubs or tech incubators at universities and research centers can also encourage young inventors and entrepreneurs to turn their ideas into viable products, fostering a culture of innovation from the grassroots level. In the context of industrialization, Filipinos can draw inspiration from historical figures like Panday Pira, who was more than just a craftsman. Panday Pira, a blacksmith during the Spanish colonial era, is renowned for his skills in metallurgy and for his contribution to the construction of the country's first firearms, which played a pivotal role in the defense of the Philippines. While his work was a product of its time, it also reflects an early understanding of the power of industry and manufacturing to drive progress. 

Panday Pira's legacy reminds us that the mastery of industrial techniques can lead to self-sufficiency and independence—principles that continue to hold relevance today. In the modern era, the Philippines faces an opportunity to revitalize its industries, particularly in manufacturing, energy production, and advanced technologies. These sectors are essential to fostering sustainable economic growth, as they generate high-quality jobs and reduce dependence on foreign imports. By prioritizing investment in infrastructure, research, and innovation in these areas, the Philippines can create a self-reliant economy capable of competing in a globalized market. Manufacturing is a critical area for growth. By modernizing factories, adopting automation and smart manufacturing technologies, and investing in workforce training, the Philippines can boost productivity and create higher-value jobs. In energy production, the nation can harness its rich natural resources—such as solar, geothermal, and hydropower—to reduce reliance on imported fossil fuels and promote sustainability. Additionally, advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and renewable energy systems have the potential to revolutionize industries and position the Philippines as a leader in innovation. A robust industrial base requires more than just individual success stories. 

It demands a comprehensive ecosystem where entrepreneurs, inventors, scientists, and engineers can collaborate, share resources, and build on each other's work. This ecosystem should provide a clear path from research and development to commercialization, ensuring that groundbreaking ideas can make their way to market. This includes not just financial investments but also creating a culture of collaboration, transparency, and accountability among all stakeholders. Local inventors and entrepreneurs must be supported, not just in terms of financial backing, but through access to technology, mentorship, and a favorable regulatory environment. Government incentives such as tax breaks for R&D, patent protections for intellectual property, and grants for startups can encourage innovation at the grassroots level. By supporting small businesses and local innovators, the country can build a diverse and resilient industrial base that contributes to national economic stability. 

The future of Filipino innovation and industrial growth lies in the nation's ability to tap into its vast human capital and to nurture an environment that supports both creativity and practical applications of knowledge. As the Philippines continues to move forward, it is essential to prioritize policies that encourage collaboration between the public and private sectors, foster STEM education, and invest in the industries that will shape the future. By drawing on the lessons of the past, such as the legacy of Panday Pira, and by embracing modern industrial technologies, the Philippines can become a model of self-reliant, sustainable progress in the 21st century. In conclusion, Filipino ingenuity, when combined with the right investments and a supportive environment, can lead the Philippines toward greater economic self-sufficiency and global competitiveness. Whether in the form of manufacturing excellence, energy innovation, or breakthrough technologies, the potential for industrial strength is vast, and the time to unlock this potential is now.

Science and Progress Rooted in Filipino Talent and Heritage

The Panday Pira spirit transcends the idea of mere technological advancement; it symbolizes a deeper connection to Filipino heritage, craftsmanship, and the ability to create solutions that are both innovative and culturally relevant. Historically, Filipinos have long demonstrated a profound understanding of engineering and craftsmanship, with pre-colonial feats such as the construction of the Banaue Rice Terraces standing as a powerful example of ingenuity. This complex system of terraces, designed to manage water flow and maximize agricultural output in the mountainous regions of the Philippines, was built without modern tools or technologies. Yet, it reflects an extraordinary understanding of sustainable farming practices, structural integrity, and environmental harmony—qualities that continue to resonate with Filipino values today. Panday Pira, a blacksmith who crafted  firearms for Filipino warriors, also exemplified this deep-rooted capability. His contributions reflect not just technical skill but an intimate understanding of the materials and resources at hand, as well as the need to innovate for the defense and self-sufficiency of his people. These historical milestones highlight that Filipino ingenuity is not a modern phenomenon but one that has been passed down through generations, deeply ingrained in the nation's cultural DNA.

However, in the context of modern times, the challenge lies in ensuring that technological and industrial progress serves the needs of the Filipino people. Today, as the world moves toward greater industrialization, there is a risk that this progress could become detached from the values that have historically defined Filipino success. The rush toward modernization, while bringing many benefits, often comes with its own set of challenges, including environmental degradation, exploitation of resources, and social inequalities. This is where the true challenge lies—how can the Philippines ensure that industrialization does not compromise the welfare of its people or the sustainability of its environment?

For progress to truly benefit the Filipino people, modernization must be rooted in a commitment to inclusivity, sustainability, and the preservation of cultural identity. It must focus not just on economic gain but also on creating a more equitable society. Technological advancements should be harnessed to improve the quality of life for all Filipinos, particularly in rural areas and underserved communities. For instance, in agriculture, modern farming techniques and machinery can be used to increase productivity, but it must be done in a way that preserves the environment and supports local farmers. Similarly, industrial growth must not come at the cost of the environment; sustainable practices such as renewable energy, waste management, and eco-friendly manufacturing processes must be incorporated into the very fabric of development. These are ways in which modern industrialization can honor the spirit of Filipino ingenuity—advancing progress without sacrificing the future.

Cultural pride is also a critical component of this vision for progress. The Philippines is a nation rich in traditions, arts, and values that have been shaped over centuries. As the country modernizes, it is essential that this heritage is preserved and celebrated. The development of industries, particularly in areas such as fashion, food, and design, should integrate Filipino cultural influences, ensuring that the products created reflect the nation’s unique identity. Furthermore, technological advancements can be harnessed to preserve and promote Filipino heritage—through digital archives, virtual museums, or creative industries that celebrate the nation’s diverse cultures and history. This approach not only ensures that progress is rooted in Filipino identity but also allows for the global recognition of Filipino contributions to culture and technology.

Ultimately, true progress is not just about adopting new technologies or industries—it is about creating a future that aligns with the values and needs of the people. The challenge of modernization in the Philippines is to ensure that technological progress benefits all citizens, strengthens the economy, and preserves the rich heritage that has always been the foundation of Filipino ingenuity. By embracing sustainable practices, fostering inclusivity, and promoting cultural pride, the Philippines can achieve a modern industrial future that is both innovative and rooted in its historical strengths. In doing so, the nation can create a legacy of progress that honors its past while building a brighter, more inclusive future for all Filipinos.

