CHAPTER 9

FILIPINO VALUES

Filipino values are our cultural values. They sum up our responses to the meaning of human life in the
context of the cultural setting. They show our strengths and weaknesses as a people.

Filipino Cultural Values

Filipino values spring from our peculiar way of viewing life – its origin, its meaning, and its purpose.
Foremost among our values is pananaligsaMaykapal. The Filipino puts his trust entirely in God’s hand.
He believes that his destiny, or “suwerte”, depends on God’s wishes.

The Filipino calls to God when things are bad, when there is a calamity or an epidemic, or when a
friend or relative is sick. He praises God for a good harvest, for passing a Board exam, for the return of
stolen property, for surviving an illness or an accident, and for living a long life. He attributes his
misfortunes to his sinfulness and he vows to endure physical suffering in atonement. He entrust to God
any unresolved issues or suffered injustice – “ipapasa-Diyosnalamang”. And he swears to God to prove
his honesty, swearing – “sumpa man saDiyos”.

The Filipino expresses concern for others through pakikipag-kapwa, pagmamahalsapamilya, and
pagmamahalsabayan. He believes in himself and his abilities.

Filipino Moral Ideal

The Filipino believes moral integrity is the essentiality of “becoming human”. It is above the desire for
material enrichment – “Di baling mahirap, basta’tdangal”.

This moral expectation is similar, though with much lesser significance, with such concepts as
“magpaka-lalakika”, or “magpaka-babae ka”, implying that man and woman have different traits and
capabilities. Just as a man or a woman must act in accordance with the demands of their respective
gender, a person ought to live up to the demands of his humanity or “pagkatao”, “pagpapakatao”. The
Filipino moral ideal coincides with what other people of any culture regard as the greatest attribute of a
human being. A person must be caring, honest, hardworking, and respectful of others. He must have an
impeccable character. Failing the moral standard makes a person “masamangtao”, and is looked down
as “hayop”, or “walanghiya”, a shameless beast.

Ambivalent Values

Filipino Values are described as ambivalent, because they are either advantageous or disadvantageous
to the person. For instance, the value of family closeness promotes love and mutual care, but at the
same time promotes dependence, lack of self-confidence and initiative among its members.

1
Another example of ambivalence is pakikisama. Coming from the word “sama”, or company, it means
fellowship or caring for another person. But oftentimes it becomes a form of concession, a giving or
yielding to the will of the leader or of the majority. Thus, “magalingmakisama” refers to one who is
disposed to do anything, including that which is wrong, for his gang or barkada. When he pays for the
beer of his gand mates. A “tapatnakaibigan” is one who is ready to lie for you.

Double-Standard Mentality
It is commonly held, for example, that it is alright for a man to be unfaithful to his wife because that is
what masculinity means – a macho. On the other hand, a woman is expected to be modest, and pure. It
is only in 2006 that Congress ruled that adultery as a single act of infidelity by either married man or
woman so that either is accountable in the same manner and degree. Earlier the law was tilted against
the woman who could be punished for a single act of extramarital relation, whereas the man may be
charged with the same crime only when he keeps a mistress.

Another example of double-standard is the situation where the rich gets undue advantage over the poor
in the interpretation of the law. Likewise, the Filipino is not scandalized that the church where he
worships was built by the local drug lord. Neither does it bother the Filipino that there are pimps,
prostitutes, and thugs in the neighborhood, because these characters are just earning a living –
“naghahanapbuhay lamang”. Indeed, the Filipino has a kind and forgiving soul. He condemns sin but
condones sinners. He regards human nature as inherently weak and, therefore, mistakes are expected –
“sapagkat taolamang”.

False Norms of Morality

Group-thinking is the mentality of the heard. What the group prefers, or what the dominant figure in
the group wishes, becomes the basis of individual choice. Thus, instead of relying on his personal
conviction, a person becomes “sunod-sunoran”, “uto-uto”, a blind man following the lead of another
blind.

The other false norm is fear or shame of authority. This is the don’t-be-caught” attitude. According to
this norm, it is alright to do wrong provided one is not caught. Thus, it is alright for a student to cheat
during exam, provided he is not caught by the teacher. This is the mentality of palusot, pagkukunwari
or kaplastikan.

