Content uploaded by Mark Maca
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mark Maca on Dec 08, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Constructing Modern
Asian Citizenship
Edited by Edward Vickers and
Krishna Kumar
Taylor & Francis
Not for distribution
First published 2015
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2015 Edward Vickers and Krishna Kumar
The right of the editors to be identied as the authors of the
editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters,
has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identication and
explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
[CIP data]
ISBN: 978–0–415–85578–5 (hbk)
ISBN: 978–0–203–73408–7 (ebk)
Typeset in Baskerville
by Swales & Willis Ltd., Exeter, Devon, UK
Taylor & Francis
Not for distribution
6 Education, national identity
and state formation in the
modern Philippines
Mark Maca and Paul Morris
Introduction
Since independence from America in 1946, attempts by the Philippine state
to construct a cohesive sense of national identity have met with limited suc-
cess. In contrast to the situation elsewhere in Asia, where colonial histories
are widely invoked for nation-building purposes, a prolonged and varied
experience of colonisation has not been consistently or effectively har-
nessed to the task of creating a shared sense of identity. National identity
in the Philippines, and the state’s role in its construction, have previously
been analysed from a variety of perspectives: some contrasting a ‘non-devel-
opmental’ Filipino state with its ‘developmental’ East Asian neighbours
(e.g. Bello 2009); others focusing more broadly on ‘strong state’–‘weak
state’ dynamics (e.g. Abinales and Amoroso 2005); and still others posit-
ing a relationship between the strength of the family and the weakness of
the state (e.g. McCoy 1993; Kaelin 2012). These studies in turn draw upon
the work of Hutchcroft (1991) and Anderson (1983), who respectively por-
trayed the Philippines as a ‘patrimonial state’ and an ‘imagined commu-
nity’. But despite their varying emphases, existing studies agree in portray-
ing a weak state whose failure to engender a strong sense of nationhood
sets it apart in a region of powerful and often antagonistic nationalisms.
Indeed, as this chapter shows, official discourse has in recent years sought
to portray Filipinos as uniquely ‘global’ in their outlook – in an attempt
to make a virtue of the economy’s massive reliance on remittances from
migrant workers.1
Almost everywhere, modern state formation has involved attempts to use
schooling to merge the nation with the state by teaching future citizens to
see their national identity as a natural expression of ‘roots’ (territorial, cul-
tural and/or ethnic), shared values and common interests (Gellner 1983).
At least on paper, the Philippines has been no exception in this respect.
The goal of forging national identity and civic consciousness was alluded
to in the early constitutions of the Philippines, and has been expressed far
more explicitly in recent constitutional revisions, as the following extracts
illustrate (emphasis added):
Taylor & Francis
Not for distribution
126 Mark Maca and Paul Morris
1935 Philippine Constitution (Article XIV, Section 8):
All educational institutions shall aim to develop moral character, per-
sonal discipline, civic conscience and vocational efficiency, and teach the
duties of citizenship.
1943 Constitution (enacted during the Japanese occupation) (Article IX
Section 10):
The government shall establish and maintain a complete and adequate
system of national education, and shall provide at least free public ele-
mentary instruction, and citizenship training to adult citizens. All schools,
colleges, and universities shall aim to develop moral character, personal
and collective discipline, civic conscience, and vocational skill, secure social
efficiency, and teach the duties of citizenship.
1973 Constitution (Article XIV, Section 4):
All educational institutions shall aim to inculcate love of country, teach the
duties of citizenship and develop moral character, personal discipline and
scientific, technological and vocational efficiency.
1987 ‘Freedom’ Constitution (Article II Section 2):
All educational institutions shall inculcate patriotism and nationalism,
foster love of humanity, respect of human rights, appreciation of the
role of national heroes in the historical development of the country,
teach the rights and duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical and spir-
itual values, develop moral character and personal discipline, encour-
age critical and creative thinking, broaden scientific and technological
knowledge, and promote vocational efficiency.
The 1935 Commonwealth Constitution was promulgated in preparation for
the transition from American rule to Filipino autonomy. This was revised in
1943 during the Japanese occupation, with the new constitution emphasis-
ing strong, centralised state control over the education system – the sort of
system pertaining in Japan and its East Asian colonies. After Japan’s defeat
in 1945, and formal Filipino independence in 1946, the 1935 Constitution
was reinstated until 1973, when a new constitution was drafted under the
Marcos dictatorship. The current 1987 Constitution has been dubbed the
‘freedom constitution’, signifying the restoration of civil liberties and dem-
ocratic processes after the Marcos era.
In reality, while post-independence governments have increasingly
espoused the aim of harnessing education to the promotion of a strong
national identity among Filipinos, the effectiveness with which such
Taylor & Francis
Not for distribution
Philippines: education, identity and state 127
intentions have been followed through, especially at the level of the school
curriculum, has been inconsistent to say the least. The increasingly nation-
alistic tone of the constitutional statements cited above can be interpreted
as reflecting elite concerns at the weakness of national identity, the failure
of successive attempts to strengthen it, and the purportedly dire implica-
tions for the country’s development. Numerous studies have highlighted
that most Filipinos do not strongly identify with a Filipino ‘nation’ and dis-
play ambivalence regarding civic participation (Diokno 1997). Citizenship
has been largely conceived in terms of participation in electoral exercises
(Zialcita 1997; Kaelin 2012).
The lack of a strong sense of attachment to the nation has also become
bound up with the huge reliance of the Philippines’ economy on migrant
labour, and its implications for the capacity of many Filipinos to engage
with social and political issues at home – though in this respect causation
could operate in either, or both, directions. Since it began to be officially
promoted during the 1970s, the export of labour has become institution-
alised, with education accorded a role in this process (Maca and Morris
2012). Recent studies suggest an increasing trend towards the promotion
of Filipinos as ‘global’ citizens, ostensibly to foster intercultural understand-
ing and global interdependence (Cabiles 2012), and to portray Overseas
Filipino Workers (OFWs) as modern day national ‘heroes’.
Attempts to address educational issues of whatever kind have been ham-
pered by the state’s fragile legitimacy and limited capacity to implement
change. Systems of educational governance mirror this general weakness
of the state, which is typically reduced to negotiating reforms with power-
ful stakeholders, such as the Catholic Church, foreign aid agencies, pri-
vate university owners and textbook publishing groups. In the sphere of
education and beyond, analyses of the post-independence Philippines
consistently portray a state in thrall to a landed elite whose rent-seeking
behaviour has roots traceable to the Spanish colonial period. The use of
schooling to further construction of the kind of national identity mandated
in the Constitution thus faces considerable social, political and institutional
challenges.
This chapter explores the many attempts that have been made by the
state to harness the school curriculum for such a purpose. We begin by look-
ing at the history of Filipino state formation and the evolution of national
identity attendant on this process. We then examine three key elements
of schooling typically used for purposes of identity formation: citizenship
programmes, history education and language of instruction.
State formation and national identity
The pre-colonial Philippines was characterised by varied kinship-based
political systems scattered across the archipelago. One of these ancient
governance systems, of the balangay (boat)-dwelling or seafaring forebears,
Taylor & Francis
Not for distribution
128 Mark Maca and Paul Morris
preceded the current barangay system,2 the basic political unit of the modern
state. Meanwhile, in the south, the Muslim sultanates in Mindanao and the
Sulu archipelago, with their long history of trade and exchange with main-
land and Southeast Asia, developed a more sophisticated political system
with the trappings of pre-modern statehood. Apart from the Arabic-based
learning system of early Filipino Muslims, other ethnic groups had their
own indigenous learning systems with scripts such as the alibata and bay-
bayin. These fairly disparate groups coexisted for thousands of years, but
their development was radically altered by the onset of Spanish colonisa-
tion. One consequence was that the relatively developed literary cultures of
these pre-colonial indigenous groups were effectively obliterated (Mendez
and Jocano 1991; Doronila 1997).
