Message
Filipino
Parity
the
Plebiscite
Amendment
People
of President
ofurging
March
to the
Roxas
approval
11,Constitution
1947
to the
of the at
Message
of
His Excellency Manuel Roxas
President of the Philippines
To the Filipino People urging approval of the Parity Amendment to the Constitution at the
Plebiscite of March 11, 1947
[Released on March 6, 1947]
MY COUNTRYMEN:
I address this final message to you on the subject of the so-called parity amendment. I wish to
summarize my views as briefly and concisely as possible. My purpose is to review the true nature
of the issue at stake.
I will not today enter into a lengthy explanation of the various phases of this problem. I wish
merely to synthesize the discussion on the eve of a decision which holds the entire future of our
nation in its grasp.
I cannot conceive of an alternative to the overwhelming approval of this proposition. I cannot
understand how any impartial, fair-minded, and patriotic Filipino can, in good conscience, oppose
this amendment. I concede that there are apparently plausible arguments against its approval. There
are two sides to every question. But the man of impartial mind must weigh all arguments in favor
and all arguments against any proposition. The fact that there are points against a proposition must
not prevail if there are more powerful arguments in favor. The sum total of the reasons in favor of
the approval of this amendment is so overwhelming and the arguments against it are so completely
short of the mark that I cannot see how the Filipino people can do otherwise than to give the
Constitutional amendment a resounding vote of endorsement.
THE PEOPLE CANNOT BE FOOLED
Often I stand back and ask myself how it is possible for a single issue such as this one to become
so confused and so obscured with selfish and partisan considerations; never has a simple issue
been subject to so many distortions and misrepresentations, many of them wilful and deliberate. I
am reassured only by the knowledge that the people, in the long run, cannot be fooled or misled
by lies and hall-truths. They lose faith in continued appeals to passion and prejudice. In this is the
great strength and virtue of democracy.
That is why today, although victory for the amendment is certain, I wish to talk to my countrymen,
to set the record straight, and to clarify the discussion which has been so thoroughly beclouded by
emotional appeals and political harangues.
What is it that we are proposing to do? We propose to amend our Constitution. Is there anything
essentially wrong in that? We have amended our Constitution before. We might find occasion to
amend it in the future. A nation which is alive and growing, which is vital and dynamic, adjusts
itself to situations as they develop. The Constitution is a notable document drawn by men of vision
and of understanding. They did not pretend to be able to foresee all the exigencies and emergencies
of the future. They did not pretend to be omniscient. For that reason machinery was provided for
amendments to the Constitution. We are using that machinery now. There is nothing sacrilegious
in that. It is the democratic way of meeting new needs and requirements. Because men may make
errors, erasers were invented, and the way is provided to amend laws, and to amend even the
Constitution.
PROCEEDING CAUTIOUSLY
Yet we do not, in this case, propose to amend the Constitution permanently. We amend the
Constitution for 28 years. After 28 years, this amendment will automatically become null and void.
It will cease entirely to have force and effect. But if we find sooner than 28 years that we have
made a mistake in this amendment, and that it is not working out to our best interests, we can
cancel this amendment, on six months’ notice, or on five years’ notice. There is nothing irrevocable
about it. There is nothing astounding about it. The opponents of this amendment would have us
think that we are stepping off a tall cliff and dashing ourselves to destruction on the rocks below.
What a melodrama of the imagination! Actually we are proceeding cautiously with our eyes wide
open, moving forward to explore the future, and to take advantage of opportunities suddenly and
unexpectedly offered us to escape from a destruction which had suddenly been visited upon us.
The opponents of this proposal would paralyze this nation with fear, and have us remain frozen in
the wake of the typhoon which has swept over us, and in the path of another which is heading our
way. The storm which passed over us and which wrought such destruction here was war; the
typhoon which now threatens us is economic disaster. Yet we can easily avoid disaster. We are
avoiding it, and, moving on to heights of greater prosperity and glory than we ever knew before.
The war brought us misery and devastation but it also brought us a golden opportunity. Shall we
stand still in our tracks and look fearfully behind us, or shall we move courageously forward, and
achieve by our own actions our salvation? The opponents of this amendment offer no alternative.