A Call to Forge the Future

The revival of the Panday Pira spirit is a call for the Filipino people to reclaim their innovative and industrious heritage. It is a call to harness science, technology, and industry not as ends in themselves, but as tools for national sovereignty and self-determination.

As Alejandro Lichauco warned, a nation that does not produce will always remain dependent. Filipinos must remember Panday Pira’s legacy and forge their own tools for the future—not cannons, but knowledge, industries, and innovations that can secure a strong and self-reliant Philippines.

Those who undermine industrialization in favor of globalization must be challenged. A nation cannot thrive on exports of talent and raw resources while it imports necessities. The Filipino people deserve an economy that prioritizes them first—one that utilizes local resources, fosters local enterprises, and uplifts Filipino creativity.

By reviving this spirit, the Filipino people can transform challenges into opportunities, proving once again that their ingenuity knows no limits. In science and technology, they can find not only progress but also the keys to sovereignty, dignity, and prosperity. The more the country faces external challenges, the more it will progress, discovering new pathways to innovation that truly serve the Filipino people’s needs. 

The Flames of Struggle: Rising Against Crisis and Oppression

The Flames of Struggle: Rising Against Crisis and Oppression

The Philippines, like many nations caught in the web of global capitalism, has long been a battlefield for competing interests: imperial powers seeking to dominate, local elites striving to maintain control, and the masses, whose struggle for liberation is often obscured but never extinguished. In recent years, the weight of history—marked by colonization, exploitation, and betrayal by both domestic and foreign powers—has been felt acutely. What the current regime offers is not true change, but rather a pretension of reform that masks its commitment to perpetuating a broken system.

The Global Context: Imperialism’s Contradictions and Crises

The global capitalist system, having reached its zenith in the late 20th century, is now teetering on the precipice of collapse. Driven by a combination of unrestrained consumerism, financial speculation, and military conquest, global capitalism has wrought immense inequality and suffering. The world’s wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, while the majority of the population faces stagnating wages, rising debt, and diminishing access to basic resources.

Imperialism, in its contemporary form, continues to extract value from weaker nations under the guise of globalization, leveraging economic and military dominance to control resources, labor, and markets. The United States, long the hegemon of the capitalist world order, finds itself locked in intensifying competition with China. This rivalry, rooted in both economic and ideological differences, spills over into various global hotspots, including the Philippines.

The U.S., despite its claims of supporting freedom and democracy, has often been the architect of instability and exploitation in the Global South. Its interventions, whether in the form of military intervention or financial aid, are framed as benevolent but are, in reality, part of a broader strategy to maintain control over global markets. China, on the other hand, presents itself as an alternative to U.S. hegemony, offering economic incentives through its Belt and Road Initiative and positioning itself as a defender of sovereignty. Yet, its actions often mirror those of the U.S., using debt diplomacy to entrap weaker nations and extract economic resources for its own gain.

For nations like the Philippines, caught between these two imperial giants, sovereignty is continually compromised. The nation’s policies are shaped not by the will of its people but by the interests of foreign powers seeking to carve up the world’s wealth. The Philippine government’s capitulation to these global forces is evident in its economic policies, its dependence on foreign loans, and its entanglement in the global military-industrial complex.

The Domestic Scene: Neoliberalism’s Destructive Impact

Within the Philippines, neoliberal policies have hollowed out the country’s economy, undermining local industries, exacerbating poverty, and deepening inequality. The administration’s continued prioritization of foreign investment over domestic development has left the country vulnerable to external shocks and internal stagnation.

Agriculture in Ruins: A Nation Deprived of Self-Sufficiency

Agriculture, which has long been the backbone of the Filipino economy, has been decimated by neoliberal reforms. The government’s shift toward import liberalization—promoted as a means to reduce prices and increase competition—has undermined local farmers. Cheap imports flood the market, displacing small-scale farmers who can no longer compete with the artificially low prices of imported goods. This has led to mass displacement, food insecurity, and the exacerbation of rural poverty.

The government’s response has been inadequate, offering little support for agricultural modernization or rural development. Instead, policies like the Rice Tariffication Law, which deregulates rice imports, have only worsened the situation. Meanwhile, the oligarchic control over land has ensured that the wealth generated by agriculture flows into the hands of a few, leaving the majority of farmers mired in debt and deprivation. 

Recent policies like the “Rice Tariffication Law” (RTL) have been introduced under the guise of benefiting farmers through the supposed allocation of tariff proceeds to fund agricultural programs. However, in practice, the law has primarily served the interests of smugglers, cartels, and import-dependent traders rather than the Filipino farmers it claims to help. Far from reducing the cost of rice for consumers, prices have remained high, with no tangible relief for the poor. Instead of addressing the structural issues plaguing the agricultural sector, the law has exacerbated the plight of Filipino farmers, making it even harder for them to compete against cheaper imported rice. Many farmers report economic hardships such as inflation, diminished profits, and failed harvests, pushing them further into poverty.

Rather than empowering the agricultural sector, the RTL has systematically eroded its foundations. Local farmers are unable to compete with subsidized and mass-produced imports, resulting in the abandonment of farmlands, shrinking domestic production, and an increased reliance on imported food. The promised benefits of the law—such as programs for modernizing agriculture or improving farmer welfare—have been overshadowed by the widespread corruption and inefficiency in its implementation. The law’s consequences highlight a broader trend of policies that prioritize neoliberal interests over the welfare of local communities.

Moreover, there are ongoing attempts to deepen neoliberal policies in the agricultural sector, promoting the involvement of multinational corporations while removing critical regulations. Advocates of such measures argue for opening up agriculture to global markets, but in reality, this strategy undermines local food security. By shifting the focus from meeting local needs to catering to global demands, these policies further marginalize small-scale farmers who cannot compete with corporate agribusinesses. This emphasis on global wants over local needs consolidates control over resources in the hands of a few, while millions of farmers and consumers bear the brunt of economic dislocation and food insecurity.