The Spanish colonial state survived for almost four centuries, relying on
the proverbial ‘cross-and-sword’ mode of colonial administration (Abinales
and Amoroso 2005). The Catholic Church was an active agent of coloni-
sation and remains to this day an extremely powerful force in Philippine
society. Education for the privileged few involved induction into Catholic
orthodoxy, while overseas university education (mainly in Spain) trained
men for a career serving the Crown. Meanwhile, the so-called ilustrados
(‘enlightened ones’), including Rizal and other key figures in the revolu-
tion against Spain, were scions of a rising indigenous middle class, many of
whom travelled to Europe to study or seek political sanctuary. They were
greatly influenced by Enlightenment ideals of liberty, equality, the centrality
of reason and the rejection of oligarchy, both secular and clerical (Francia
2010). Back home, from 1863 the Spanish colonial government embarked
on a belated attempt to establish a public school system in selected prov-
inces, and by 1897 2,153 primary schools were operating under the auspices
of the Catholic Church (Torralba et al. 2007). But this programme was over-
taken by the 1896 revolution against the Spanish, which led, following the
Spanish-American war, to the transfer of the islands to the USA in 1898.
The Americans employed what they described as a strategy of ‘benevolent
assimilation’, to which the creation of a system of mass education was cen-
tral. American soldiers of the 1898 annexation force initially acted as public
school teachers, until the arrival in 1901 of new recruits from the mainland
USA (known as Thomasites).3 Schools were assigned the goal of ‘civilising’
native Filipinos while extolling ‘American’ ideals such as democracy, lib-
erty and civic duties. Education for the native elite, now often culminating
in studies at an American (rather than Spanish) university, was designed
to ensure effective colonial administration and prepare the country for
independence under American tutelage. English became the medium of
instruction in schools in 1901, and gradually assumed pre-eminence as
the language of commerce, government and the legal system (alongside
Spanish until the 1950s). In 1935, partial self-governance was granted with
the inauguration of the Commonwealth government,4 which saw the first
Filipino appointed as Secretary of the Department for Public Instruction.
Taylor & Francis
Not for distribution
Philippines: education, identity and state 129
Meanwhile, the political system introduced by the Americans –
inaugurated in 1907 with the election of the first Philippine Assembly – was
characterised by weak central government, reliant on the collaboration of
local civilian elites and a highly politicised Catholic Church. The landed
elite (the descendants of the Spanish hacienderos) dominated the political
arena – a situation that has continued down to the present. American-
trained Filipino leaders, largely drawn from this same elite, supported an
American model of schooling until independence in 1946, reinforcing
the privileged status of the English language. Imposition of the use of the
English language and of imported textbooks replete with American nar-
ratives, heroes and cultural referents set the stage for what Constantino
(1975) describes as the ‘Americanisation’ of Filipino education and the
construction of a national identity inoffensive to the colonial masters
(Wurfel 1988).
Education during the short-lived Japanese occupation (1942–5) was por-
trayed by the occupying authorities as a vehicle for enabling Filipinos, along
with other ‘Asians’, to recover their independence from the ‘West’, and
with it a sense of their ‘Asian-ness’. This vision of Filipinos embracing a
regional identity in solidarity with other Asians was reinforced by policies
mandating the use of Tagalog (the basis of the current Filipino national
language) as the medium of instruction, and the promotion of indigenous
literature (Yu-Jose 2004). However, the association of these policies with
the occupation itself, and with pro-Japanese propaganda, led to their rapid
reversal after 1945. Today, there is glaring lack of scholarly work investigat-
ing Filipino discourses on ‘Asianness’ and, at the level of popular culture,
a more general absence of attempts to articulate a Filipino identity that
emphasises ‘Asian’ linkages. With the exception of the short-lived Japanese
occupation, narratives of the Filipino past developed and popularised dur-
ing the colonial period encouraged identification with religious and politi-
cal ideals whose reference points were emphatically non-Asian. It has often
been observed that ideas of Filipino identity are shaped by an experience of
‘400 years in the (Spanish) convent and then 50 in the (American) brothel’
(Buruma 1996).
In sum, the process of Filipino state formation has been overshadowed
by ‘an anarchy of families’, which attempts to transplant an American-style
political system merely diverted into new institutional channels (McCoy
1993). Despite the aspirations of the Constitution, national identity for-
mation has been central neither to policies on language of instruction in
schools, nor to the development of history and citizenship curricula. Where
nationality is explicitly addressed, discussion centres on a vaguely defined
‘Filipino identity’ encompassing relationships with family, a cultural com-
munity, a regional political grouping, a global (economic) sphere and life
as a minority in a foreign country, but amid all this the lines of any collective
civic or ethnic identification with a Filipino ‘nation’ are rather indistinctly
drawn.
Taylor & Francis
Not for distribution
130 Mark Maca and Paul Morris
National identity formation in the modern Philippines
Depictions of Filipino identity have focused on aspects of cultural identity
mostly in diaspora, literary and cultural studies (e.g. San Juan 2000; Ong
2011; Swift 2011). Ong highlights how London participants in his study
used karaoke in community gatherings to connect to a ‘collective’ cultural
identity. He also reveals how participants took pride in the ‘positive’ Filipino
trait of being readily ‘assimilated’ as immigrants in Western countries. Swift
(2011) argues that Filipino seafarers readily embrace a transnational iden-
tity fostered by the state-sponsored labour migration strategy. Others ana-
lyse national identity debates in the mass media and on the internet (David
2009; Wang 2011), highlighting the role of civic participation in political
socialisation at critical historical junctures such as the ‘people power’ revo-
lutions of 1986 and 2001, and the 1998 centennial celebrations of inde-
pendence from Spain (Bankoff and Weekley 2002). However, the capacity
of these sporadic surges of popular activism to redefine Filipino national
identity has been stymied by an ongoing failure to translate such move-
ments into systemic political and economic reform. Marcos, at the height
of his dictatorial power, attempted to construct a new narrative of Filipino
history to address what he perceived as a national ‘identity crisis’. He wrote
in the Tadhana:5
My view of our story as a people follows a conceptual framework that
considers our earliest ancestors as having participated in man’s uni-
versal evolution before commencing the particularization process that
would, over the centuries, produce a racial identity. From this point fol-
lows the development of the Filipino people into a unique and distinct
nation . . . the story of a people is not merely a heritage but a destiny.
(1976: viii)
His attempt failed miserably, in part due to extravagantly delusional efforts
at self-aggrandisement. He sought to project himself and his wife Imelda
as the mythical Malakas (Strong) and Maganda (Beautiful), figures from
pre-colonial legend epitomising Filipino prowess and beauty. His claims
to be a highly decorated war hero were meanwhile exposed as a farcical
confection. A nineteen-volume tome promoting his vision of history was
published (Curaming 2005), but seems to have been patchily distributed,
was seldom used in schools and had minimal impact on popular historical
consciousness. After Marcos’s exile in 1986, it was discarded in the course
of a frenzied programme of de-Marcosification (Doronila 1992: 3). But, to
date, no further attempt has been made to produce an officially sanctioned
version of the ‘Filipino Story’.
On the eve of the 1998 centennial celebrations of independence from
Spain, Diokno led a study of the nature of democracy and citizenship in
the Philippines (1997). This resulted in a three-volume work featuring
Taylor & Francis
Not for distribution
Philippines: education, identity and state 131
contributions from other eminent Filipino scholars, such as Doronila and
Zialcita. Their essays reflect an atomised vision of Filipino ‘identities’ at dif-
ferent levels (within the family, a cultural community and so forth) and loca-
tions (local and international), scarcely addressing the practice (or lack of
it) of citizenship at a national level.6 Where issues of citizenship are explicitly
addressed, the focus is generally on grassroots civic activism (through vol-
unteering or participation in anti-corruption non-governmental organisa-
tions (NGOs)) and local community development, rather than engagement
with national institutions. Discussion of the classic elements used by states
to forge a national identity through schooling – a shared heritage, national
heroes or suffering and oppression by external foes – is notably absent.