They suggest no better course of action. They merely fill the air with cries of alarm, and try to
stampede us with fear. I am happy that they have not succeeded.
WHAT IS PARITY?
Now what is the actual issue on which we will vote? What is its substance? What are its
implications? What is parity? The proposed constitutional amendment would grant to Americans,
for a period of 28 years, the privilege of equality with Filipinos in certain fields of economic
endeavor, namely the development of natural resources and the ownership and operation of public
utilities. Those fields are now reserved to Filipinos.
Is this true parity? Of course it isn’t. Americans will have no political rights. They will be unable
to vote, hold public office, or obtain employment in the regular government service. They will be
ineligible to represent our government in diplomatic posts abroad or to participate in any of the
deliberations by which this nation makes its sovereign decisions. In our laws, there are hundreds
of economic preferences for Filipino citizens: in the practice of the professions, in the distribution
of government lands, and eligibility for government contracts. Those preferences will remain
unmodified, except as we may, from time to time choose to amend them. That is not parity. That
is not equal rights. That is merely the extension, by our own volition, of certain special rights to
American citizens. That extension of rights is provisional and temporary. We can recall it at any
time we choose. In any event, those rights will expire in 28 years. Is that an abridgment of
sovereignty? Of course not. It is an exercise of sovereignty, by the Filipino people, for good and
sufficient reasons of national policy.
NO REASON TO FEAR
It is true that our Constitution in its present form reserves to Filipinos alone the special privileges
we now propose to grant to Americans. They were so reserved because we rightly feared in the
past that if Americans became too deeply involved in the economic life of the Philippines, it would
prejudice our struggle for independence. But we now have our independence. And the greatest
supporter of our independence and of our freedom today is the United States of America. We have
absolutely no reason to fear that the United States Government will in any way modify or diminish
her earnest desire that we succeed as an independent and democratic Republic.
We had a recent instance in which an American. General Ernest Burt, undertook to buy some
church lands which the Government itself desired to acquire for the benefit of the people. The
Government took steps to cancel this sale. The United States Government uttered not a single word
of complaint, but rather supported us in our program. Is this the kind of Government to fear? Of
course, there are unscrupulous individuals of every nationality, who will seek unfairly to seize
every opportunity for the sake of profit, regardless of the public interest. The Government is and
will be constantly alert against all such efforts by persons of any nationality. In the case of
Americans, you can count on your Government, and we can count on the American Government,
to consider the welfare of the Philippine Republic above the interest of any selfish individual.
TO HELP US REBUILD
The United States, as a nation, has gained the greatest glory for its grant of independence to the
Philippines. The success of the Philippine experiment in democracy is the brightest jewel in the
crown of American policy in the Far East. Does any Filipino believe for a moment that the United
States Government would tarnish that jewel for the sake of the few pesos of profit? It is so
ridiculous a thought that it is not worthy of serious discussion. But the opponents of parity lean
most heavily on this fear, this completely unwarranted supposition. They appeal to your
nationalistic aspirations and ask you to believe that the United States, which spent billions and
billions of dollars for our liberation, which is spending hundreds of millions of dollars for our
rehabilitation, which spent the lives of fifty thousand Americans on this very soil to bring us
freedom and finally independence, is now going to rob and exploit us. Such a supposition is denied
by every obvious fact. It is as if you were asked to believe that your own fathers and mothers, who
raised and tended you throughout your lives, should now be locked out of your homes in their old
age because of the fear that they might suddenly steal your possessions from you. The American
people, with but few exceptions, look upon us as their offspring, offspring no longer dependent,
who must stand on our own feet as soon as possible, but who will retain the love and care of our
former guardians as long as we shall live. Any individual American who abuses the hospitality of
the Philippines is as much a trespasser against the principles of his own government as against the
Philippines. Our special hospitality is extended to Americans for one purpose—to enable
Americans to help us rebuild our country, to make of it a richer and more fruitful land. It is true
that some Americans will make a profit out of this undertaking. That is only right. But in order to
make a profit, they will be required to contribute in a much greater measure to the profit of the
Philippines. They will give jobs to the people; they will build houses and roads; they will provide
electric light and power and buy goods and pay taxes to the Government. Is that a danger to us?