The neoliberal assault on agriculture reflects a broader trend of subjugating national interests to the demands of global capital. These policies dismantle the country’s ability to produce its own food, pushing it into deeper dependence on imports. As a result, farmers not only face economic ruin but also lose their role as stewards of the land, as multinational corporations and local elites take over vast tracts of farmland for profit-driven ventures.

The story of the RTL and similar policies is a cautionary tale about the dangers of uncritically embracing neoliberal frameworks. It underscores the urgency of rejecting these exploitative models and advocating for an agricultural system that prioritizes the needs of Filipino farmers and consumers. A shift toward self-sufficiency, genuine land reform, and robust state support is essential to reversing the damage wrought by decades of neoliberal neglect and exploitation. The Filipino people deserve policies that secure their right to food, livelihoods, and a sustainable future, rather than laws that enrich a privileged few at their expense.

The Stagnation of Manufacturing 
and Dependence on Foreign Capital

The manufacturing sector, which should be central to economic growth, has been relegated to the periphery of the economy. Instead of investing in infrastructure, technology, and industrialization, the government has chosen to rely on foreign capital, which has resulted in assembly-line operations that contribute little to the country’s long-term economic development.

This policy of promoting foreign investment in exchange for concessions has failed to produce meaningful economic growth. While foreign companies profit, local industries remain underdeveloped, and workers are subjected to exploitative conditions. The global slowdown, particularly in the semiconductor industry, has exposed the fragility of this model, as factories close and layoffs increase. The dependency on foreign markets makes the country vulnerable to external fluctuations, and the promise of industrialization remains unfulfilled.

The Debt Crisis: A Nation Trapped in Servitude

As the Marcos administration continues to borrow heavily to finance its projects, the country finds itself sinking deeper into a debt trap. Foreign debt has reached record levels, and the government’s budgetary priorities are increasingly directed toward servicing these loans rather than addressing the pressing needs of the people. In 2024, foreign debt alone has reached a staggering $139.6 billion, while the national debt exceeds ₱16 trillion.

Interest payments consume a significant portion of the national budget, diverting resources away from essential services like education, health care, and infrastructure. The regressive tax policies implemented by the government further exacerbate this crisis, burdening the poor and middle class while leaving the elite untouched. The policies of austerity, in the form of cuts to social programs and public services, further deepen the suffering of the Filipino people.

The Illusion of Stability and Reform: 
Bureaucratic Capitalism and Political Pretension

The current administration’s claim to uphold national self-interest is, in reality, a thinly veiled attempt to conceal its true allegiances to foreign powers and local elites. Despite its rhetoric of reform, whether through “economic stimulus packages,” military campaigns against insurgents, or “assistance programs,” the government’s actions reveal a commitment to maintaining the status quo, rather than addressing the root causes of inequality. 

These so-called assistance programs, which include cash transfers, small-business grants, and emergency relief funds, are not intended to redistribute wealth or challenge entrenched structures of power. Instead, they serve to placate the population with temporary measures, while the resources meant for the poor are often mismanaged or siphoned off by corrupt officials, political dynasties, and contractors. The distribution of aid is frequently skewed toward areas where political patronage can be leveraged, leaving those who need it most without meaningful support. Moreover, these programs lack long-term investment in sustainable development, further demonstrating that they are more about maintaining political control than addressing systemic poverty. 

At the same time, the proliferation of confidential and intelligence funds particularly those used under Vice Presdient Sara Duterte has allowed state agencies to use public resources for political repression rather than national security. Despite justifications such as "tying education to national security" (being then-concurrent education secretary), these funds, often allocated without oversight, have been used to target activists, journalists, and human rights defenders, all in the name of combating perceived threats to the regime. 

The government’s reliance on bureaucratic capitalism, which ties the interests of the state to the wealth of the political elite, has further entrenched inequality. Wealthy families and foreign corporations continue to benefit from government policies that protect their profits, while the vast majority of Filipinos remain mired in poverty. 

The administration’s facade of reform, however, only serves to mask its true priorities—preserving the power and privileges of the elite. The so-called “economic stimulus” and military actions against insurgents are little more than distractions from the deeper issues of inequality, landlessness, and social unrest. The Filipino people are not blind to these deceptions. While the government tries to maintain the illusion of stability with these superficial programs and policies, the masses are increasingly aware of the systemic injustices that persist. 

Foreign Dependence: The Kowtow to Conglomerates, 

Banksters, and Global Powers

The administration’s subservience to foreign interests is a glaring manifestation of its betrayal of the Filipino people’s aspirations for sovereignty and genuine development. Its economic policies, rather than uplifting the nation, are designed to appease global capital and safeguard the privileges of the ruling elite. By granting exorbitant concessions to multinational corporations, entering into lopsided trade agreements, and relying heavily on loans from international financial institutions, the government has entrenched the Philippines in a cycle of dependency. These actions prioritize profits for a few over the welfare of millions, undermining the country’s ability to forge an independent path toward progress.

Initiatives like China’s “Belt and Road Initiative” or similar programs promoted by the United States are often presented as opportunities for economic growth. Yet, in practice, they act as mechanisms for control and exploitation, embedding nations like the Philippines deeper into a web of economic servitude. These programs extract resources, degrade local industries, and impose onerous financial obligations, leaving the country unable to assert its sovereignty. Multinational corporations and international financiers, backed by the political and military influence of big powers, exploit these arrangements to bleed the country dry, enriching themselves while impoverishing the masses.

The rhetoric of “inclusive growth” often used to justify these policies is nothing more than a deceptive façade. Cloaked in the language of progress and cooperation, these programs serve the same neoliberal agenda that prioritizes deregulation, privatization, and austerity. The result is a widening gap between the rich and the poor, the erosion of public services, and the degradation of national industries. The promise of economic advancement remains a mirage, as the benefits of these policies accrue only to foreign investors and their local collaborators. This perpetual cycle of dependence, framed as economic modernization, continues to deprive the Filipino people of the opportunity to shape their own future and achieve self-determination.

In essence, the government’s kowtowing to foreign powers, propped up by multinational corporations and financial institutions, represents not a step toward progress but a deeper entrenchment of the colonial legacy of exploitation. This betrayal of the national interest underlines the urgency of resisting these policies and reclaiming sovereignty through collective struggle. Only by breaking free from the grip of foreign domination can the Filipino people hope to build a society that serves their interests and aspirations..