The image of an education system that largely eschewed a nation-building
agenda is supported by studies dating from the American colonial period
(e.g. Counts 1925, on the medium of instruction); the height of the Cold
War (Constantino 1978, on national consciousness); and the aftermath of
the 1986 ‘people power’ revolution that toppled Marcos (Constantino and
Constantino 1987, on history education; Doronila 1989, on national iden-
tity; and Gonzalez 1998, on medium of instruction). Yale professor George
Counts first raised the issue of medium of instruction in the Monroe Survey
of 1925. He bewailed the teaching of subjects in English, arguing that this
sacrificed ‘efficiency of instruction in the native tongue’ (Counts 1925:
n.p.). Succeeding studies would echo such sentiments, often also highlight-
ing the impact of the dominance of English on national identity forma-
tion. For example, Gonzalez (1998) notes how participants in a national
language survey dismissed the need for a common language of instruction
(other than English) to promote national identity in schools.
While forging a strong national consciousness has been consistently
flagged as a key aim of government – in Constitutions, Republic Acts,
Executive Orders and Presidential Decrees – the evidence is that such rhe-
torical declarations have had limited practical impact. Below we explore
how post-independence governments have repeatedly instigated citizen-
ship education programmes, but largely failed to ensure their implementa-
tion in school curricula.
Citizenship education programmes
Spanish colonial education policies, as noted above, were geared mainly
to the training of loyal colonial subjects. When public primary schooling
was finally introduced in 1863, it centred on instruction in basic numeracy
and, especially, literacy – sufficient to enable pupils to study the Bible and
learn their catechism (Constantino 1978). Secondary schooling was avail-
able only for students of Spanish descent. As the nineteenth-century French
traveller La Perouse commented, ‘the only thought was to make (Filipinos)
Christians and never citizens’ (cited in Constantino 1978: 33). Access
to education was a major popular demand by the time of the American
Taylor & Francis
Not for distribution
132 Mark Maca and Paul Morris
conquest, enabling the new colonisers to assume the mantle of benevolence
when they established a universal public school system in 1901. However,
the choice of English as the instructional medium signalled the beginning
of what Constantino terms the ‘miseducation’ of Filipinos:
The use of English as a medium of instruction made possible the intro-
duction of an American public school curriculum. With American text-
books, young Filipinos began learning not only a new language but
also a new culture. Education became miseducation because it began
to deFilipinize the youth, taught them to regard American culture as
superior to any other, and the American society as the model par excel-
lence for Philippine society. These textbooks gave them a good dose of
American history while neglecting their own.
(1978: 66)
There is general recognition of the success of the American strategy of
using education to transform Filipinos into model colonial subjects. This
was predicted in 1901 by an eager supporter of the American occupation,
Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, who was eventually appointed to the Philippine
Commission.7 Writing to General Arthur MacArthur (father of Douglas) in
1901, Tavera implored:
After peace is established, all our efforts will be directed to American-
izing ourselves, to cause a knowledge of the English language to be
extended and generalized in the Philippines, in order that through its
agency the American spirit may take possession of us, and that we may
so adopt its principles, its political customs, and its peculiar civilizations
that our redemption may be complete and radical.
(cited in Constantino 1978: 67)
The embrace by the collaborationist elite of this mission of Americanisation
anticipated the citizenship-formation agendas of later post-independence
governments, as elucidated below. American ideals of individual choice,
democracy and capitalism have remained major hallmarks of all subse-
quent official articulations of the rights and duties of the citizen.
The earliest citizenship code for Filipinos was Apolinario Mabini’s patri-
otic manifesto,8 The True Decalogue, published in the brief interregnum
between the end of Spanish rule and the arrival of the Americans. Five of
the manifesto’s ten precepts stipulated the qualities expected of national
citizens:9
IV Love your country more than yourself, for this is the patrimony of
your race, and the hope that you will bequeath to your children.
V Put your country’s well-being before your own, for its happiness will
likewise be yours and your family’s as well.
Taylor & Francis
Not for distribution
Philippines: education, identity and state 133
VI Strive for your country’s independence, for only you can have any
real interest in its advancement, and your own liberty depends on its
being free.
VII Do not recognize in your country the authority of any person whom
the people have not elected, for authority comes from God and God
speaks through the conscience of every man.
VIII Build a republic, never a monarchy, for a republic makes a people
noble and worthy, while a monarchy exalts only one or a few families
and builds a dynasty.
However, this was never translated into state policy or educational practice
because of the outbreak of the Filipino-American war in 1899, and the sub-
sequent establishment of American colonial rule.
The next official attempt to prescribe a code of civic ethics occurred dur-
ing the Commonwealth period (1935–46), when Manuel Quezon issued
a ‘Code of Citizenship and Ethics’ (Executive Order 217 s. 1939), which
stressed the importance of developing moral character, personal discipline,
civic conscience and awareness of the duties of citizenship. The decree
underlined the importance of: (1) faith in the role of Divine Providence
in guiding the nation’s destiny; (2) love of and respect for country and
family; (3) sacrifice to the nation and respect for the Constitution; and
(4) the ideal of the law-abiding and taxpaying citizen, the entire docu-
ment being suffused with a very Catholic emphasis on cultivating personal
morality while rendering ‘unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s’. The vision
this reflected was of a citizenry obedient to established authority, rather
than actively engaged in its own governance, and the Code seems to have
spurred no drive to reform educational practice.
Following the Second World War, successive Filipino leaders have pro-
claimed the need for concerted programmes of citizenship formation, for
the ‘moral renewal’ of the government bureaucracy and for a stronger
sense of national identity among ordinary citizens. The first post-independ-
ence president, Manuel Roxas (1946–8), remained under close American
tutelage, and his administration witnessed no significant changes to the sta-
tus quo – in education or more broadly. The later ‘Filipino First’ policy of
President Carlos Garcia (1957–61) focused primarily on economic reform
and foreign trade and involved no significant strengthening of schooling’s
role in political socialisation. Ferdinand Marcos (1965–86) was the first
post-colonial president to embark on any serious attempt to use education
for the purpose of forging a strong national identity. In his ‘New Society’
experiment, he highlighted the need to develop a new brand of citizen-
ship for Filipinos. He decreed in 1972 that ‘education [should] be trans-
formed so that it can become an instrument for the economic and social
transformation of the country’ (Clarke 1977: 61), and the Education Act of
1982 underlined the importance of promoting a strong and unified sense
of nationhood:
Taylor & Francis
Not for distribution
134 Mark Maca and Paul Morris
Section 3. Declaration of Basic Policy – It is the policy of the State
to establish and maintain a complete, adequate and inte-
grated system of education relevant to the goals of national
development. Toward this end, the government shall
ensure, within the context of a free and democratic system,
maximum contribution of the educational system to the
attainment of the following national developmental goals:
1 To achieve and maintain an accelerating rate of economic develop-
ment and social progress;
2 To ensure the maximum participation of all the people in the attain-
ment and enjoyment of the benefits of such growth; and
3 To achieve and strengthen national unity and consciousness and pre-
serve, develop and promote desirable cultural, moral and spiritual val-
ues in a changing world.
However, like many official initiatives before and since, this remained largely
confined to the ethereal realm of policy discourse. The most significant legacy
of Marcos’s dictatorship with respect to citizenship formation was the institu-
tionalisation of his policy to export Filipino labour, resulting in an enormous
and ongoing ‘brain drain’ that has effectively transformed the Philippines
into an ‘emigration state’ (Ruiz 2007). Indeed, successive post-Marcos gov-
ernments have sought to give the phenomenon of mass emigration a positive
gloss as part of efforts to foster a coherent vision of Filipino identity.