If an American should set up a lumber mill in Mindanao and import machinery from America and
hire laborers, and build houses, if he should produce in his lumber mill plywood, and timber, and
doors, and sashes, and tooth picks, and boxes, and telegraph poles, and prefabricated houses, would
that be robbing the Philippines of anything? Or would it be adding to our national wealth?
If an American explored some of our vast unexplored territory and found chromium ore, and sunk
a mine, and established a railroad line to transport that chromium ore, and gave jobs to hundreds
of our people digging up the ore and paid hundreds of our laborers to transport it, and paid out of
his income thousands of dollars to the Government for the support of schools and for the building
of roads and hospitals and community facilities, would we be richer or poorer?
If an American went to any of the cities or municipalities where there are today no buses, electric
lights, telephone service, or gas, and established a public utility providing one of these services,
employing our people, building plants and facilities, wouldn’t we be better off? Yet these are the
very things that the opponents of parity are afraid of. These are the things they would keep out of
the Philippines.
WE HAVE THE PRIVILEGE
Filipinos, of course, have the privilege, they have always had the privilege, of doing exactly the
same thing as we now propose to permit Americans to do. The trouble is that there are not enough
Filipinos who have the capital or who have the knowledge, experience and technical means to do
these things now. The Government, itself, has not and can not possibly obtain the money to do all
these things. Only private capital can do them. The Government will do everything it can. In areas
where private capital will not venture, the Government will take the initiative. But the Government
will only be able to push ahead with such a program of its own, if it receives income and revenue
from taxation of private enterprise, and if the national economy is broad and prosperous enough
to warrant the lending of money to your Government.
It should be remembered that the Government has the right, under our laws, to expropriate at any
time, with proper compensation, public utilities, if expropriation is deemed by the Government to
be in the national interest. The Government is also authorized, under the Constitution, to acquire
landed estates and agricultural areas, by the process of expropriation, for distribution to tenants
and the people. The Government has all the power and authority it needs to protect the public
interest and to prevent selfish exploitation. There is not the remotest chance that we will be
impeded in any way, at any time, in the legitimate and impartial exercise of that authority by any
foreign government, to the prejudice of either our national interests, or the interests of any
substantial group of our own people. We have already shown a determination in that direction. The
United States Government has not, in the entire history of its relations with us, indicated any desire
to the contrary.
America was sovereign here for fifty years. At the end of that period, how many American civilians
were there in the Philippines? Approximately 10,000. How many of these 10,000 were laborers? I
do not know of a single one. They were all businessmen and technical men, traders and engineers,
foresters and teachers, bankers and industrialists. America does not export laborers; she imports
them. There are fifteen times as many Filipinos in the United States as there are Americans in the
Philippines. For every American who wants to come to the Philippines, there are a thousand
Filipinos who want to go to America. Should we be afraid, then, that our country will be overrun
with Americans?
AMERICANS WILL TRAIN US
When Americans first came to the Philippines, how many of our people were engineers,
businessmen, plant managers, teachers, and scientists? Very few. The number of Filipinos who
entered the managerial and professional class under the American regime was legion. That was
part of the process of preparing us for independence. Have we any reason to believe that this
process will be lessened now that we are independent? The Americans who come here will train
us in the latest methods of technology and science and business management, just as they have
been training us for the past fifty years. We should welcome them, rather than express fears, foolish
and senseless fears, from their coming.
The argument is made that American capital will come to the Philippines even if we do not pass
the parity amendment. That is probably true. American businessmen will come here, sooner or
later, to sell automobiles, refrigerators, hardware, electric equipment, just as American
businessmen go all over the world to sell these products of American factories. But that is not the
kind of capital we need. We have enough traders and sellers in the Philippines. We have no
objection to such American capital, but it is not the kind of capital that we are especially interested
in. What we need is productive capital, capital that will be invested in manufacturing, in
processing, in mining, in public utilities, in the very facilities that the Philippines needs most of all
to build a richer and more plentiful economy. Such American capital will not come here unless
our Constitution is amended. Such American capital would prefer to remain in the United States
where there are unlimited opportunities and where there is an assurance of complete safety. Such
American capital, if it is to be exported at all, will be exported to lands where special provision is
made to protect and safeguard it. Such provision is being made today in many countries of the
world . . . in Belgium, in Holland, in France, in China, in South America. How much more proper
that such capital should come here, to a nation with which the United States is bound by
unbreakable ties of friendship, common language, common principles, military cooperation, and a
common history?
