Bangsa Moro bill in context

The most important bill being considered by the Philippine Senate this month is the bill that seeks to create an autonomous Bangsa Moro state in Mindanao to replace the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) which Pres. Benigno S. Aquino III described as “a failed experiment”.
The bill is the legislative formalization of the framework agreement that was forged in 2012 after 32 rounds of negotiations between the Philippine Government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).
According to Pres. Aquino, it “paves the way for a final, enduring peace in Mindanao. It brings all former secessionist groups into the fold; no longer does the Moro Islamic Liberation Front aspire for a separate state. This means that hands that once held rifles will be put to use tilling land, selling produce, manning work stations, and opening doorways of opportunity for other citizens.”
There is a larger context with which to view the issue of granting autonomy to a Muslim governmental entity within the sovereignty of the Philippines. I alluded to that context in an article I wrote six years ago (Name Change for the Philippines, August 26, 2008).
Perhaps the issue is not the renaming of the ARRM as “Bangsa Moro” but the renaming of the Philippines.
***
When I visited Manila in January of 2006, a city councilor I knew excitedly informed me that his council had just voted to change the name of the Philippines . What? The country would no longer be named after a ruthless Spanish despot? We would finally be rid of this last vestige of colonialism? Hallelujah!
Breathlessly, I asked my friend, Councilor Cassie Sison, to pray tell me what name the good City Council of Manila had proposed.
“The Philippine Islands,” he replied.
After I recovered from my disappointment and picked up my jaw from the floor, I heard Cassie explain that Manila Mayor Lito Atienza believed that the country would draw more tourists if a more exotic name could replace the staid “Republic of the Philippines ”. The proposed name, Cassie said, would conjure dreamy images of palm trees, cool breezes and sandy beaches.
While the country’s name change would be at or near the bottom of the nation’s immediate priorities, it should not be ignored because there is no other country in the world that is named after a mass murderer.
If Ceylon could be changed to Sri Lanka , Mongolia to Ulan Bator , Siam to Thailand , Leningrad to St. Petersburg , Peking to Beijing , why can’t the Philippines change its name?
When Ferdinand Magellan “discovered” the islands on March 16, 1521, he named it the Archipelago de San Lazaro. We would have been called “Lazaroans” if Magellan had survived the Battle of Mactan against LapuLapu on April 27, 1521.
Three unsuccessful Spanish expeditions followed Magellan but all failed to reach “San Lazaro”. The fourth expedition, led by Capt. Ruy Lopez de Villalobos, reached Sarangani Island off the eastern coast of Mindanao on February 2, 1543. He renamed the islands “Felipinas” after the crown prince of Spain , Felipe II, the son of Spanish King Carlos V.
What does it mean then to be named after Felipe, to be called Felipinos (later changed to Filipinos), to be “like Felipe”, to be intolerant of other people and other religions?
When Andres Bonifacio formed the Katipunan revolutionary organization against Spain in 1896, he refused to use the term “Filipinas”, preferring Tagalog or “Katagalugan” to refer to the country.
Others objected on the grounds that Pilipinas sounded too much like “Alipinas” (land of slaves). Some have proposed “Kapatiran” (brotherhood) or “Katipunan”. Others have suggested “Luzviminda” referring to the country’s three major group of islands.
In the late 1970s, the Dictator Ferdinand Marcos (who should have been named after Felipe the despot) seriously attempted to change the name of the country to “Maharlika”, the “warrior-noble” in pre-colonial Felipinas who, like the Samurai class of Japan, rendered military service to his feudal lord. But his proposal went nowhere.
If countries like Bolivia could be named after their liberators, why can’t the Pilipinas be named after Rizal? We would all be Rizalians.
My personal preference would be to call the country “Bayanihan” and we would all be “bayanis” (heroes) bound together in the “Bayanihan” spirit of working for the common good.
***
After this article appeared, I received hundreds (which I continue to receive even today). Many readers pointed out that our Moro brothers and sisters in Mindanao and Sulu despise the names “Philippines” and “Filipinos” because of their colonial stigma. Alunan C. Glang asserted that only those who were subjugated by Spain and who bowed to the authority of King Felipe II should be called “Filipinos”. Since the Moros were never Spanish subjects, they were never “Filipinos”. In fact, for 350 years, generations of Moros had spilled blood precisely to avoid becoming “Filipinos”.
(Send comments to Rodel50@gmail.com or mail them to the Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 or call 415.334.7800).