MODYUL 11
MGA PILING PRIMARYANG BATIS UGNAY SA PATAKARANG PANLABAS SA PANAHON NG IKATLONG
REPUBLIKA
Palmo R. Iya
Fakulti, Departamento ng mga Agham Panlipunan
Panimula
Maliban sa suliraning pang-ekonomiya, isa sa mga hamong kinaharap ng Pilipinas pagkatapos ng
Ikalawang Digmaang Pandaigdig ay ang usapin sa patakarang panlabas (foreign policy).
Ilalahad at susuriin sa modyul na ito ang mga piling primaryang batis ugnay sa patakarang panlabas sa
panahon ng Ikatlong Republika gaya ng Foreign Service Act of 1952 (Republic Act No. 708) at Foreign Service Act
of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7157); ang mga patakarang panlabas na itinatadhana ng mga Konstitusyong 1935,
1973, at 1987; at ang dalawang kritikal na mga sanaysay sa patakarang panlabas ng bansa na inakda ng mga
oposisyonistang senador na sina Claro M. Recto (Our Mendicant Foreign Policy) at Lorenzo Tañada (The Folklore
of Colonialism).
Mga Inaasahang Pagkatuto sa Paksa:
Pagkatapos mapag-aralan ang nilalaman ng modyul, inaasahang magagawa mo ang mga sumusunod:
1. Matalakay ang mga piling primaryang batis hinggil sa patakarang panlabas sa panahon ng Ikatlong
Republika;
2. Maisakonteksto ang nilalaman ng mga piling primaryang batis – re: RA #708, RA #7157, Our Mendicant
Foreign Policy ni Recto, The Folklore of Colonialism ni Tañada, at ang mga patakarang panlabas na
itinatadhana ng mga Konstitusyong 1935, 1973, at 1987;
3. Masuri ang ginawang hakbang ng pamahalaan upang masolusyonan ang mga suliraning pangkabuhayan,
panlipunan, at pampolitika ng bansa sa pamamagitan ng mga ipinatupad na mga patakarang panlabas;
at
4. Masukat ang mga natutunan sa pamamagitan ng pagsasagot sa pangkatang pagtataya sa anyo ng
pagtalakay sa mga paksa.
Mga Nilalaman
I.
Kontekstong Pangkasaysayan
Maliban sa suliraning pang-ekonomoiya, isa sa mga hamong kinaharap ng Pilipinas pagkatapos ng
Ikalawang Digmaang Pandaigdig ay ang usapin sa patakarang panlabas (foreign policy). Magkatambal ang usapin
ng nasyonalismong ekonomiya at malayang patakarang panlabas. Ang ekonomikong klima at ekonomikong
1
pangseguridad ang siyang itinuturing na mga haligi ng patakarang panlabas na nakakaapekto sa interaksyon ng
bansang Pilipinas sa internasyunal na komunidad.
Pagkatapos ng Ikalawang Digmaang Pandaigdig, ang Pilipinas ang isa sa mga bansang napinsala at
nawasak. Nasalanta ang pisikal at yamang tao nito. Lugmok ang kabuhayan at ang pamunuang Pilipino ay
nakabatay sa pangkalahatang pagpaplano at pangunguna pa rin ng Estados Unidos (US). Nakapagtatag ang US
ng isang ugnayang sumakal sa Pilipinas. Ang kabuhayan at seguridad bansang Pilipinas ay itinali sa pamamagitan
ng sumusunod na paraan:
•
Sa larangan ng pambansang kabuhayan: ang pagpapatuloy ng “malayang kalakalan” (free trade) at ang
paglalaan ng “pantay na Karapatan” (parity rights) sa mga Amerikano sa Pilipinas.
•
Sa larangan ng seguridad: ang pananatili ng mga base militar (military bases) at ang pagtutulungan ng
mga sandatahang Amerikano at Pilipino ayon sa Mutual Defense Treaty.