Shall we not show our trust and confidence in that country and thus induce its citizens to show us
a preference in their financial ventures? Or shall we show America that we are suspicious and
selfish and mean?
WE ARE DEFENSELESS
If we should make that kind of demonstration by rejecting the parity amendment, America will
have reason to reexamine her attitude toward us. Our entire foreign policy, so firmly based on our
special relationship with the United States, would have to be reoriented. We must remember,
however great our pride in independence, that we are a small nation presently poor and defenseless.
In a world far from stabilized, no small nation today is without its special ties with a greater or
stronger power. Do we prefer to establish special ties with China, with Russia, or with France? I
do not think so. History has made our decision for us and for this we must be fervently thankful.
We have the privilege, for which every other nation in the world would pay in billions, of a special
position in relation to the United States. That position is our greatest asset today. It is an asset
which we cannot buy for any amount of money. It lends us prestige, strength, security, and
economic support.
The United States is one of the world’s greatest powers, perhaps the greatest. The Philippines is a
small, war-devastated, and newly-arrived nation. Our total national income is less than that of the
City of San Francisco. The United States treats with us as with an equal and deals with us as with
an equal. But we are not actually an equal. How could we be? When the United States Congress
passes a law, that law affects 150,000,000 people directly, and the entire world indirectly. When
the United States makes arrangements with us, it involves her arrangements with every country of
the world. Every detail and aspect of America’s activities in the international field are studied
intensely in every chancellery of the earth. What we do, scarcely raises a ripple. Actions taken in
Washington can spread consternation over the entire earth. A concession to the Philippines sets up
a clamor from a score of other nations seeking similar concessions, pointing to similar sacrifices
and similar needs. Yet the United States of America maintains with us, both in form and in
substance, absolute equality. In most aspects of our relationship, the lack of equality and
reciprocity is in our favor, certainly in substance if not in form.
Under the Bell Trade Act, the United States grants us eight years of free trade in the American
market. The United States would not grant free trade to any other country in the world, regardless
of the benefits involved. It is true that American products are granted eight years of free trade in
the Philippines; that is a concession which is virtually meaningless to America.
TARIFF WOULD RAISE PRICES
A tariff on U. S. goods would be a tax on Philippine consumers. America can sell her goods today
and for the next ten years at her price anywhere in the world. Every automobile that is sold in the
Philippines could be sold a hundred times over anywhere else, including the United States. Every
refrigerator, every item of construction material, could be sold at the same price anywhere,
including America’s home market.
If we applied our tariff to American goods, it would not decrease the income to American
exporters, but would merely increase the price to ourselves. If we applied tariffs to American
construction materials and automobiles, iron, steel, refrigerators, typewriters, books and textiles
our people would be able to buy less because they would be forced to pay more. Prices would go
up here to the extent of the tariff. The American exporters would get just as much from us.
The Philippine Government would receive tariff revenue, but it would be revenue from taxation
on our consumers and would not result in a peso of additional income for the nation. A tariff would
be useless in our present situation, because of the minimum amount of competition from the other
exporting nations of the world. For some years to come, a tariff applied to American goods would
defeat our primary national purpose of lowering the cost of living. We already levy high
consumption taxes on goods from America, as a source of government revenue. To apply tariffs
to canned food, flour, and construction equipment, for instance, would further skyrocket the cost
of living and would impose new hardships on the groups of our people least able to afford such an
increase.
BAD POLICY
The same would be true should we apply an export tax, except that in this case, our producers
would be the losers. All the commodities we ship to America enter a competitive market there.
The price for which we sell our goods is established by the price for similar goods charged by
American producers and by producers from other countries. If we raise the price to American
importers by applying an export tax, we lose the market. The only alternative would be for our
own producers to absorb the tax. That, also, is contrary to our national policy.
What we are really planning for is the day when our own home-produced goods can be sold in the
Philippine market. When that day comes, we can restrict by quota or otherwise, the importation of
such American goods as come into competition with our own domestic products.