Re-orientation of Attitudes

The double-standard mentality may be corrected by removing its causes: ignorance, complacency, and
rationalization

2
 1. The Filipino does not often bother with the complexity of a situation, but plunges headlong into
action propelled by the impulse of “bahalana”. The Filipino, therefore, must not be gullible, and
learn how good fortune is the result of thinking and planning. Instead of putting his hope on luck
or “suwerte”, he must trust himself or seek guidance from reliable persons, not from charlatans,
visionaries, and street-wise preachers. He must distinguish between the fantasies of the movie
and the reality of flesh and blood.

2. The Filipino must free himself from the belief that his life is a matter of destiny, and everything
that happens is “tinalaga ng Diyos” “Ganyantalagaangbuhay” expresses resignation to one’s
misfortunes. But instead of resigning to his fate, one must strive harder to improve his life.

3. The Filipino must revolutionize his ways of thinking. Instead of rationalizing, inventing excuses
for his mistakes, one must accept and correct them. He must assume responsibility over his
actions, and not blame others. Rationalization is making “palusot” or lame excuses.

Characteristics of a Responsible person

1. A responsible person differentiates between what is essential from what is accidental. The
Filipino must cultivate his moral sensibility so he is able to discern what is good or bad in a
situation. He must be able to see through the actuations of do-gooders so that he is not deceived
by false promises or pretenses.

2. A responsible person internalizes his values. Values must be ingested and digested, so to speak,
so that they become part of your character. An act of kindness, for example, must come from the
heart. And when we say we love God, it is loving God – with all our mind and with all our soul.

3. A responsible person accepts the consequences of his actions. When the Filipino wishes to
guarantee the truth of anything, he swears by his life, declaring “ Mamatay man ako”. The
Filipino needs more than just rhetoric. He needs to show deeper maturity, accepting his mistakes
instead of attributing them to others.

Core Values of the Filipino

Moral maturity is process of change. It means a new way of thinking, a new perception of realities. For
the Filipino, this growth begins with the fresh view of human dignity.

3
While the significance of human dignity has always been part of the Filipino tradition, somehow its
true meaning has been lost in the national consciousness of the people. Today, for example, people
rarely act on the basis of “delicadeza”.

Vitaliano Gorospe suggests that the education of Filipinos should center on these values, namely –
Truth, Love and Faith; Integrity, Industry, and Social Justice.

1. Truth, Love and Faith

One should seek the truth relevant to his circumstances. Applying oneself to research or seeking the
counsel of prudent men leads to proper instruction. On the other hand, listening to rumors and gossips
is always risky.

Love for the good should be the basis of decisions and choices. One should be ready to choose not on
the basis of what is pleasant or unpleasant, convenient, but solely on the basis of what is objectively
good under the circumstances.

Religious faith in needed too. Reason and good intention are not enough. There are many riddles in life
which only faith can answer.

2. Integrity

The word stands for completeness. It connotes perfection, adhering to what is truth and committing
oneself to what is good. It means condemning deceit, cheating, stealing, fraud, hypocrisy and
dishonesty in all its forms, such as “lagay, padulas, areglo, palusot, kaplastikan, garapalan, and
palakasan” It means internalizing values. It means loving oneself.

3. Industry

Filipinos believe in honest work and have uneasiness about feeding their families through ill-gotten
money. The desire to improve his life and that of the family drives the Filipino to work any place in the
world, and where he goes he is recognized for his competence, diligence, and honesty.

4
4. Social Justice

Social Justice is more than just the act of charity. It is founded on the truth which holds all earthly
goods as belonging to all men and to be shared equally by them, not in the mathematical sense od
equality but in the prudential sense, so that everyone has access to a decent life.

This is the basis of land reform program in the Philippines which, however, remains ineffective,
causing endless conflict between landowners and tenants. On personal level, Social Justice urges one to
help the poor in every way possible, not because it is the “pious” thing to do, but because it is the duty
of every capable individual to do so. Social justice demands that we share our good fortune with the
less fortunate.