After Marcos was exiled in the aftermath of the bloodless EDSA revolt
in 1986, in which the Catholic Church played a key role, his successor,
Corazon Aquino (1986–92) called for a ‘social revolution’ to rebuild
the nation. The period 1988–98 was declared the ‘Philippine Decade of
Nationalism’. As part of this presidential programme, the then Department
of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) launched an initiative grandly
entitled ‘Social Transformation through Education’. This was followed in
1988 by a National Moral Recovery Program (NMRP), promulgated by the
Philippine Senate. This flurry of governmental activity witnessed the intro-
duction in 1988 of a new compulsory school subject, Values Education, to
be taught from elementary to high school level. However, the curricular
focus was once again primarily on individual morality, emphasising ‘social
reform through the inner transformation of the individual’ (Quisumbing
1994: 3). DECS Order No. 6 of 1988 (Values Education for the Filipino), which
spelt out the goals of the programme, consisted mainly of a list of desirable
individual virtues: love of God, charity work, volunteerism and so forth.
This built upon established approaches rooted in religious and moral
education, evincing the strong and continuing influence of the Catholic
Church. It reflected a longstanding emphasis in the ethics and morals cur-
ricula of public elementary schools on instruction in ‘good manners’, ‘right
conduct’ and ‘character building’ (Quisumbing 1994: 5).
Taylor & Francis
Not for distribution
Philippines: education, identity and state 135
The NMRP was continued by Aquino’s successor Fidel Ramos (1992–8).10
In 1992, he issued a decree similar to that promulgated sixty years earlier by
Quezon, after the report of a Senate Task Force called for the development
of a sense of patriotism and national pride, or ‘pagmamalaki sa bansa’ – a
genuine love, appreciation and commitment to the Philippines and things
Filipino. Proclamation No. 62 alluded to: ‘the need for moral renewal in
order to eradicate the social ills that have plagued us for the past several
decades, such as graft and corruption, patronage politics, apathy, passivity,
mendicancy, factionalism and lack of patriotism’.
But it was also during Ramos’s presidency that the school subject of
Social Studies began to include topics focusing on transnational identity,
migrant labour and global citizenship. The tension between the NMRP’s
nation-building agenda and the simultaneous celebration of migration,
global citizenship and the heroism of OFWs continues to this day.
In 2001, in the aftermath of yet another bloodless uprising (backed by
much of the established elite) to remove another extravagantly corrupt
leader, Joseph Estrada, citizenship education was incorporated in a new
Makabayan subject introduced by the administration of Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo (2001–10).11 The title of this subject literally means ‘Patriot’, but it
encompasses values education more generally, and formed a core learn-
ing area in the new Basic Education Curriculum (BEC) of the revamped
DECS (now Department of Education). Makabayan was designed to develop
socio-cultural and politico-economic literacy, with the aim of ensuring that
every Filipino learner would acquire a ‘healthy personal and national self-
concept, founded upon adequate understanding of Philippine history and
a genuine appreciation of local culture, crafts, arts, music, and games’.
Further, the new subject was tasked with promoting ‘a constructive or
healthy patriotism, which is neither hostile nor isolationist towards other
nations’, as well as ‘appreciation of global interdependence’ (Mendoza and
Nakayama 2003: 15). To date, few studies have attempted to investigate the
impact of Makabayan on young Filipinos’ civic or political consciousness.
However, as early as 2003, Mendoza and Nakayama highlighted the failure
of the programme to strengthen geographical literacy – or basic knowledge
of the extent and nature of the national territory. More recent evaluative
studies have focused on implementation issues, criticising a lack of teacher
training and a complex grading system, among other problems (Bernardo
and Mendoza 2009). Meanwhile, President Arroyo decreed in 2002 the
introduction of a National Service Training Program (NSTP)12 at tertiary
level, a measure intended to cap a comprehensive citizenship education
programme extending from elementary school to college. However, assess-
ments of the effectiveness of these programmes are not yet available.
The new K+12 statement of curriculum goals,13 promulgated in President
Benigno Aquino’s June 2013 Republic Act (RA) 10533, is thus the latest in
a very long line of proclamations asserting the need for stronger citizenship
education. However, close scrutiny of the broader policy context suggests
Taylor & Francis
Not for distribution
136 Mark Maca and Paul Morris
that citizenship formation is by no means central to the priorities of the
current administration. The statement portrays education primarily as a
tool for individual advancement rather than for promoting identification
with and commitment to the broader cause of national development (Maca
and Morris 2012). This is highlighted in Section 2 (Declaration of Policy):
it is hereby declared the policy of the State that every graduate of basic
education shall be an empowered individual who has learned, through
a program that is rooted in sound educational principles and geared
towards excellence, the foundations for learning throughout life, the
competence to engage in work and be productive, the ability to coexist
in fruitful harmony with local and global communities, the capability to
engage in autonomous, creative, and critical thinking, and the capacity
and willingness to transform others and one’s self.
(Republic Act 10533)
While the policy ostensibly puts learners at the centre of educational
reform, its fundamental premise is that educated Filipinos (at home or
abroad) will contribute to national development through pursuing their
individual self-interest. The reform is silent with regard to the role of the
curriculum in developing a Filipino national identity. Goals such as fos-
tering national cohesion, patriotism, love of country and the rule of law
have so far been absent from statements of the aims of the K+12 reform,
which are permeated with neoliberal language of ‘skills’ and ‘competitive-
ness’ typical of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) discourse on educational ‘excellence’, and further promoted by
key NGOs and donor agencies (notably USAID). As of 2014, the K+12 Aral-
ing Panlipunan (Social Studies) curriculum, which encompasses history and
citizenship education, is still being finalised by the Department of Educa-
tion (DepEd).14
Meanwhile, as already mentioned, portrayals of the model citizen in
curricula since the 1990s have increasingly celebrated the contribution
of migrant workers. In 1998, there were approximately 7 million Filipinos
working overseas, making the Philippines one of the world’s largest export-
ers of labour (and numbers have since risen further). By that time, the
Ramos government had installed migrant labourers in the pantheon of
national heroes, portraying their contribution in terms previously reserved
for anti-colonial liberators. They were hailed for liberating millions of
Filipinos from poverty with their billions of dollars in remittances, crucial
for keeping the national economy afloat. A UNESCO-commissioned text-
book review noted how 1990s’ Social Studies textbooks highlighted the
positive traits required of Filipinos aspiring to work overseas (Diaz 2000). A
bestselling grade 2 textbook declared: ‘Filipinos are good people. They are
loving and thoughtful. They are fun-loving and friendly. They are industri-
ous and persevering. Filipinos are truthful and helpful (Danao 1999: 114).
Taylor & Francis
Not for distribution
Philippines: education, identity and state 137
Textbooks also cite migrant role models as exemplars of Filipino
‘progress’, often noting the accolades such individuals have received abroad:
examples from a 2000 text included Lea Salonga (Broadway theatre actress),
Rafael Nepomuceno (bowling world champion), Cecil Licad (internation-
ally renowned pianist) and Lydia de Vega (formerly Asia’s sprint queen)
(Diaz 2000: 36). In the popular Social Studies textbook by Zaide and Zaide,
OFWs are hailed as global citizens, ambassadors of international goodwill
and even as ‘ideal’ Christian missionaries (especially in Asia):
the Filipinos now make the ideal Christian missionaries because: 1)
Filipinos are more acceptable than Western missionaries to spread the
Gospel to other Asian countries, and 2) Filipinos are adaptable – they
can mingle with any other nationality and even live abroad.
