If tahanan (home) is from the root word tahan (peace), pamahalaan-- the Filipino word for government-- is from “bahala”.
Bahala means accountability or responsibility. When one says “ako na ang bahala,” he means “I shall take care of this.” And if one says, “kayo na po ang bahala,” this means entrusting to someone, letting the other decide, almost surrendering one’s self or one’s fate to someone else’s guidance, care, stewardship, administration, even control.
Interestingly, the older version of the term bahala is actually, bathala or batala, the old pre-Hispanic Filipino word for “God”. This is the source of the popular phrase “bahala na”, translated as, “it is now all up to God.”
There is God in our utterance of bahala na. And this explains our readiness to surrender control. Not because of utter fatalism, but out of courage and confidence; the assurance that whatever happens , there will always be divine providence. “Bahala na.”
There must there therefore be God in pamahalaan. At the root of pamahalaan (government), at least etymologically speaking, is God.
Startling!
In recent times we are being made to believe that God has nothing to do with government. The more secular the government is, the better. The more absent God is in the policymaking process, the more reasonable and prudent and just the whole polity will be. More acceptable are decisions that are “secular”, “pluralistic”, “post-modern” and “relative”. To be shut off are the clerics, the Bible, and the Almighty.
Fortunately, the real essence of pamahalaan is not only preserved in its etymology. The Filipino ideal of government acknowledging, even relying on the power of God –pamahalaan -- has been enshrined in the highest law of the land.
We have a Constitution that expresses the Filipino’s belief and trust in “the Almighty God” who shall bless us with a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace. The Preamble of our Constitution thus states: “We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.”
Some critics pejoratively say: “only in the Philippines!” Others even hazard to say that it is because of this non-secular type of constitution and government that the Philippines has remained poor. I can only humbly argue -- wrong on both points.
It is “not only in the Philippines,” because there is Ireland.
Most of us know Ireland today as among the wealthiest countries in the world in terms of GDP per capita. In 2011, Ireland was ranked the 7th most developed country in the world by the United Nations' Human Development Index.
Look at the Constitution of Ireland. Its preamble states: “In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred, We, the people of Éire, humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial, gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation, and seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations, do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.”
This looks like pamahalaan. Bathala is the “Most Holy Trinity”, and the Divine Lord is “Jesus Christ”!
* * * * *
Not only is pamahalaan “constitutionalized” in the Philippines. So too tahanan – through the family life and marriage provisions in our Charter.
Marriage is the foundation of the family, and the family is the foundation of our nation. (Philippine Constitution, Art. XV, sections 2 and 1, respectively) These are not Church or biblical doctrines; they are constitutional precepts.
The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother, and the life of the unborn from conception. (Art. II, Sec. 12) This is not a homily from the pulpit, but a basic legal and constitutional mandate.
The State shall defend (a) the right of spouses to found a family; (b) the right of children to assistance and special protection; (c) the right of the family to a family living wage and income; and (4) the right of families or families associations to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them. These are not Church or moral impositions; they are constitutional and legal duties (Art. XV, Sec. 3).
Legal experts view our Constitution as characterized by “verbosity” with some portions sounding like “political speech rather than a formal document stating only basic precepts.” It is “full of platitudes” and “[w]hat is worse is the inclusion of certain topics that certainly, by any criterion, have no place in a Constitution.” (Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 1998 ed., pp. 11-12)
One Supreme Court Justice even went on record in his concurring and dissenting opinion in Biarogo vs. Philippine Truth Commision, G.R. No. 192935, December 7, 2010, that: “Peculiar to our nation is a verbose Constitution. Herein enshrined are motherhood statements— exhortations for public officers to follow.”
If the above provisions are a result of sheer penchant at verbosity and motherhood statements, what great blessings they are. They constitutionalized pamahalaan and tahanan, with tremendous repercussions on our legal landscape.
For example, as a result of the provisions on “marriage” and “family” in the 1987 Constitution, the Family Code was enacted defining marriage as “a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life.”
This foreclosed same-sex marriage. This also delineated “unions based on marriage” and “unions without the benefit of marriage”.
We now do not look with envy the experience of other countries. In the US, with a Constitution which says nothing about marriage and family life, some of its states have defined what marriage is, and they ventured into including same-sex marriages. "In light of these astonishing developments,” says Professor Richard Wilkins, “it is absolutely clear why so many people are putting the words 'marriage' and 'constitution' in the same sentence. An amendment is necessary to preserve not only the social viability of marriage, but the political integrity of the Constitution." (Richard Wilkins, Marriage and the Constitution: Why We Need an Amendment)
* * * * *
The same constitutional provisions also resulted in introducing in our jurisprudence settled doctrines of far-reaching significance, as follows:
Vitug, J. in Santos vs. CA, G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995, said that the above constitutional provisions “express so well and so distinctly the basic nucleus of our laws on marriage and the family, and they are no doubt the tenets we still hold on to.”
Mendoza, J. in Balogbog v. CA, G.R. No. 83598, March 7, 1997, most aptly stated that “The State is interested in the preservation of the family and the sanctity of the family is a matter of constitutional concern.”
Romero, J. in Santos vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 115795, March 6, 1998, even went on to rule that “having an extra-marital affair is an affront to the sanctity of marriage, which is a basic institution of society. Even our Family Code provides that husband and wife must live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Our laws, in implementing this constitutional edict on marriage and the family underscore their permanence, inviolability and solidarity.”
* * * * *
Wikipedia has an interesting, but good definition of pamahalaan. Citing English, Leo James. Tagalog-English Dictionary (Talahulugang Tagalog-Ingles)(1990), it defines the word pamahalaan either as "Mamamanginoon sa ibabaw", or "Maging panginoon sa ibabaw", or "Maging bikaryo ng Diyos."
In our history, there have been governments and administrations which appropriated for themselves the powers of God and acted as if they were God, bringing this nation to ruins. Namanginoon sa ibabaw.
Some wish to be in government to arrogate upon themselves the final authority to judge what truth, goodness, justice and beauty is. Maging panginoon sa ibabaw.
We now look for the many others who view government, as being and becoming the instrument, the deputy of God, to build a just and humane society. Maging bikaryo ng Diyos.
Good governance and good government is service to God. Indeed, pamahalaan.
(Unedited version of the article submitted to Ugnayan for Philippine Star
http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2012-10-14/859381/pamahalaan-tahanan)
No comments:
Post a Comment