That is the reason America establishes quotas on our exports to the United States. Practically every
one of our commodities, with the exception of abaca, comes into competition with materials
produced in the United States. If it were not for our special relationship with the United States, we
would be able to export only a few commodities in any amount to America. Let us take copra as
an example. Copra finds a ready market in the United States because of a preferential processing
tax in our favor. Every pound of coconut oil made from copra from sources other than the
Philippines, pays a tax in the United States of two cents more than coconut oil from Philippine
copra. The effect of that provision is, in ordinary times, to assure us that all the coconut oil made
in the United States will be made from Philippine copra. If that preferential tax were not in effect,
eventually copra from Africa and the East Indies and the Caribbean, where wages are now much
lower than those in the Philippines, would flood the American market and drive much of our copra
from that market.
IN FAVOR OF THE PHILIPPINES
It so happens that there is today a shortage of fats and oils in the world, and our copra is at a
premium. But that shortage will not last very long. As soon as the production of fats and oils from
other countries regains its pre-war level, most of our copra must be sold in the United States, or it
will not be sold at all. Under the Bell Trade Act, we are guaranteed a two-cent preference for our
copra for 28 years. The United States gets no such preference in the Philippine market for any
American product. This is completely unreciprocal in favor of the Philippines and affects the most
widespread industry in all the Philippines. There is no counterbalancing grant of privilege to the
United States in the Bell Act.
If we reject the parity provision, and thus violate the Executive Trade Agreement between our two
countries, we stand in early danger of losing our preferred market for copra in the United States.
Before long, we would face a crisis in the copra industry. Where would we get any income from
abroad? There are no cash markets anywhere in the world to take the place of the American market
Some of the spokesmen against parity have made the statement that while the Philippines gets free
trade in America for only eight years, America gets free trade in the Philippines for 28 years. That
is nothing but a lie. Those who make such a statement make it either out of ignorance or out of
pure frantic invention. The trade provisions are exactly reciprocal for both countries—8 years of
free trade and 20 years of gradually increasing tariff Moreover, in the case of coconut oil, cordage,
cigars and tobacco, the Philippines is provided free trade for 28 years and not for 8 years, but on a
diminishing quota basis. The quota will decrease but there will be no tariff duty whatsoever. That
is because any tariff on these products would result in their exclusion from the American market.
Here again the United States has made a completely unreciprocal provision in our favor. No such
concession is granted to American goods coming into the Philippines; and although we have no
quotas on American goods, there is nothing in the law to prevent us from establishing them. There
is no reason to establish them now. Should American goods ever come into competition with our
own domestically manufactured goods, we can and will establish quotas.
A GENEROUS GESTURE
In all major respects, the Bell Act is completely reciprocal; in some respects it is unreciprocal in
our favor. It is unequal, but unequal to the United States rather than to the Philippines. The
American Congress was not trying to make a business deal with us when they passed the Bell Act;
they were trying to do something generous for us. Any country in the entire world great or small,
would gladly accept the Bell Act in every particular, including the parity provision, if the United
States would agree to it. But, of course, the United States Congress would never make such a grant
to any other country in the world. And yet some few of us in the Philippines, instead of being
grateful, are being contentious and are claiming that the United States is trying to rob us.
Representatives of the Philippine Government of the previous administration begged and implored
the United States Government to grant us free trade after independence. Some of the very same
people, who even opposed independence because it would cut off free trade, are now saying that
free trade is bad for our economy. Permanent free trade with the United States may not be
beneficial to the Philippines, but I am convinced that for the immediate rehabilitation and
expansion of our economy, temporary free trade is absolutely essential. The willingness of the
United States to grant us free trade and preferential trade relations for 28 years shows the
generosity and great-heartedness of that country. For that we must be grateful. I believe that a great
majority of the Filipino people are, and will be, eternally grateful.
GRANTS US PREFERENCES
There is another aspect of the Bell Trade Act which is not reciprocal, again in our favor. The
United States grants us preferences based on the special tariff rates granted many years ago to
Cuba. In other words, we not only get the same discount given to the preferred country of Cuba,
but we are required to pay only a fraction of the discount price. We grant no such favor to the
United States because we grant no discount to any country. We are coupled with Cuba as a favored
customer and are given terms far better than Cuba for a period of 28 years.