(2010: 241)
Studies of migrant Filipinos have observed that, in the search for economic
opportunity, many do indeed consciously adopt a ‘transnational identity’
(Zialcita 1997; Ong 2011). Many readily embrace the norms and values of
their temporary or adopted homelands, often demonstrating significantly
higher levels of obedience to the rule of law and active practice of civic
duties than when they were still in the Philippines – suggesting a tendency
to live up (or down) to the behavioural expectations they perceive as char-
acterising whichever society they happen to inhabit. Even Filipino seafar-
ers, contrary to stereotypical views of sailors, enjoy a reputation as relatively
‘good global citizens’ (Swift 2011). The Philippine state has recently made
efforts to engage overseas Filipinos more fully in national life, most impor-
tantly with the passage of the Overseas Absentee Voting Law in 2003. Edu-
cation has become a major tool in promoting this economic conception
of global citizenship (Oxley and Morris 2013). One of the many slogans of
the DepEd says it all: ‘Bawat graduate, bayani at marangal. [Every graduate is
a hero and is honorable].’ However, with stubbornly high graduate unem-
ployment at home, most graduates are still forced outwards into the migrant
labour market, which has remained central to the trade and foreign policy
agendas of all post-Marcos governments (Maca and Morris 2012).
History and identity
History education in schools is one of the primary curricular instruments
through which states attempt to construct a shared sense of national identity.
This has commonly involved the provision, through schooling, of a national
historical narrative (often mythical and highly selective) highlighting ele-
ments such as shared ancestry, national heroes, common foes and collec-
tive suffering. Within such narratives, wars with malevolent foreign powers,
and the experience of (and resistance to) colonisation, often constitute raw
materials for the construction of national myths. Nation-building projects
Taylor & Francis
Not for distribution
138 Mark Maca and Paul Morris
have been sharpened by neo-Darwinian conceptions of international
relations and racialist notions of nationhood, still strongly influential in
East Asia, to an extent perhaps no longer true of regions such as post-Holo-
caust Europe, which has witnessed concerted official and grassroots efforts
at international reconciliation (Vickers 2005).
Within East Asia, the Philippines is distinctive in this respect, with various
studies demonstrating little consciousness of national history as a shared
struggle for liberation, and a tendency instead to portray colonisers, espe-
cially America, as benign paternalists (Constantino 1978; Wurfel 1988;
Doronila 1989). Doronila found that the majority of Filipino schoolchil-
dren expressed a preference for assuming a different nationality if given
the chance. Overall, students ranked the Philippines third after Japan and
the US as the country they admired most or wanted to live in.
The weak sense of national history is perhaps partly attributable to the
marginal status of history as a school subject. It is taught in only one year
at the elementary level (fifth grade), and shares the Makabayan (Patriotic)
subject (grades 1 to 3) with various other curricular themes: civics and
culture, geography, music and the arts, health education, home econom-
ics, and good manners and proper conduct. In upper elementary school
(grades 4 and 6), it is again just one component of the Hekasi subject, which
also comprises Geography and Civics. A review by Diokno (2009) of fifty-
four units in the grade 6 Social Studies textbooks reveals that only three
deal with history, occupying a total of fourteen pages. The emphasis in this
subject is on the promotion of civic values such as bayanihan (communal
unity or work, and volunteerism). Diokno’s study indicts the failure of the
Social Studies programme to inculcate national identity, noting that les-
sons do not convey a sense of Filipinos’ ‘shared history’ as a people. The
review of grade 3 textbooks, for example, reveals that ‘all the civic values
are illustrated in fictional, situational stories’, despite the fact that history
could supply more interesting material, more persuasive insofar as it draws
on real experiences. The ongoing depoliticisation of textbook historical
narratives can perhaps be traced in part to the banning from schools of
Jose Rizal’s novels at the behest of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in 1956
(Maca and Morris 2013). Rizal inspired the 1896 revolt against the Spanish
and was critical of the Catholic Church, which he saw as the spiritual arm
of colonialism. Now, as in the 1950s, powerful interests in Filipino society
remain uncomfortable at the prospect of casting the curricular spotlight
too intently on national history – preferring to relate citizenship to abstract
moral (or religious) principles.
Textbook portrayals of Americans as ‘accidental colonizers’ (Constantino
1982) continue to this day (Diokno 2009), reinforced by officials’ reluc-
tance to countenance substantive coverage of the anti-American war of lib-
eration (1899–1902) because they found it ‘too violent’ (del Mundo 2007).
Other ‘violent’ episodes accorded minimal coverage include the 100-year
revolt against Spain, the anti-Japanese guerrilla struggle, and even Filipino
Taylor & Francis
Not for distribution
Philippines: education, identity and state 139
participation in the Korean War. Textbook accounts of the Japanese occu-
pation feature extended coverage of America’s liberation of the country, but
little discussion of the Filipino guerrilla resistance, in which Communists
played an important role (Yu-Jose 2004; Maca and Morris 2013). When
local guerrillas are mentioned they are typically described as bandits. In a
classic study of history textbooks, Constantino criticised the treatment of
colonialism and conquest:
Conquest is not presented as ab initio wrong and immoral, the depriva-
tion of a people’s right to freedom through the use of treachery and
superior force. (Exception is made in the case of the Japanese who had
the temerity to take the Philippines away from the Americans. That con-
quest was wrong.) There is no explanation of colonization in terms of the
economic self-interest of either the Spaniards or the Americans. Instead,
both appear to have stumbled into colonization without meaning to.
(1982: 27)
Constantino (1982) also notes ‘how the arrival of each colonizer is cele-
brated with a long list of the good things we learned from him’ (p. 28).
Textbooks often recount how the ‘ethnic stock’ of Filipinos benefitted from
colonisation. Examples of how social studies textbooks emphasise Filipino
‘indebtedness’ to the Spanish and American colonisers, are cited by Mulder:
As long as we Filipinos remain Christians we shall always remain
indebted to Spain. Christianity is Spain’s most lasting heritage to our
people. Christian virtues have elevated our way of life and our ide-
als. The Spaniards enriched our culture. By absorbing the best and
the beautiful of Spanish culture, we have become the most socially
advanced of the Asiatic peoples who have shaken off western rule. We
have learned much of the sciences, arts, and letters from the Spaniards.
(Leogardo and Navarro 1974; cited in Mulder 1990: 90)
We are forever indebted to [America] for our democratic system of gov-
ernment and laws. Because America trained us in self-government, the
Philippines has become the outpost of democracy in the orient . . . The
American occupation brought about material prosperity never before
enjoyed by our people. The standard of living was improved. The Filipi-
nos took to the American way of life as ducks took to water. The Filipi-
nos became Americanized and were proud of it.
(Alcala et al. 1986; cited in Mulder 1990: 90–1)
This ‘positive’ portrayal of the country’s colonial history has continued to
this day and is best exemplified by Zaide and Zaide’s (2010) popular grade
5–7 history textbook, used mostly in private schools attended by the elite.
Taylor & Francis
Not for distribution
140 Mark Maca and Paul Morris
The account of the Philippines’ wars of revolution is glossed by a summary
of the ‘historical values’ to be derived from studying these violent inde-
pendence struggles, as compared with the establishment of the Philippine
Commonwealth through the mediation of a benevolent colonial master:
Most Filipinos preferred the peaceful and non-violent campaign for
independence. In the 1930s, our politicians united and got semi-
independent government and a law to ensure full independence. This
peaceful movement for reform – with all leaders united – was very suc-
cessful. It was more successful than the [1896] Philippine revolution [against
Spain], the war for independence [against the US], the peasant revolts, and the
communist party [movement].
(p.153; emphasis added)
English as a medium of instruction
The Philippines has a multiethnic population with almost 170 living lan-
guages. However, from independence in 1946 until 2012 the country’s
languages-in-education policy recognised English and only one indigenous
language, a Tagalog-based ‘Filipino’. After decades of political lobbying
(and a prolonged struggle against separatist insurgents in the south), this
policy was officially revoked in 2012 with the implementation of mother
tongue-based multilingual education (MTB-MLE) under the new K+12
curriculum.