CHAPTER 10

LOVE OF NEIGHBOR

Neighbor is any person other than oneself – parents, relatives, friends, officemates, superiors and
strangers. Even our enemies are our neighbor whom we ought to respect.

Principles of Neighborliness

How we should treat others is expressed negatively by the golden rule: “Do not do unto others, what
you do not want others do to you”. The positive formulation of this rule is the command: “Love your
neighbor as yourself”. Jesus Christ teaches that the two greatest commandments are: first, to love God,
and second, to love thy neighbor.

Two significant virtues regulate our relationship with one another – charity and justice. Justice requires
that we render to another what is due to him. Justice implies a law binding us to give what we owe to
another either in terms of respect or payment of debt. Charity, on the other hand, is rendering to another
something which is not due to him by the demand of a law. Charity is expression of goodwill and love
on the part of the giver.

In the social order, justice takes precedence over charity. One must first render justice to his neighbor
before he may rightly claim loving his neighbor. In the moral order, charity is higher than justice
because it is doing good to another out of love and not out of an obligation imposed by a law which is
the case with justice.

5
Meaning of Justice

St. Thomas Aquinas defines justice as the firm and constant will to give to each his due. This means
giving to someone what is his own or his right. By “right” we mean that which is strictly owed
according to proportional equality. By “someone” we mean the object or receiver of justice, oneself,
another person, or the community.

“Proportional equality” is not treating all persons the same way in strict mathematical equation.
Because people differ with one another, their claim to rights differs with those of others. For example,
your parents have a greater claim than your friend to your love and care.

Types of Justice

Those who have less in life must have more in law.

1. Commutative Justice – regulates the rights of persons towards one another in accordance with
the principle of equality in give and take. The object of commutative justice is the private
advantage or profit. It requires that one may not take advantage of another person by violating
his right, say, to his life or interest. It is commutative justice that, for example, obliges a person
to pay his debts, or compels the employer to pay a just wage. The common violations of
commutative justice includes theft, fraud, and unjust damage to property or reputation.

2. Distributive Justice – regulates the rights of persons as members of the community. Since the
members of the community are not equally situated, whether morally or economically, it is the
responsibility of the community to determine the proportionate share of each members in the
privileges, aids, burden, and obligations towards the community. It is due to distributive justice
that, for example, citizens of a given community do not pay the same amount of taxes relative to
their income.

3. Legal Justice – regulates rights of the community or those charged with the welfare of the
community. The aim of legal justice is the promotion of the common good. The officials of the
community exercise legal justice by passing such laws that would promote the common good.
The citizens exercise this virtue by faithful obedience to the laws which promote the common
good.

4. Social Justice – regulates the rights of persons towards the weaker members of the community –
those who are poor and needy. Social justice, being concerned with the welfare of the
community, must attend to the needs of all its members, especially those who are poor, weak,
and disadvantage. Social justice is based on the principle that the wealth of the earth belongs to
everybody.

6
 Hence, social justice requires that wages should not be based solely on what is materially
equitable as may be determined by law, but on what the laborer needs to sustain a decent life for
him and his family.

5. Vindictive Justice – regulates the rights of the community or State to restore public order by
punishing criminals in proportion to their guilt. The aim of vindictive justice is “the furtherance
of the common welfare, i.e., public order and security, universal respect for justice, confidence
in authority, and if possible, correction of the guilty.

The Goal of Social Justice

Social justice as explained is the preferential option for the poor and a way of sharing one’s talent,
treasure and time with the needy. “In practice, “magpakatao para sakapwa” means three things: (1)
sharing with others especially the poor, (2) “subversion” in the sense of struggling for structural and
cultural change, simplicity of life style, because by having more and more, the great majority of the
poor may have less and less.

“Less human conditions” refers to lack of material necessities for those who are without minimum
essential for life; oppressive social structures caused by either abuse of power or abuse of ownership.
Pope Paul VI exhorts modern man to bring about the conditions for a true and authentic human
existence.

The same pope cites the needs for reforms, “bold transformations, innovations that go deep.” Towards
this goal, private initiative and public authority must work and apply their resources in programs that
will “reduce inequalities, fight discriminations, free man from various types of servitude and enable
him to be the instrument of his own material betterment, of his moral progress and of his spiritual
growth”.