The foolish argument is made that we would get into trouble with other countries because we
propose to grant special privileges to the United States. We are granting special privileges to
American citizens for our own benefit and not for the benefit of America. We are granting such
privileges, in association with the tremendous concessions and grants being given us by the United
States. I do not know of any other country in the world which is either capable or willing to grant
us benefits similar to those coming from America, nor is there any reason for any country to do
so. The Bell Act and the Tydings War Damage Act are part and parcel of the program of our
economic rehabilitation and reconstruction and are based upon the special relation between our
two countries, a relationship sealed with the blood of heroes of both nationalities during the recent
war.
The argument is made that Americans, backed by huge combinations of capital, by Wall Street,
will run all Filipinos out of business, and that Filipinos will not be able, with their small capital
accumulations, to compete. This argument is another emotional appeal which does not bear up
under factual examination.
Some American capital is already here, selling American products in the Philippines, and buying
Philippine products for the United States. There are American banks here I have not noticed that
they have driven any Filipinos out of business. And whether or not we reject the constitutional
amendment does not affect the enterprise of these American firms one way or the other.
NO IMPERIALISM POSSIBLE
The really big accumulations of American capital are not especially interested in the natural
resources of the Philippines. There is a very good reason for that. We have very few resources
which are not present in much greater quantities in the United States. Our iron ore could not be
mined for shipment to the United States. Our coal could not be dug for shipment to the United
States. We raise no cotton here for American cotton mills. If American capital could be induced
to come here for the development of those resources, it would be only on the basis of industries
established here, steel and textile industries, not to supply factories and mills in the United States,
but for the purpose of exporting to the Orient, and for the Philippine home market. Yet the very
definition of imperialism is the exploitation of the resources of a small country to support the
industry of a larger power. No such relationship is possible between the United States and the
Philippines.
The big American companies come here to sell and not to buy. They will be unaffected by the
parity amendment. The type of capital which we want to induce to come to the Philippines is
productive capital for investment in manufacturing, processing, and producing. That kind of capital
is small and medium-sized capital and is almost invariably accompanied by technical skill and
know-how, a technical skill and know-how which we in the Philippines largely lack. How many
in this country could make nylon, or plastics, or machine tools, or cotton spindles, or even lipstick?
Yet those are exactly the kinds of enterprises which we most urgently need in the Philippines;
those enterprises which are associated with the development of natural resources . . . of timber,
iron, coal, and chemical ores. We should and must welcome Americans to help us develop such
industries and undertakings.
We single out Americans, because we know and trust Americans, and because we have confidence
that the American Government will not abuse the fact that American nationals are engaged in these
enterprises here, and is primarily interested in the success of our democratic growth and expansion.
We single out Americans, because Americans have the capital and have the know-how. There is
no other nation in the world which represents such a happy combination to meet our requirements.
WE NEED TECHNICAL MEN
We want and need scientists, engineers, and technical men who, accompanied by capital for
investment, would bring to the Philippines the know-how of the 20th century, to help us decrease
our dependence on hand labor and help us catch up with the rest of the world in technology and
modern industrial and agricultural methods.
Is there any threat that Americans will acquire vast areas of our farmland? There is no such danger.
In the first place, Americans do not go abroad for agricultural purposes. Their land is rich enough
at home. Moreover, we have a law against the acquisition by any individual or corporation of any
agricultural area in excess of 1,024 hectares. We do not intend to repeal that law. We can even
acquire any estates now in existence for distribution to the landless.
The argument is made that unless we exercise care we will become another Cuba, ruled from Wall
Street. In the first place, Cuba, as Wall Street can well testify, has not for many years been ruled
by American capital. Today Cuba is grateful for the assistance it has received from American
capital. The same can be said of Mexico.
The American Government did not support the claims of the American oil companies when the
Mexican Government expropriated their properties some years ago. The American Government
merely insisted that American oil companies be paid a fair value for their properties. If American
capital had not developed those oil fields, they would still be unexplored and all the wealth and all
the employment that have been brought to Mexico would have been foregone
Who knows today, who can predict today, whether ten years from now oil and coal will still be
essential commodities? Atomic power may replace oil and coal as sources of energy. Shall we then
leave whatever oil we may have and our other minerals untouched in the ground rather than
develop them today with the help of American capital? I say no, a thousand times no.