Repression and the Erosion of Rights: A Campaign of Fear

To maintain control over a dissatisfied population, the government has turned to repression. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), in collaboration with other state agencies like the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC), has waged an aggressive campaign against dissent. Under the guise of “countering violent extremism,” the government has carried out a witch hunt against activists, human rights defenders, and anyone who dares to challenge its policies.

The war on dissent has been characterized by extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests, and the vilification of those who speak out against government corruption and mismanagement. The NTF-ELCAC, which was established to combat the communist insurgency, has expanded its reach to target activists and opposition figures. This campaign has made it clear that the government sees any form of resistance as a threat to its power and is willing to use violence and intimidation to suppress it.

As Lenin once asserted, “The oppressed are always in a majority, and the oppressed will eventually win over the oppressors.” The struggle against imperialism, exploitation, and the betrayal of the people is not only necessary but inevitable. The history of revolutionary movements in the Philippines has always demonstrated the resilience of the people in the face of such odds.

Mao Zedong further elucidated, “All reactionaries are paper tigers.” The oppressive state, with its seemingly omnipotent power and control, is a mere illusion of strength. The Filipino people’s ability to organize, resist, and create change is a testament to their unyielding spirit.

Resistance: The Undying Spirit of the Filipino People

Despite the oppression and exploitation, the Filipino people remain undeterred. In the face of overwhelming odds, they continue to organize, to mobilize, and to fight for their rights. From the streets of Manila to the rural provinces, workers, farmers, students, and activists are rejecting the government’s lies and promises. The broad masses of the people are not passive in the face of adversity; instead, they are taking up arms—both figuratively and literally—against the forces that seek to keep them down.

As the Filipino nationalist and revolutionary, Apolinario Mabini, stated in his True Decalogue in the late 19th century: “The first condition of every state is the spirit of its people.” He warned that a government that ceases to represent the interests of the people, a government which betrays its own citizens, loses its legitimacy. In such circumstances, the Filipino people are not bound to it by any contract, for the essence of the nation is found in its collective will to secure freedom, equality, and justice.

The resistance is growing stronger every day. The call for genuine land reform, for decent wages, for an end to foreign dominance, and for a society based on justice and equality is resonating across the country. The Filipino people, inspired by the legacy of their revolutionaries, are determined to forge a future free from the chains of imperialism and exploitation.

A Vision for the Future: Revolution and Liberation

The road ahead is fraught with challenges, but it is also a road filled with hope. The Filipino people have not given up the dream of a just and sovereign nation. The struggle for national liberation, social justice, and true democracy will continue until the oppressive structures of the old order are dismantled and replaced by a new system—one that places the interests of the people at its center.

As the people rise, so too does the possibility of a revolution that can break the chains of poverty and oppression. It is a revolution not just for the immediate demands of the present but for a future where the wealth of the nation is shared by all, where power is not concentrated in the hands of a few, and where the rights of the people are truly respected.

In the face of oppression, exploitation, and violence, the Filipino people stand resolute. Their struggle is not just for today, but for a future built on justice, freedom, and equality. It is a struggle that, despite all odds, will continue to burn brightly, illuminating the path toward liberation.. 

The Irresistible Necessity: Revolution, Nationalism, and the Voice of the Filipino People

 The Irresistible Necessity:
Revolution, Nationalism,
and the Voice of the Filipino People

In the face of such stark realities—where corruption, political apathy, and external control persistently undermine the sovereignty of the Philippines—one might rightfully ask if concepts like class struggle, liberty, equality, fraternity, and justice have become passe. The questions echo in the minds of those who continue to witness a nation’s political and economic systems serving the interests of foreign corporations, political dynasties, and the elite, while leaving the Filipino people in a perpetual state of inequality and frustration. When national leaders continue to chant the words of “national unity” and “order,” it becomes increasingly clear that these terms are hollow rhetoric, designed to placate the discontented and distract them from the deeper social injustices that persist.

The call for unity has often been nothing more than a veneer, a tool used to silence the voices of the people, who demand their basic rights: just wages, land, and homes. Instead of meaningful reforms, these calls are met with “assistance programs”—not genuine solutions, but temporary palliatives that do little to address the root causes of poverty and inequality. The Philippine government’s response to this widespread discontent is often a futile appeasement: handing out aid packages and programs meant to calm the masses, but never truly confronting the larger structural problems at hand. Isn't this an attempt to undermine the fact that the people are rising? The people's demands are often dismissed as inconvenient, yet these very demands—the fight for land, wages, housing, and justice—are not only legitimate but vital to the nation's progress. The poor are power, if only given the opportunity to organize, to speak, to demand their rights. But when their voices are drowned out by false promises and superficial measures, the true power of the people is obscured, and their ability to shape the nation is minimized.

A concerned patriot—driven by a profound desire for justice and a genuine concern for the people’s plight—might begin to see the traditional ideals of liberty and equality as something far more than outdated or out of touch. These concepts might feel increasingly relevant in such a time of crisis, when “class struggle” is not a relic of history but an ongoing, urgent reality. In the face of such overwhelming forces, the pursuit of justice and equality may appear as an idealism, but it is an idealism fueled by the lived experiences of the Filipino people—people who yearn not just for survival but for dignity, agency, and a chance to forge their own path, free from the shackles of historical exploitation.

This drive to seek justice is what led Atty. Apolinario Mabini, one of the Philippines’ most revered patriots, to recognize that when “the desires of the people” reach a critical point—when the "popular will" becomes so compelling that it cannot be ignored—revolution becomes an inescapable necessity. Mabini’s words are powerful in this context: “In reality, I never had the courage to disturb his countrymen while they preferred to live in peace." he said. However, it was inescapable for him to feel the "genuine desires of the people" and "the popular will.” For Mabini, the realization that the majority of citizens were being denied their basic needs—whether food, land, or political voice—could no longer be ignored. It was no longer just about the elite or the ruling class; it was about the majority who had suffered long enough and had reached the point of irresistible necessity for change.

Mabini’s belief that a socio political revolution is not only a right but a necessity in such circumstances is a profound and timeless observation. A revolution, he said, is initiated by the people, for whom the desire to better their condition becomes irresistible, a matter of survival, dignity, and justice. When the genuine needs of the Filipino people are felt by the majority, when their voices cry out for freedom from exploitation, equality, and justice, then the state must recognize the necessity for political change—not as an act of violence, but as an act of self-determination.