The drawn-out controversy over language in schools is partly attributable
to the failure to fully develop any of the indigenous writing systems, such as
the alibata, that existed prior to the archipelago’s colonisation. Spanish mis-
sionaries forced Filipinos to adopt the Roman script (Doronila 1995) and
described the indigenous Filipino alphabet as the work of the ‘devil’, burn-
ing indigenous literature (Doronila 1996). Spanish was used in convents
and seminary schools attended by the children of the elite. Meanwhile,
the friars deliberately refused to teach Spanish to those of a humbler back-
ground, for fear that this might stoke rebellion by affording unmediated
access to liberal ideas current in the Spanish-speaking world (Schumacher
1973, in Gonzales 1998).
The language problem persisted with the decision of the American colo-
nial government in 1901 to require the use of English as the only medium
of instruction. Bernardo (2004) describes this as part of America’s strat-
egy of ‘benevolent assimilation’. Both pre-war and post-war scholarship has
pointed to the dominance of English as an impediment to the attainment of
functional literacy for many Filipinos (Saleeby 1924, in Constantino 1982;
Counts 1925; Hunt and McHale 1965; Clarke 1977). Successive constitu-
tions in 1935 and 1943 called for the development of a common national
language based on the various languages of the islands, but no practical
Taylor & Francis
Not for distribution
Philippines: education, identity and state 141
measures resulted. In the 1973 Constitution, Tagalog was declared as the
‘Filipino’ national language. This pronouncement was accompanied by
acrimonious debates and protests, with claims that the law favoured one
ethno-linguistic group over various others (Luzares 1981). Resentment
towards a legislated ‘national language’ has persisted, and in 1980 Gonzales
declared:
The Filipino is once more in search of a common national language,
a linguistic symbol of unity and solidarity, for the choice made for him
by his leaders divided rather than united. Presently, he can at least live
comfortably with a pragmatic and aspirational symbol, Filipino, a word
with a sense but with no clear reference.
(p. 47)
Even when Marcos decreed a bilingual policy (use of English and Filipino)
in 1974, a measure subsequently enshrined in the post-Marcos Constitution
of 1987, this issue remained unresolved. Gonzalez (2000) has portrayed this
bilingual policy as just another exercise in transactional politics designed
to protect the status quo and the interests of (overwhelmingly English-
medium) private schools.
In 2003, President Arroyo decreed English as the only medium of
instruction at all levels of education, sparking a furious controversy. Arroyo,
herself closely associated with the international financial industry, was sup-
ported in this move by pro-business congressmen as well as local and for-
eign chambers of commerce. In 2007, a coalition of these groups issued a
strong endorsement of the use of English as the only medium of instruction
from primary level, on the grounds that this would benefit the call centre
industry. But the reform was strongly opposed by academics, educators and
a number of civil society activists, who argued that it was not appropriate
for a multilingual and multiethnic society like the Philippines. For exam-
ple, Ocampo (2007) opined that the knee-jerk reaction by Congress to fill
up the projected quotas of business process outsourcing (BPO) organisa-
tions, such as transcription and call centres, would put Filipino children
at a learning disadvantage. The longstanding controversy over medium of
instruction policy has been aptly summarised by Bautista et al.:
For over 80 years, the recommendation to use the native . . . , local . . . ,
mother . . . or the child’s . . . language in schools (in the early years) as
the medium of learning has been consistently disregarded. From the
1920s to the present, the political pressures exerted by different sectors
and advocates in the name of national unification, global participation,
regional identity, cultural integrity, or economic progress and overseas
employment caused the policy decision-making on the language issue
to swing from one extreme to another.
Taylor & Francis
Not for distribution
142 Mark Maca and Paul Morris
(2008: 20)
The recent signing of the K+12 organic law (Republic Act 10533) mandat-
ing the Department of Education to institutionalise mother tongue-based
multilingual education is intended to resolve this festering linguistic dis-
pute. However, as with most education reforms over the past century, imple-
mentation will require strong political will, given powerful opposition from
sectors that continue to view English proficiency as an ‘advantage’ in the
BPO industry and as an indispensable tool for facilitating labour migration.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have focused on the nature of national identity poli-
cies and practices in three areas of schooling: civics, history education and
the medium of instruction. We have shown how the state has promoted
a vision of national identity that reflects and sustains attitudes of colonial
dependency, while sporadically declaring a need for education to foster a
strong sense of commitment to the Philippines. However, insofar as they
were intended to serve more than a symbolic purpose, such declarations of
intent have been largely thwarted by strong sectional interests or the state’s
own limited capacity. The outcome has been that citizenship and history
education, as well as linguistic policy and practice, have contributed to the
maintenance of a relatively fissiparous or underdeveloped sense of Filipino
nationhood.
Ever since the country’s independence from America in 1946, stud-
ies have consistently highlighted the relative weakness of national identity
consciousness in the Philippines. As Jose Rizal lamented more than a cen-
tury ago, ‘a man in the Philippines is only an individual, not a member of a
nation’ (Majul 1999: 9). This has been attributed to the failure to establish
a strong modern state after almost 400 hundred years of colonial rule. The
post-independence Filipino state is largely a family enterprise dominated by
a landed and political elite with roots in the Spanish-era plantation econ-
omy, subsequently co-opted by the Americans. The entrenched power both
of this landed oligarchy and of the Catholic Church has sapped the will and
capacity of the state to promote a vision of the Filipino citizen as an active,
autonomous agent in his or her own development and that of the country as
a whole. A neo-colonial relationship with the United States has underpinned
enduring economic and strategic dependency, but perhaps more funda-
mental to the stunting of Filipino democracy has been the way in which
colonialism, among other factors, has sustained an indigenous elite largely
detached from the experience and interests of the mass of its fellow citizens.
In this respect, comparisons can perhaps be drawn between the post-
colonial experience of the Philippines and that of India, where – as
Barrington Moore argued in the 1960s – the lack of a broad-based social
revolution meant continuing domination of post-independence democratic
Taylor & Francis
Not for distribution
Philippines: education, identity and state 143
institutions by an entrenched, feudalistic caste (or castes) of rent-seeking
elites (Moore 1966). In India too, enormous ethnic and linguistic diversity
has facilitated the continuing dominance of English as the lingua franca
of national elites, which in turn exacerbates the gulf between the lat-
ter and the mass of the population, for whom regional, caste or religious
identities are often more important than Indian nationalism. And, as in
the Philippines, so in parts of India (especially in the south), economic
stagnation and widespread English-medium education has fuelled large-
scale labour migration– a safety valve that relieves pressure on the state to
address serious institutional dysfunction. But, in common with Indonesia
and Indochina, India’s transition to independence followed a prolonged
anti-colonial struggle, the memory of which has been manipulated to under-
pin the legitimacy of the post-colonial state, and of its governing elites. In
the Philippines, by contrast, neither the state nor the elites that populate its
institutions derive legitimacy from a record of anti-colonial heroics.
In the Philippines, then, the accomplishment of the transition from
colonialism to independence without violent disruption of the existing
social order is linked to elite reluctance to articulate a strong, unified sense
of anti-colonial nationalism, or to promote a vision of active, engaged
democratic citizenship. However, while the consequent weakness of politi-
cal cohesion and state effectiveness has seen the Philippines ‘fall behind’
its East Asian neighbours in developmental terms, it has also meant com-
parative freedom from the chauvinist tendencies, state-induced ideological
insanity, or aggressive, expansionist bent that nationalism has encouraged
elsewhere in the region (in fascist Japan, Maoist China, the two Koreas or
Pol Pot’s Cambodia, for example). The current maritime disputes in the
South China Sea highlight this point, but confrontation with a rising China
may, in addition to driving the Philippines back into the American embrace,
also spur a more forceful and coherent sense of shared threat and shared
destiny among Filipinos. If so, this will perhaps prove a mixed blessing.