TRULY WORTHWHILE PATRIMONY
Let us use our natural wealth for the benefit of our people today, to build up our cities and develop
our islands and build homes and roads and bridges and schools, so that our children may have a
truly worthwhile patrimony and not merely nominal title to vast jungles and undeveloped timber
and mineral deposits. Let us not pass on to our children the job that we should do ourselves. Let
us not shirk the duty which history imposes upon us. Let us show that same courage that animated
our forefathers in their struggles for freedom and independence. But let us direct that courage today
to the new war, rather than the old—the war against want, hunger, and insecurity.
I have closely examined the arguments made by those who oppose parity. They can be reduced to
a single word—”fear”—fear of progress and fear of competition. They are afraid that we cannot
hold our own against such Americans as may come here. They are afraid that we cannot measure
up to the standards that will be raised here by American businessmen and experts. I have no such
fear. I have full confidence in our people; I have full confidence in the ability of the Government
of our people to protect our essential rights and to advance our essential interests. I have full
confidence that Filipinos, given the training and the know-how, will be able to take advantage of
the opportunities offered and to grow with the country in its steady forward march. But those who
oppose this proposed amendment are not so confident. They are not so courageous. They are not
so ambitious. They would rather have you live in a narrow agricultural economy, condemned
forever to a life of toil, with carabao and hand-plow, feeding the tables of others and providing
income for the very rich.
THE MISLEADERS
There are those among the opponents of parity who are quite content with the present economic
structure They are satisfied that this country should have a thin crust of wealth and luxury on top
of a huge mass of poverty and social inequality. They are satisfied with conditions as they are.
And then there are others who are their allies in this issue. They are those of the extreme left, the
super-nationalists, the communists, the demagogues and breast beaters. They would like to
continue as the misleaders of the people, to prate about social injustice and do nothing about it, to
recount the miseries of the poor and yet do nothing to relieve them, to describe the evils of
capitalism and yet do nothing to make us all capitalists.
There is something in common between these two schools of thought. I have searched for a long
time to find it, and it is this: neither of them believes in free competition nor in true democracy.
Neither of them believes in the development here of a strong home-owning, land-owning middle
class. One group believes in a rule by an economic aristocracy; the other believes in a dictatorship
by popular demagogues. Both groups have no use for democracy, for the great middle class, for
free enterprise, for freedom, liberty and the dignity of the individual. That is the basis for their
alliance. One is a group that believes in rule by a monopoly of the wealthy; the other group believes
in dictatorial rule by an oligarchy of political demagogues. Both distrust democracy and the
common people. They see in parity a threat to their own selfish ambitions. One group would like
the continuation of the status quo; the other group would like to reverse the status quo so that they
themselves could have power. But neither group wishes to do anything to make this country grow
and expand, to give economic and political equality to all the people, to make this nation a
prosperous, thriving and free democracy.
VICIOUS ARGUMENTS
Among the arguments which are cited against parity is the one that we need not pay the price of
parity in order to obtain war damages, and that since only the rich would receive war damages in
excess of a thousand pesos, the common people would suffer no injury in rejecting parity. This
argument is so vicious that it must be answered. The United States Congress provided four hundred
million dollars for war damages to private individuals. But Congress stipulated explicitly that the
first claim on war damage was to be held by the plain people of the Philippines, by those who
suffered no more than P1,000 in war damages. Was this a provision made by a Congress dominated
by Wall Street? No, it was a provision aimed at helping the poor and the unfortunate. Yet it was
the same Congress that enacted the parity provision. We know today that four hundred million
dollars will pay only a fraction of the actual war damages. The large claimants for war damages
will receive but a small percentage of their claims. From the viewpoint of our national economic
needs, I am not sure that this is a good provision because it would not insure the investment of this
money in productive enterprise. But nevertheless it is part of the law. But if we reject parity, none
of our large industries and enterprises can be rehabilitated. Sugar mills, coconut mills, and cordage
factories will be unable to receive even a small down payment on the money they need to
rehabilitate their enterprises. Is it a matter of disinterest to the Filipino people that these
undertakings will be left destroyed and devastated? Is it not to our benefit to have our sugar
industry and our coconut oil industry revived, so that they may employ our people and pay taxes
to the Government? Regardless of what individuals may receive those payments, those payments
will be paid in the Philippines for the rehabilitation of Philippine economy. That is another
stipulation of the American law. It is short-sighted indeed, and vicious, to say that the Filipino
people will lose nothing if these larger payments which may represent only a small fraction of the
whole, are not made. To those who would make such an argument, I advise you to turn a deaf ear.