So, what justifies the fight? Revolution is justified because it is driven by the voice of the people, a collective cry that cannot be silenced by false promises or appeasement. As Mabini observed, the desire of the majority to better their condition becomes undeniable, a demand that transcends the efforts of the elite to maintain the status quo. It is not the marginalized seeking to destroy the nation, but rather the people seeking to revitalize it, to restore its integrity and sovereignty, to reclaim its identity from the forces that have long exploited it.

The fight for justice and sovereignty is thus not an idealistic outpouring but a profound necessity. It is a necessity driven by the very real needs of the Filipino people, who are fed up with being silenced, fed up with being treated as pawns in a game of political and economic exploitation. Nationalism, real nationalism, is not about waving flags or singing anthems—it is about ensuring that the Filipino people have the power to determine their own future. It is about recognizing that the poor are power, and that their struggle is not only for economic justice, but for the very survival of their nation’s identity.

In the face of overwhelming oppression, patriotism is no longer just about standing by while the country is exploited—it is about standing with the people, recognizing their struggles, and supporting their fight for justice, equality, and sovereignty. Just as Mabini followed the voice of the people, so too must the concerned patriot listen to the cry of the masses, for they alone hold the key to the nation’s true future.

Against the Denationalization of the Philippines: A Continuing Struggle for Socio-National Sovereignty and Economic Independence

Against the Denationalization of the Philippines:

A Continuing Struggle for Socio-National Sovereignty

and Economic Independence

The Philippines, once heralded as a beacon of potential in Southeast Asia, now finds itself entangled in a web of economic dependency, political corruption, and foreign influence that has eroded its sovereignty and national dignity. This denationalization is not merely a continuation of the colonial legacies of the past, but a new and insidious form of economic and cultural colonization driven by multinational corporations, foreign governments, and international financial institutions. Unlike the traditional imperialism of direct occupation, the modern forms of foreign domination over the Philippines are subtle, complex, and ultimately more detrimental to the country’s long-term prosperity and autonomy.

The Legacy of Colonial Economic Models

The roots of the Philippines’ current predicament can be traced back to its colonial history. Under Spanish rule and later American occupation, the Philippines was shaped into an economy that was heavily reliant on foreign capital and exports. This colonial economic structure created a dependency on external markets and capital flows that persisted even after the country gained independence in 1946. Following World War II, the Philippines embarked on a path of industrialization, but its attempts at self-sustaining economic growth were often thwarted by policies that favored foreign investments over local industries and agricultural development.

As in the past, the Philippines pursued a model of economic growth that emphasized the need for foreign capital and multinational investments as the primary drivers of development. While this model provided short-term benefits, including infrastructure development and the growth of certain sectors, it left the country deeply dependent on external forces. National industries were fragmented, and local innovation was stifled in favor of foreign-controlled enterprises that benefited from the Philippines’ natural resources and cheap labor. This economic structure created a dual economy, where a small elite class benefitted from foreign investments, while the vast majority of Filipinos remained marginalized, living in poverty.

The Modern Global Economic Order

The situation today is one of deepened dependency. The Philippines is no longer just beholden to one colonial power, but rather, it faces the combined influence of multiple global forces—multinational corporations, international financial institutions, and foreign governments. These entities have become deeply entrenched in the country’s economy, often through policy concessions granted by a compromised Filipino state. While the Philippines’ sovereignty is not overtly challenged through direct military occupation, it is under constant pressure from foreign interests seeking to exploit the country’s resources and labor.

This modern form of imperialism is often facilitated by the Philippine government’s willingness to prioritize foreign interests over local needs. For example, foreign corporations continue to control key sectors such as mining, agriculture, and manufacturing. These corporations extract the nation’s natural resources, export raw materials, and offer little in return to local communities in terms of development or value-added industries. In many cases, they operate with impunity, evading taxes, flouting environmental regulations, and undermining the livelihoods of local farmers and workers.

The mining and other resource-extracting industries in the Philippines, for example, has attracted significant foreign investment. While this has led to some short-term economic gains, it has also resulted in widespread environmental degradation, displacement of local communities, and the depletion of valuable resources that could otherwise be used for long-term national development. Similarly, the agricultural sector remains dominated by foreign agribusinesses that exploit cheap labor and export raw agricultural products without investing in local food security or infrastructure. 

Recent Developments: The Deepening Crisis of Dependency

years, the Philippines has seen an alarming trend of increasing foreign influence, further entrenching its position within the global capitalist system. Under the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte (2016-2022), the Philippines deepened its economic and political ties with foreign powers, particularly China, while attempting to distance itself from traditional Western allies like the United States. Duterte’s pivot to China resulted in a controversial economic partnership, where China made large-scale investments in infrastructure projects under its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). 

While these investments were initially heralded as a pathway to economic growth and development, they have raised concerns about sovereignty and long-term economic dependence. Critics argue that the Philippines’ reliance on Chinese loans and investments is akin to “debt-trap diplomacy,” where the country could potentially be forced into unfavorable agreements in exchange for the financial assistance it received. Moreover, Chinese-backed infrastructure projects have often been criticized for their lack of transparency, the disregard for local environmental and social impacts, and the preferential treatment given to Chinese contractors and workers rather than providing opportunities for local businesses. 

This growing reliance on China is not the only issue. The Philippines has also seen continued support for multinational corporations through various government policies, including deregulation of industries, tax incentives, and relaxed labor and environmental protection laws that benefit foreign investors over local communities. The Aquino and Duterte administrations both pursued neoliberal policies that prioritized market liberalization and deregulation, opening up the economy to further foreign exploitation while leaving key domestic industries underdeveloped. 

This trend continued into the current administration under Marcos Jr. (2022-present), which, while shifting back toward closer ties with the United States, simultaneously tries to maintain economic relations with China. Marcos Jr.’s delicate balancing act reflects the Philippines’ ongoing struggle to assert its sovereignty while navigating the competing interests of two major global powers. The Philippines seeks to strengthen its relationship with Washington, especially in defense and security matters, while also engaging with Beijing in economic and infrastructure projects. 