Duties towards Neighbor

Because rights and duties are reciprocal, any right we claim for our self becomes a duty towards our
neighbor. For instance, our right to life becomes a duty to respect and protect the life of another person.
We may classify our duties towards the neighbor pertaining to his:

1. Body–Every person has a right to his life, bodily health and well-being. This right comes from
the force of natural law and we are bound to respect it, both morally and legally. It becomes
therefore our duty with regards to our neighbor’s right over his body and life, to refrain from any
activity that may, directly or indirectly, violate such right.

7
 The Decalogue expresses these duties as commands, requiring the omission of certain acts
because they are unjust. These prohibited acts are intrinsically evil, such as murder, abortion,
rape, slavery, human trafficking, drug pushing, kidnapping, torture, and other unjust acts that
threatens a person with bodily harm.

2. Soul- Every person has the right to the truth and to the good that befits his rational soul. This is
a right coming from natural law, since man is endowed with the intellect for knowing the truth
and the will for desiring that which is good.

Accordingly, it is our duty, with respect to our neighbor’s right to truth, to be honest towards
him, telling him what he has the right to know or to helping him acquire such knowledge
necessary for his development. For example, because children have the right to education,
parents have the duty to educate their children according to their means.

A person who has the authority over a person, such as a parent over his child, has the right to be
informed, if this serves a reasonable purpose, about the activities of under their charge. Thus,
teachers not only have the moral obligation to counsel erring students, but to report wrongdoings
to the school officials or to the parents. In the same respect, manufacturers or sellers of
consumer goods, such as food or medicine, have the duty to inform the buyers about the
ingredients of the product, or to warn the patient of any adverse or side-effect of a medicine, as
the case may be. Thus, we speak of truth in advertising.

Some actions prohibited in this regard are lies, cheating, fraud, slander, gossips,
misinterpretation, falsification, perjury, petty rumor, superstition, fortune telling, and other acts
which hide, obscures, or muddles the truth.

3. Property–Every person has the right of ownership over things honestly acquired. This right
implies moral power to use and to exclude other persons from such use. “Property” refers to
external and material goods which, strictly speaking, can be possessed, disposed of, or
consumed, such as food, clothes, house, land, and money. However, the term property may
mean the result of our work or achievement. In this sense, we speak of reputation or “good
name” as a property. Writing, work of arts, or inventions are also property, called “intellectual
property”.

On every person is imposed the corresponding reciprocal duty to respect the property of the
neighbor in all its forms. Prohibited acts in this regard are – stealing, trespassing, invasion of
privacy, plagiarism, arson, land grabbing, vandalism, squatting, malversation, and many other
acts which deprives a person the right to own and use his property.

Correcting an Injustice

One who willfully violates the right of another person is bound by natural law, and also by the laws of
society, to rectify any act of injustice he has done. This effort to correct injustice is called – restitution,
from the verb“to restore” or “to bring back”.
8
The concept of restitution in the ancient law of Talion demands “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a
tooth”, which the Filipino translates as “buhay and inutang, buhayangkabayaran”. In some cultures,
restitution for an act of murder is accomplished by paying “blood money” to the family of the victim.

Restitution is a difficult thing, especially where the damage done is not materially quantifiable, such as
in the case of physical injury, damage to one’s honor, or death. In cases where the damage is materially
quantifiable, such as the amount of stolen money, restitution is accomplished by paying back the
amount plus some compensatory amount for the anguish and emotional distress suffered by the victim.

The rule is, the greater the damage, the greater the restitution. Since the determination of restitution
cannot be left to the decision of the parties concerned without the risk of committing further injustice,
the determination of restitution becomes the responsibility of Court of justice. Punishing a crime, such
as imprisonment, constitutes restitution. It is not rare that the Court decides not only on the terms of
imprisonment as commensurate to the crime but rules on such other monetary penalties to compensate
for moral damages in those cases when the crime has caused scandal, embarrassment, anxiety and
worry on the victim.