Notes
1 One reflection of the international outlook among many Filipinos – which
government rhetoric has recently sought to celebrate – is perhaps evident in
the findings of a recent citizenship development programme, which highlights
Filipino participants’ positive attitudes to attempts to forge an ASEAN regional
identity (Hirata and Morishita 2014).
2 A Barangay Captain assisted by a council is supposed to govern a group of
approximately 30–100 families in a barangay system. In most cases, especially in
the rural areas, each barangay is comprised of members of an extended family
or clan.
3 Named after USS Thomas, which transported the first cohort of these American
teachers to the Philippines.
4 The Philippine Commonwealth was established by the Americans with the pre-
text of preparing Filipinos for full independence.
5 Tadhana means destiny and is the title of the nineteen-volume ‘Filipino
story’ authored by Marcos in collaboration with several Filipino historians
Taylor & Francis
Not for distribution
144 Mark Maca and Paul Morris
and writers.
6 Segovia’s paper (1997) about the conceptualisation of democracy in textbooks fea-
tures some discussion of the national political and social context, and Doronila’s
study of literacy programmes among marginalised communities also contains some
analysis of the national socio-political background – but these are exceptions.
7 The US president created the Philippine Commission in 1901 to perform leg-
islative and (limited) executive powers in the administration of the Philippine
colony.
8 Mabini is oftentimes credited as the ‘brains’ of the wars of independence against
Spain and the US. A great thinker and political philosopher, he also authored
the Constitution of the first Philippine Republic. He was the leading adviser of
Emilio Aguinaldo and was President of the Council of Secretaries and the coun-
try’s first Foreign Affairs Minister.
9 These are abridged versions of articles 4–8 of The True Decalogue by Randy David
(2009). Mabini prescribed these ‘ten commandments’ to advance the cause of
Filipino patriotism and they were published with the Malolos Constitution in
1898.
10 Fidel Ramos was one of the military leaders who abandoned Marcos in the EDSA
1986 military-led uprising, which resulted in the accession of opposition leader
Corazon Aquino to the presidency. His sister, Senator Leticia Shahani, was the
lead convenor who initiated the National Moral Recovery Program in 1988.
11 Makabayan as a learning area was introduced from 2001 and was a result of the
amalgamation of other subjects: (1) Social Studies, (2) Technology Livelihood
and Home Economics, (3) Music, Arts, Health and Physicial Education and (4)
Values Education.
12 The NSTP is a programme aimed at enhancing civic consciousness and defence
preparedness in the youth by developing the ethics of service and patriotism
while undergoing training in any of its three programme components: (1)
Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC), (2) Literacy Training Service and
(3) Civic Welfare Training Service. Created by virtue of RA 9163, Section 2
declares:
Recognizing the youth’s vital role in nation-building, the State shall promote
civic consciousness among the youth and shall develop their physical, moral,
spiritual, intellectual and social well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriot-
ism, nationalism, and advance their involvement in public and civic affairs.
13 The K+12 programme aims to transition the system from a ten- to twelve-year
cycle. Part of the policy reforms includes overhauling of the social studies curric-
ulum, especially the mainstreaming of ‘local history’, and implementing mother
tongue-based multilingual education (MTB-MLE).
14 A review of learning goals of the social studies learning area across grade levels
will reveal how national identity formation will be addressed in the new cur-
riculum. While that is an exciting prospect, publication limitations prevented us
from completing such curriculum review.
References
Abinales, P. and Amoroso, D. (2005) State and Society in the Philippines. Pasig City: Anvil.
Alcala, J.A., Anastacio, T.M. and Antoja, M.C. (1986) Our Country and Its People 4.
Manila: Bookmark Publishing.
Anderson, B. (1983) Imagined Communities: Reflection on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism. London: Verso.
Bankoff, G. and Weekley, K. (2002) Post-colonial National Identity in the Philippines:
Celebrating the Centennial of Independence. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Taylor & Francis
Not for distribution
Philippines: education, identity and state 145
Bautista, M.C.R., Bernardo, A.B.I. and Ocampo, D. (2008) When Reforms Don’t
Transform: Reflections on Philippine Education. University of the Philippines
Centennial Lecture Series, UP NISMED, Quezon City, Philippines, 12 November.
Bello, W. (2009) The Anti-development State: The Political Economy of Permanent Crisis in
the Philippines. Pasig City: Anvil.
Bernardo, A. (2004) ‘McKinley’s questionable bequest: Over 100 years of English in
Philippine education’, World Englishes 23: 17–31.
Bernardo, A. and Mendoza, R. (2009) ‘Makabayan in the Philippine basic education
curriculum: problems and prospects for reforming student learning in the
Philippines’, in Ng, C.H. and Renshaw, P.D. (eds) Reforming Learning: Concepts,
Issues and Practice in the Asia-Pacific Region. London: Springer, pp. 181–97.
Buruma, I. (1996) ‘The bartered bride’ (1989), in The Missionary and the Libertine:
Love and War in East and West. London: Faber and Faber, pp. 139–53.
Cabiles, B. (2012) ‘Education, politics and the curriculum: the narrative of national
identity formation in the Philippines’. Unpublished dissertation, Institute of
Education, University of London.
Clarke, A. (1977) ‘Education and the new society in the Philippines’, Compare: A
Journal of Comparative and International Education 7(1): 57–65.
Constantino, L. (1982) World Bank Textbooks: Scenario for Deception. Quezon City:
Foundation for Nationalist Studies.
Constantino, R. (1975) The Philippines: A Past Revisited. Manila: Tala Publishing.
Constantino, R. (1978) Neo-colonial Identity and Counter Consciousness. White Plains,
NY: Sharpe.
Constantino, R. (1982) The Miseducation of the Filipino. Quezon City: Foundation for
Nationalist Studies.
Constantino, R. and Constantino, L. (1978) The Philippines: The Continuing Past.
Quezon City: Foundation for Nationalist Studies.
Constantino, R. and Constantino, L. (1987) The Miseducation of the Filipino – World
Bank Textbooks: Scenario for Deception. Quezon City: Foundation for Nationalist
Studies.
Counts, G. (1925) ‘Education in the Philippines’, The Elementary School Journal 26(2):
94–10.
Curaming, R.A. (2005) ‘Behind, between and beyond politics: analysing the
“political” in the writing of history textbooks in Indonesia and the Philippines’,
Asia-Pacific Forum (CAPAS, Academia Sinica) 28: 1–20.
Danao, C. (1999) Kalinangan 2 (Social Studies textbook for Grade 2). Quezon City:
Phoenix Publishing House.
David, R. (2009) ‘On being Filipino’, The Philippine Daily Inquirer Wire Service. Available
at http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20090613-210237/
On-being-Filipino (accessed 19 December 2013).
DECS (1988) Values Education for the Filipino (Order No. 6 series of 1988). Manila:
Department of Education, Culture and Sports.
del Mundo, F. (2007) ‘Is DepEd critic barking up the wrong tree?’, Philippine
Daily Inquirer Wire Service. Available at http://archive.inquirer.net/view.php?
db=1&story_id=83561 (accessed 10 August 2009).
Diaz, M. (2000) ‘A review of selected textbooks and other instructional media for
Sibika at Kultura in elementary schools’, in Hornedo, F.H., Miralao, V.A. and
Sta. Maria, F.P. (eds) The Social and Human Sciences in Philippine Basic Education:
A Review of Elementary and High School Textbooks. Quezon City: Philippine Social
Science Council, pp. 25–6.
Taylor & Francis
Not for distribution
146 Mark Maca and Paul Morris
Diokno, M.S. (1997) ‘Becoming a Filipino citizen: perspectives on democracy and
citizenship’, in Diokno, M.S. (ed.) Citizenship and Democracy in Filipino Political
Culture, vol. 1. Quezon City: UP Third World Studies Center, pp. 17–38.