They are nothing but misleaders of the people. They do not have the interests of the nation at heart.
UNLIMITED FUTURE
Let us think this matter out clearly. Let us put passion, prejudice and fear behind us. Let us face
boldly our unlimited future. Let us not echo the prophets of disaster who say that since we survived
under the Japanese, we can certainly survive today without the Americans. How many of us would
like to return to those dark and evil days? Did we not think during those days that it would be
better to die than to continue to live under those conditions? Did we not survive merely by clinging
to the hope that America would return and would liberate us?
It is only some of the rich and the unprincipled who fared well under the Japanese. They are the
very same people who today are urging you to defeat parity. Do not heed them; do not listen to
them. They are the archangels of fear. They are the spokesmen of chaos. They are the adherents of
the paganism of eternal poverty, strife, and disorder. They are the extreme revolutionaries and the
extreme reactionaries who basically distrust democracy. I know the Filipino people will not follow
those voices.
There is no alternative to the approval of this amendment. Those who urge its rejection are either
blind or recklessly irresponsible. Should this amendment be defeated, we face much more than the
immediate loss of certain benefits and payments from the United States Government. That is only
the smallest loss we will suffer. Our real loss, the real catastrophe would be the wreckage of the
only possible plan we could have for the early rehabilitation and immediate development of our
national potentialities. Science is on the march everywhere in the world. Every people is pressing
forward to industrialize, to mechanize, to harness the natural elements through the machine, and
to master the machine to serve man.
LONG STRIDES
At the same time the warning has been served, by horrible international example, that those people
who give up freedom in order to permit the Government to take entirely the place of private
enterprise end up as slaves of the very machine which they set up to serve them. There is no need
to choose between the serfdom of backwardness and slavery to the state. We can guide and regulate
private enterprise and, at the same time, take long strides in the direction of social justice and wellbeing for all.
Approval of this amendment will clear the way for a forward surge toward our goals. We remain
the masters of our destiny. We remain free men in a free land. We invite the assistance of those in
whom we have confidence and who have the ability to help us. We share some of our potentialities
in order that they may be transformed into the fruits of well-being for our people. Let us sow the
land with loving labor that it may grow rich and fertile with use. The tangled undergrowth, the
majestic waterfall, and the earth rich with minerals are misers riches unless they are used to bring
happiness to men. The people must have work and wages, opportunities for saving and the
accumulation of wealth, education and enlightenment and all proper government services. The
people must also have freedom from want and from fear.
THE GLORIOUS FUTURE
Look up, my countrymen, and see the glorious future which beckons us. The Philippines is destined
to be a strong and prosperous nation. But we must strive to merit that destiny. The approval of
parity is but a step on the long road to national well-being. But as one step follows another, the
first must be taken. We can make of the Philippines the glory and the pride of democratic peoples
throughout the earth. And we may thus pass on to our children and the generations which will
come after them the priceless patrimony of a rich and prosperous nation, dedicated to freedom and
consecrated to the proposition that opportunity is the privilege of all Filipinos. Let us strive to be
able to say that we of our generation discharged in our day the responsibility of our times and did
not hesitate to act in the best conscience, with the guidance of Almighty God, in the best interests
of our noble people.
—
Note.—This radio address summarizing the President’s views on the need of amending the
Constitution took him one hour and a half to deliver. This indicates that the President, as shown
also by his other speeches since November, 1946, was taking no chances of failure. He displayed
energy and firm purpose in the campaign that turned out to be an educational venture—a mass
appeal that struck deep in the feelings of the people.
Source: Quezon Family Collections
Roxas, M. (1954). Papers, addresses and other writings of Manuel Roxas (Vol. 2). Manila : Bureau of
Printing.
This entry was posted under Historical Papers & Documents, Messages and tagged Manuel
Roxas, messages. Bookmark the permalink.