The Principle of Self-Defense

ApolinarioMabini refers to the principle of self-defense when he states: “Love your neighbor as
yourself because God has imposed upon him as well as upon you the obligation to help and not to do to
you what he does not want to be done to him by you. But if your neighbor, failing in this sacred duty,
attempts against your life, liberty, or interest, therefore, you must destroy him and annihilate him,
because the law of self-preservation must prevail.

Our inalienable right to life includes its defense from an unjust aggressor. An unjust aggressor is
anyone who without proper authority and just reason attempts against our life or interests, such as a
robber, rapist, kidnapper, or a murderer.

The principles of self-defense anticipates a situation where a victim, without the means to take recourse
to the police or the court, is being threatened here and now by an unjust aggressor and is in immediate
danger. In this case, the law of self-preservation grants the probable victim a reasonable defense of his
right in defense of his life. A person has the right of self-defense either by incapacitating or killing an
unjust aggressor, such as one who threatens to shoot him.

Conditions:

1. The attack is unjust. The attack comes from an aggressor who is acting in his own private
authority and not from duly constituted authority. Example, a criminal who is sentenced to be
executed by the State may not claim self-defense and kill the prison guards. Police officers do
not have the authority to summarily “salvage” criminals unless they are attacked first and placed
in immediate danger to their life.
9
 2. The attack is serious in nature. An attack is serious when it is an attempt to cause death to a
victim who is then placed in a grace danger to his life.

3. The defense must be simultaneous to the attack. The defense should be made at the same
time as that of the actual attack. An act of defense before or after an actual attack is not self-
defense.

4. The means employed for defense are reasonable. The purpose of self-defense is to protect
oneself and not to commit murder. Therefore, the victim may not kill the aggressor when it is
possible to incapacitate him and thwart his evil purpose.

5. The motive of the defender is honest. The only laudable motive for self-defense is to save
one’s life from an unjust attack. It should not be taken as an opportunity to exact vengeance or
punishment on the aggressor.

Capital Punishment

Capital Punishment or the Death Penalty, is a controversial topic. Some countries demand it, others
condemn it as an unjust and immoral punishment even for them whose guilt has been established
beyond reasonable doubt.

The Pros and Cons

The PROS, or those who are in favor of death penalty, like the Volunteers against Crime and
Corruption, believe that the State, like the private individual, has the right of self-defense in defending
society from criminals. Death penalty is a just, especially when imprisonment is not sufficient or
commensurate to the crime committed. Henry Davis, a theologian, thinks that every person has the
right to live without “unjust molestation” from others. Capital punishment is therefore necessary for
peace and security of life and property. It is deterrent against crimes.

However, death penalty is morally permissible under the following conditions:

1. The criminal is given “due process” in court.

The CONS, or those who are not in favor of capital punishment, like the CBCP, consider death penalty
inhuman and unchristian. Theologian Brendan Soane points out that the sacred text in the Scripture in
support of death penalty belong to an old order, “written at a time when the blood vengeance was
exacted for murder and it was believed that the blood of the victim cried out from earth until it had
been avenged by the blood of the murderer”. Jesus repudiated the law of Talion and insteadtaught us to
love our enemies. Although this does not mean that we should not punish at all, for we have seen that
10
punishment can be good and just, it is a claim on us to temper the severity of punishment with the
mercy which is born of love.

It is also argued against the death penalty that it does not deter criminals to indulge themselves in their
evil ways. If death penalty is a deterrent against crime, then society would have rid itself of criminals
long time ago. The fact is that there are other ways for punishing criminals, punishments which are
humane and just.

Capital punishment should not be compared to a medical surgery to remove a tumor for the purpose of
preserving life. The life of the victim of a crime is not preserved by taking away the life of the
murderer. Neither is the peace and order in society preserved since it has been already disturbed prior
to the mortal punishment of the criminal and the death of any number of criminals does not necessarily
results in harmony in society. Furthermore, death penalty effectively and with finality destroys the life
of a person, preventing him to make amends and to reform his life.

Theologian Bernard Haring believes crimes are the result of socio-environmental conditions and states
that: “the State has no right to uphold death penalty unless it has done all its power to give better
education and to care for a more and just environment”.

11