The shift back to the United States, however, has not resolved the nation’s dependency. While the U.S. provides military support, the country’s ongoing reliance on foreign investments, both from China and the U.S., has deepened its position within the global capitalist system. The foreign capital influx, alongside the absence of strong protections for domestic industries, continues to stifle local economic development and perpetuates exploitation. 

This geopolitical balancing act, though seemingly pragmatic, has led to a further entrenchment of the Philippines’ economic and political dependency. The country is stuck in a cycle where external forces—whether it be the U.S., China, or multinational corporations—set the terms of its future, while its own national interests and sovereignty remain subjugated to foreign agendas. The Philippines continues to face the persistent challenge of being caught in a tug-of-war between superpowers, often compromising its independence and sovereignty in the process. 

As a result, the Philippines remains vulnerable to exploitation, caught between the competing geopolitical interests of global powers. Despite the shifting allegiances, the fundamental issues of economic dependence and lack of domestic self-sufficiency remain unchanged, and the nation’s future continues to be shaped by foreign powers, at the expense of Filipino sovereignty.

Corruption and Political Apathy: A Weakened State

At the heart of the Philippines' ongoing crisis is not just the routine misuse of public funds but a more insidious and entrenched system of corruption that goes beyond simple theft. This corruption operates under the guise of pretentious populism, where political elites, under the banner of addressing the needs of the people, justify and perpetuate neoliberal-globalist policies that ultimately serve to consolidate the status quo. The country’s political system is marked by a type of bureaucrat capitalism, where elites use their power to enrich themselves and multinational corporations at the expense of the Filipino people, all while masking their actions under a veneer of populist rhetoric.

This system of bureaucrat capitalism serves to reinforce not only the economic and political dominance of a few elites but also the longstanding feudal setup in the country. Political dynasties, often with ties to large businesses and multinational corporations, hold substantial control over the country’s political landscape. These dynasties are often beholden to foreign interests, which further entrenches the neoliberal-globalist agenda in the Philippines, ensuring that economic policies continue to favor foreign capital and the wealthy elite. Rather than challenging the status quo, politicians use populist rhetoric to maintain a sense of legitimacy, while behind the scenes, they uphold an economic order that disproportionately benefits foreign investors and a small, powerful local elite.

Under this system, corruption is no longer just about stealing public funds—it has become a degeneration of the socio-national fabric itself. The misuse of resources,  as well as the exploitation of various socioeconomic programs for political patronage, reveals a deeper rot. The system tolerates corruption in the name of protecting vested interests, whether they be political families or foreign corporations, leading to a situation where the country’s economic and social structures are increasingly fragile. Public officials are no longer simply “stealing” resources but are eroding the very institutions and principles that could provide a foundation for social justice, equity, and national sovereignty.

The corruption in the Philippines has become so pervasive that it has fundamentally altered the fabric of the nation, allowing the perpetuation of a system where foreign powers and local elites continue to exert control over national resources and policy decisions. The resulting system, one that has consistently favored multinational interests, has led to the displacement of local communities, environmental degradation, and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. Even though these issues may be framed under the lens of addressing poverty or providing social assistance, the policies are often designed to placate the public while maintaining the dominance of the political and economic elite.

One of the most infamous manifestations of corruption in the Philippines is the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) scandals during the Aquino administration. These funds, intended for infrastructure and poverty alleviation projects, were instead diverted for personal gain by lawmakers and government officials. In the PDAF scandal, billions of pesos were funneled into fake NGOs or misallocated to non-existent projects. The DAP scandal similarly involved the diversion of government funds meant for economic stimulus into discretionary spending by the executive branch, resulting in a loss of funds that were supposed to benefit the Filipino public. These scams highlighted how public money was routinely abused, contributing to the erosion of trust in the government.

Under President Duterte, corruption continued to flourish, particularly with his “war on drugs” campaign. While the drug war was presented as a moral crusade to rid the country of narcotics, it was also marked by extrajudicial killings, human rights abuses, and the misuse of public resources. The administration was accused of diverting vast sums of money from the national budget into the war effort without adequate accountability. Duterte's government also faced widespread accusations of corruption involving law enforcement and the misuse of public funds, raising further concerns about the integrity of the state.

The Marcos administration, under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., has also faced similar allegations of mismanagement and corruption, especially related to the proliferation of “assistance programs” that are often used for political patronage. These programs, designed to offer financial aid to marginalized groups, are sometimes used as tools to buy votes and support from constituents, rather than being implemented as effective and transparent social welfare measures. The Marcos family's long-standing hold on power has been marked by these tactics of resource misallocation, leading to a system where political loyalty is bought and sold, rather than earned through merit and good governance.

Recently, Vice President Sara Duterte has also been embroiled in controversy, with allegations surrounding the misuse of Confidential Funds, which are meant to be used for national security and intelligence purposes. These funds are typically shrouded in secrecy, and there is little oversight on their usage. The allegations point to the possibility that funds were misused for non-security purposes or diverted for political gain, further deepening the public's frustration with the lack of transparency in governance.

With these examples, shows that rather than creating a genuinely democratic society, this system of corruption and bureaucrat capitalism reinforces the existing feudal structure—a system where political dynasties, along with their allies in business and multinational corporations, control the country’s economic and political systems. This structure leaves little room for meaningful reforms, as the elite class perpetuates policies that serve their interests, while the Filipino people are left to suffer the consequences. For example, while political elites have prospered through these patronage networks and connections with foreign governments and multinational corporations, the Filipino working class continues to face high rates of poverty and unemployment. According to the Philippine Statistics Authority, in 2023, poverty incidence stood at 23.7%, meaning nearly a quarter of the population lives below the poverty line. Moreover, income inequality remains high, with the richest 10% of the population earning more than a third of the country's total income, while the bottom half of the population shares less than 20%.

In this system, political apathy has flourished. As the majority of the population watches corruption unfold with little recourse for justice, disillusionment sets in. The alienation felt by citizens is not just a byproduct of economic inequality but a direct result of the political system that has come to tolerate and even condone corruption for the sake of preserving power. Voters, frustrated by the lack of real change, become increasingly disengaged from the political process, while those in power continue to consolidate their grip on the state.