Diokno, M.S. (2009) History in Basic Education. Available at http://opinion.inquirer.
net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20090905-223619/History-in-basic-
education (accessed 26 May 2011).
Doronila, M.L. (1989) The Limits of Educational Change: National Identity Formation in
a Public Elementary School. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.
Doronila, M.L. (1992) National Identity and Social Change. Quezon City: University
of the Philippines Press and UP Centre for Integrative and Development
Studies.
Doronila, M.L. (1995) ‘Education, knowledge, values, and development’, in
de Dios, E. (ed.) If We’re So Smart, Why Aren’t We Rich: Essays on Education and
Economic Success. Manila and Quezon City: Congressional Oversight Committee
on Education.
Doronila, M.L. (1996) ‘The Philippines’, International Review of Education 42(1/3):
101–29.
Doronila, M.L. (1997) ‘An overview of Filipino perspectives on democracy and
citizenship. In Diokno, M.S. (ed.) Citizenship and democracy in Filipino political
culture, vol. 1, p 39–68, Quezon City: UP Third World Studies Center
Education Act of 1982: An act providing for the establishment and maintenance
of an integrated system of education. Available at www.ecc.gov.jm/Downloads/
Laws/The%20Education%20Act.pdf (accessed 4 November 2013).
Executive Order 217, s. 1939: Prescribing certain civic and ethical principles to be
taught in all schools in the Philippines. Available at www.gov.ph/1939/08/19/
executive-order-no-217/ (accessed 4 November 2013).
Francia, L. (2010) History of the Philippines: From Indios Bravos to Filipinos. New York:
The Overlook Press.
Gellner, E. (1983) Nations and Nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gonzales, A. (1980) Language and Nationalism: The Philippine Experience Thus Far.
Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Gonzalez, A. (1998) ‘The language planning situation in the Philippines’, Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development 19(5): 487–525.
Hirata, T. and Morishita, M. (2014) Citizenship Education in ASEAN Countries: The
Analyses of Delphi Surveys. Paper presented at the Ninth Biennial Conference of
the Comparative Society of Asia (CESA), Hangzhuo Normal University, China,
16–18 May.
Hunt, C. and McHale, T. (1965) ‘Education and Philippine economic development’,
Comparative Education Review, February: 63–73.
Hutchcroft, P.D. (1991) ‘Oligarchs and cronies in the Philippine state: the politics
of patrimonial plunder’, World Politics 43: 414–50.
Kaelin, L. (2012) Strong Family, Weak State: Hegel’s Political Philosophy and the Filipino
Family. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Leogardo, F.T. and Navarro, J.R. (1974) Challenges in Philippine Community Life.
Manila: Philippine Book Co.
Luzares, C. (1981) ‘Languages-in-education in the Philippines’, Annual Review of
Applied Lingustics 2(2): 122–8.
Maca, M. and Morris, P. (2012) ‘The Philippines, the East Asian “developmental
states”and education: a comparative analysis of why the Philippines failed to
develop’, Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education 42(3): 461–84.
Taylor & Francis
Not for distribution
Philippines: education, identity and state 147
Maca, M. and Morris, P. (2013) ‘National identity formation and the portrayal of
the Japanese occupation in Filipino textbooks’, in Morris, P., Shimazu, N. and
Vickers, E. (eds) Imagining Japan in Post-war East Asia: Identity Politics, Schooling
and Popular Culture. London: Routledge, pp. 229–48.
McCoy, A. (1993) An Anarchy of Families: State and Family in the Philippines. Madison,
WI: University of Wisconsin, Center for Southeast Asian Studies.
Majul, C.A. (1999) ‘Rizal in the 21st century: the relevance of his ideas and texts’,
Public Policy 3(1): 1–22.
Marcos, F. (1976) Tadhana: The History of the Filipino People. Manila: Ferdinand
Marcos.
Mendez, P. and Jocano, F.L. (1991) Culture and Nationhood: A Philosophy of Education
for Filipinos. Manila: Centro Escolar University Research and Development
Centre.
Mendoza, R. and Nakayama, S. (2003) ‘Makabayan curriculum for secondary schools
in the Philippines: the development of citizenship’, Educational Research for Policy
and Practice 2: 13–26.
Moore, B. (1966) The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in
the Making of the Modern World. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Mulder, N. (1990) ‘Philippine textbooks and the national self-image’, Philippine
Studies 38(1): 84–102.
Ocampo, D. (2007) The Philippine Roadmap to Multi-literacy. Available at http://dina.
ocampo.googlepages.com/thephilippineroadmaptomulti-literacy (accessed 2
August 2009).
Ong, J.C. (2011) ‘Watching the nation, singing the nation: London-based Filipino
migrants’ identity constructions in news and karaoke’, Communication, Culture
and Critique 2(2): 160–81.
Oxley, L. and Morris, P. (2013) ‘Global citizenship: a typology for distinguishing its
multiple conceptions’, British Journal of Educational Studies 61(3): 301–25.
Philippine Constitutions (1935, 1943, 1973, 1987) Chan Robles Virtual Law Library.
Available at www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw.htm#.UOK9n6WAGlL
(accessed 1 January 2013).
Proclamation No. 62, s. 1992: Declaring a moral recovery and enjoining active
participation of all sectors in the Filipino society. Available at www.gov.
ph/1992/09/30/proclamation-no-62-s-1992/ (accessed 3 February 2013).
Quisumbing, L. (1994) A Study of the Philippine Values Education Programme (1986–
1993). Geneva: International Bureau of Education-UNESCO.
Republic Act 9163. National Service Training Program (NSTP) Act of 2001. Quezon City:
Republic of the Philippines.
Republic Act 10533. Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013. Quezon City: Republic of
the Philippines.
Ruiz, N. (2007) The Emigration State: Labour Export as Development Policy. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association. Town
& Country Resort and Convention Centre, San Diego, California. Available at
www.allacademic.com/meta/p211099_index.html (accessed 29 November
2008).
San Juan, E. (2000) After Postcolonialism: Remapping Philippines–United States
Confrontations. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Segovia, L. (1997) ‘Perspectives on democracy and citizenship in elementary and
high school textbooks’, in Diokno, M.S. (ed.) Democracy and Citizenship in Filipino
Political Culture, vol. 1. Quezon City: UP Third World Studies Center, pp. 133–58.
Taylor & Francis
Not for distribution
148 Mark Maca and Paul Morris
Swift, O. (2011) ‘Seafaring citizenship: what being Filipino means at sea and what
seafaring means for the Philippines’, South East Asia Research 19(2): 273–91.
Torralba, A., Dumol, P. and Manzon, M. (2007) ‘Schooling in the Philippines’, in
Postiglione, G. and Tan, J. (eds) Going to School in East Asia. London: Greenwood
Press, pp. 275–300.
Vickers, E. (2005) ‘Introduction’, in Vickers, E. and Jones, A. (eds) History Education
and National Identity in East Asia. London and New York: Routledge.
Wang, Y. (2011) ‘The wandering nation: a research on the discursive construction
of Filipino identity’. Unpublished dissertation, University of Lund. Available at
http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1966944
&fileOId=1973446 (accessed 19 June 2012).
Wurfel, D. (1988) Filipino Politics: Development and Decay. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Yu-Jose, L. (2004) ‘The Japanese occupation, nationalism, textbooks, and teachers’,
The Loyola Schools Review 3: 159–78.
Zaide, G. and Zaide, S. (2010) Philippine History and Government (6th edition).
Manila: All- Nations Publishing Company.
Zialcita, F. (1997) ‘Barriers and bridges to a democratic culture’, in Diokno, M.S.
(ed.) Democracy and Citizenship in Filipino Political Culture, vol. 1. Quezon City: UP
Third World Studies Center, pp. 39–68.
Taylor & Francis
Not for distribution