In this context, the ongoing cycle of corruption, political apathy, and bureaucrat capitalism represents a broader societal failure. It is no longer merely about misused public funds but about the very degeneration of the socio-national fabric, where the long-standing traditions of governance, justice, and national interest are sacrificed in the name of maintaining the power and influence of a small elite. The Philippines, caught between foreign interests and local oligarchs, finds itself increasingly unable to break free from a system that keeps the status quo intact, to the detriment of the Filipino people.

Foreign Subservience and Economic Exploitation

As of October 2024, the Philippines' national debt stands at approximately ₱15.1889 trillion (around $273.9 billion), which represents a significant portion of the country's gross domestic product (GDP). This massive debt burden has deepened the nation's economic challenges, contributing to a growing reliance on foreign loans, investments, and aid. As the government grapples with its financial obligations, the country finds itself increasingly subordinated to external forces, with international financial institutions and foreign governments exerting considerable influence over its economic and political decisions.

One of the key players in this dynamic is the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which, along with the World Bank, has shaped Philippine economic policies for decades. These institutions have often pushed for neoliberal economic measures, including fiscal austerity, deregulation, privatization, and trade liberalization. In return for loans, the IMF and the World Bank have imposed stringent conditions, often prioritizing debt repayment and fiscal consolidation over investments in social welfare programs or poverty alleviation efforts.

The Philippine government's adherence to these conditions has had severe consequences for the country's most vulnerable citizens. Austerity measures, such as cuts to social services and public infrastructure, have exacerbated economic inequality, with the wealthiest sectors of society continuing to accumulate wealth while the poor remain trapped in cycles of poverty. According to the World Bank, as of 2023, the Philippines had an official poverty rate of approximately 23.7%, with millions of Filipinos struggling to meet basic needs.

This economic inequality is further compounded by the growing dominance of foreign corporations in key sectors of the economy. Foreign direct investment (FDI) into the Philippines has surged in recent years, particularly in industries such as mining, energy, and agriculture. However, much of this investment is controlled by multinational corporations that extract the country's valuable natural resources without reinvesting sufficiently in the local economy. For example, large-scale mining operations, such as those in the Caraga region, have drawn criticism for their environmental degradation and for failing to provide meaningful benefits to local communities.

In the energy sector, foreign-owned companies dominate the production and distribution of electricity, leading to high energy prices for consumers and limited energy access in rural areas. In 2022, the Philippines' energy imports amounted to around $13.5 billion, as the country remains dependent on foreign energy sources despite its abundant natural resources. The government's prioritization of foreign interests over national sovereignty has also led to the continued exploitation of agricultural land by foreign agribusinesses, displacing local farmers and contributing to rural poverty.

The impact of foreign corporate control over the country's resources is particularly evident in the mining sector. The Philippines is one of the world's top producers of nickel, copper, and gold, but the vast majority of these resources are controlled by foreign corporations, such as those from Canada, Australia, and China. These companies often operate with minimal oversight, resulting in environmental destruction and the displacement of indigenous communities. For example, the Didipio mine in Nueva Vizcaya, operated by the Australian firm OceanaGold, has faced accusations of environmental damage, water contamination, and human rights violations. The Philippine government, rather than holding these companies accountable, has often sided with foreign investors, further eroding the nation’s sovereignty.

In addition to economic subordination, the political influence of foreign powers has also been a significant concern. The Philippines’ dependence on foreign loans, especially from China and Japan, has led to accusations that the country’s political decisions are being shaped by external interests. The growing influence of China in particular, through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), has raised fears of increasing economic and political dependence, particularly with regard to the Philippines' territorial disputes in the South China Sea. China’s growing investments in Philippine infrastructure projects, as well as its role as a major trade partner, have led some critics to argue that the Philippines' sovereignty is being compromised in exchange for economic aid and loans.

The Philippines' economic policies and the growing control of foreign corporations and governments over the country's resources have sparked widespread protests and calls for reform. Many Filipinos are demanding a shift away from neoliberal policies that prioritize debt repayment and foreign investment, and toward a more equitable and self-sufficient economic model that focuses on domestic industries, social welfare, and environmental protection.

Despite these growing calls for change, the Philippine government has largely continued to prioritize foreign interests, leading to increasing frustration among the population. The continued dominance of foreign corporations and the nation's heavy reliance on foreign loans and investments threaten the Philippines’ economic sovereignty and its ability to address the needs of its people. As the national debt continues to rise and external pressures grow, the future of the Philippines’ economic independence and political autonomy remains uncertain.

A Crisis of National Identity and Sovereignty

The current situation in the Philippines is deeply troubling because it reflects an ongoing process of “denationalization,” where the very essence of the country’s identity and sovereignty is being gradually eroded. The term “denationalization” refers to the systematic stripping away of a nation’s autonomy, culture, resources, and political independence in favor of external control and influence. This is not a simple case of the Philippines being a victim of colonialism in the traditional sense. Instead, it is a more insidious form of colonialism, one that operates through global capitalism, political subjugation, and the erosion of national pride.

What makes this situation particularly dire is that the Philippines has yet to overcome its historical legacies of colonialism and inequality, but now faces a new challenge: a nation-building effort that feels half-hearted and incomplete. The eagerness to be “relevant” in the global order has led the country to sacrifice its own national desires and self-determination. In the race to be recognized on the world stage, the country often bows to the will of foreign powers, multinational corporations, and the demands of global economic markets. This eagerness to belong, to be seen as a player in international affairs, has caused the Philippines to abandon its own national interests. The Philippines has become a country whose political and economic policies are increasingly dictated by external forces, leaving its people to navigate the consequences.

At the heart of this denationalization is the compromise of the country's educational system. Once a source of pride and intellectual leadership, the Filipino educational system has been increasingly shaped by policies that prioritize corporate and foreign interests over the development of local talent and innovation. The Philippine education system has come to be seen as a tool to serve external demands, rather than one that nurtures Filipino creativity, critical thinking, and self-sufficiency. This growing reliance on foreign expertise and technology leaves little room for homegrown solutions or for Filipino professionals to play a leading role in the nation’s progress. The academic and technological backbone of the country, which should be the cornerstone of national development, has become increasingly subordinated to global market forces that prioritize profits over people.

The dominance of foreign powers in shaping Philippine policy is not limited to economic exploitation. It extends to cultural and political independence. The nation’s economic policies, resource management, and even its political direction are increasingly determined by external forces, whether from multinational corporations, foreign governments, or international institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. These entities impose conditions that prioritize debt repayment, austerity measures, and market-driven growth, often at the expense of the welfare of Filipino citizens. The country is, therefore, left with the illusion of sovereignty—waving the flag, singing the anthem, and proclaiming national pride—while its true political and economic direction is steered from the outside.

This situation becomes even more alarming when considering the visible contradictions in the political and social landscape. Corrupt bureaucrats, despotic landlords, and a government that submits to the whims of both multinational conglomerates and foreign masters paint a grim picture of the nation’s current state. The Philippines has a political and economic system that continues to favor the interests of a few elites, whether they are domestic oligarchs or foreign corporations. These elites operate with impunity, while the Filipino people face growing inequality, poverty, and disillusionment.

Amidst these stark realities, there is a profound contradiction at the heart of the nation’s identity. Political leaders and institutions continue to parrot the rhetoric of national unity and pride, but where is the true nationalism in a country that is governed by external forces and political dynasties? Nationalism in the Philippines has become little more than symbolic gestures: waving the flag, singing the national anthem, and celebrating national holidays. However, where is the true expression of nationalism when the very structures of power are aligned with foreign interests? The political elite continue to promote national pride, but their actions often reveal a different story—a story of submission, dependence, and exploitation.

In this context, national unity has become a hollow phrase, repeated by politicians and leaders, while the underlying forces of corruption, bureaucratic capitalism, and foreign subjugation erode the country’s integrity. The call for unity is in stark contrast to the fractured reality of a nation divided by powerful political dynasties, economic inequality, and an apathetic citizenry. National pride, while important, rings increasingly hollow when the nation’s resources and sovereignty are in the hands of foreign corporations and elites who have little regard for the interests of the people.

Where, then, is the genuine nationalism? It is not found in flag-waving ceremonies or hollow speeches—it is found in a nation that is willing to reclaim its sovereignty, invest in its people, and stand up to foreign domination. True nationalism would be a movement that empowers Filipinos to control their own political and economic future, to assert their identity and culture in a way that is not dictated by outside forces. Yet, for now, the Philippines continues to navigate a path that is defined by external influences and a political system that upholds the interests of the elite, rather than the people.

In a country where nation-building has often been incomplete and compromised by external forces, it is clear that denationalization is not just a passing phase, but a deep and ongoing crisis. The Philippines faces the challenge of reasserting its identity—both politically and culturally—and reclaiming its sovereignty, not just as a symbolic gesture, but as a fundamental necessity for the future of the Filipino people. Without this, the Philippines risks losing its ability to shape its own destiny, leaving future generations trapped in a cycle of dependence and lost potential.

The Path Forward: Reclaiming Sovereignty and National Dignity

In the face of stark realities—where corruption, political apathy, and external control persistently undermine the sovereignty of the Philippines—one might rightfully ask if core concepts like class struggle, liberty, equality, fraternity, and justice have become passe. The deepening inequality and frustration felt by the Filipino people suggest that these ideals may be more relevant than ever. With political and economic systems serving the interests of foreign corporations, political dynasties, and the elite, it becomes clear that the calls for national unity and order are hollow rhetoric, meant to placate the discontented and distract from the deeper social injustices that persist.

The call for unity has often been nothing more than a tool to silence the voices of the people who demand their basic rights: just wages, land, and homes. Instead of meaningful reforms, these demands are met with “assistance programs”—temporary palliatives that do little to address the root causes of poverty and inequality. The government's response is often one of futile appeasement, handing out aid packages while avoiding the confrontation of the structural problems at the heart of the nation’s struggles. These actions undermine the fact that the people are rising in demand for justice and sovereignty. Their voices, often dismissed as inconvenient, are in fact the cries for freedom from exploitation, for dignity, and for the opportunity to determine their own path.

A concerned patriot, driven by a profound desire for justice, might find that traditional ideals of liberty and equality are not outdated, but are ideals deeply rooted in the lived experiences of the Filipino people. These ideals are not mere abstractions, but the bedrock for a society where class struggle remains a critical and urgent reality. When these ideals are denied, the pursuit of justice and equality becomes more than a philosophical pursuit—it becomes a necessity. In the words of Atty. Apolinario Mabini, the desire for change, when it becomes irresistible, leads to revolution—a revolution born of the people's need for survival, dignity, and justice.

Mabini’s belief that political revolution is not only a right but a necessity in such circumstances is both profound and timeless. A revolution, as Mabini observed, is driven by the popular will, the collective cry for a better condition that cannot be ignored by the powers that be. This desire for change is not an attempt to destroy the nation, but to revitalize it, to restore its integrity and sovereignty, and to reclaim its identity from the forces that have long exploited it. The fight for justice and sovereignty is therefore a fundamental necessity—one that responds to the real needs of the Filipino people who are no longer willing to remain silent in the face of oppression.

To achieve this, the path forward for the Philippines requires a fundamental shift in both economic and political priorities. The nation must reclaim its sovereignty, not just in a political sense, but in an economic and cultural one. The government must challenge the dominance of multinational corporations and work to restore the power of the state to serve the people, not corporate interests. Investments in domestic industries, indigenous innovation, and the revitalization of the agricultural and manufacturing sectors are essential steps to break free from the chains of foreign exploitation.

At the heart of this transformation is the unity of the Filipino people, across political and social divides, demanding accountability from their leaders. This means confronting corruption head-on, demanding transparency in the use of public funds, and holding foreign corporations accountable for their exploitation of the country’s resources. The Philippines must reinvigorate its educational system, nurturing a new generation of Filipinos who are capable of leading the country toward self-sustained economic growth and reclaiming their nation's cultural identity.

Reclaiming sovereignty will not be easy, but it is essential for the future of the nation. The Filipino people must take control of their economy, their resources, and their culture. True nationalism is not about waving flags or singing anthems—it is about ensuring the Filipino people have the power to determine their own future, free from the shackles of historical exploitation. In this struggle, the poor are power, and their fight is not only for economic justice but for the very survival and revitalization of their nation’s identity.

In the face of overwhelming oppression, patriotism is no longer about standing by while the country is exploited; it is about standing with the people, recognizing their struggles, and supporting their fight for justice, equality, and sovereignty. Like Mabini, patriots must listen to the cry of the masses, for they alone hold the key to the nation’s true future.