Mula 1946, matatawag na “neo-kolonyalismo” ang naganap sa US at Pilipinas. May mga panlabas na katangian
ang kalayaan na itinuring ng ibang Pilipino na sapat nang kongkretong manipestasyon ng pagsasarili: mayroong
sariling bandila, may eleksyon tuwi-tuwina, may pangulo at pamahalaan, kasapi ang Pilipinas sa United Nations,
may Konstitusyon o Saligang Batas, at iba pa. Ngunit sa katotohanan, ang US pa rin ang nakakapangyari sa bansa.
May pabalat lamang ang pagsasariling ito. Hindi na tahasan ang pananakop. May mga palamuti na kung susuriin
ay parang tunay sa biglang tingin. Ayon sa isang historyador na si Renato Constantino, naisakatuparan ang
tinatawag na neo-kolonyalismo sa ganitong paraan:
“Nangangahulugan ito ng patuloy na dominasyon sa ekonomiya, pananatili bilang pamilihan ng
produktong Amerikano, pinagkukunan ng hilaw na materyales at bukas na larangan para sa
puhunang Amerikano. Upang garantiyahan ang ganitong kontrol at upang matiyak din na ang
Pilipinas ay magsilbing maluwag na lunsaran sa anumang operasyon militar ng Amerika sa Asya,
hinangad ng US na magkaroon ng mga baseng panghimpapawid at pandagat sa lupaing Pilipino
na hindi sakop ng soberanya ng bansa.” (Constantino at Constantino 1997, 213-214)
Ang eksenang politikal ay mailalarawan sa pamamagitan ng mga kritisismo mula sa mga tanyag na kritiko
ng ating mga patakarang panlabas pagkatapos ng Ikalawang Digmaang Pandaigdig. Sina senador Claro M. Recto
at Lorenzo Tañada ay nagpahayag ng kanilang pagsalungat sa patakarang panlabas ng Pilipinas sa pamamagitan
ng kanilang mga talumpati.
Ang pakikiisa at pagiging sunud-sunoran ay naging kultura at pamantayan ng Pilipinas sa ugnayan nito sa
US hanggang noong 1980s. Katulad ng mga naunang pangulo, naging masunurin at magalang din ang dating
Pangulong Ferdinand E. Marcos sa mga Amerikano. Ang mga impraistrukturang nagawa noong Rehimeng Marcos
ay nagmula sa malawakang pangungutang ng bansa sa labas. Pagkatapos ng pagbagsak ng kanyang diktadurang
rehimen noong 1986, isang bagong konstitusyon ang ipinahayag at pinagtibay ng mamamayang Pilipino noong
1987. Ang Konstitusyong 1987 ay nagtatadhana ng isang direksyong malinaw at malaya ugnay sa patakarang
panlabas para sa Pilipinas.
2
Ilalahad at susuriin sa modyul na ito ang mga piling primaryang batis ugnay sa patakarang panlabas sa
panahon ng Ikatlong Republika gaya ng Foreign Service Act of 1952 (Republic Act No. 708) at Foreign Service Act
of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7157); Our Mendicant Foreign Policy ni Claro M. Recto; The Folklore of Colonialism ni
Lorenzo Tañada; at ang mga patakarang panlabas na itinatadhana ng mga Konstitusyong 1935, 1973, at 1987.
II. Ang Patakarang Panlabas ayon sa itinatadhana ng mga Batas na Pinagtibay ng Kongreso: Sipi Mula sa
Foreign Service Act of 1952 (Republic Act No. 708) at Foreign Service Act of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7157)
Ang Foreign Service Act of 1952 (RA No. 708) ay pinagtibay upang palakasin at tiyakin ang isang malayang
ugnayang panlabas na patakaran para sa Pilipinas. Nilalayon din nitong ma-reorganisa at mapalakas ang
departamento ng ugnayang panlabas. Noong taong 1991, ang batas na ito ay pinalitan ng Foreign Service Act of
1991 (RA No. 7157). Ang pangunahing pagkakaiba ng dalawang batas ay ang deklarasyon ng mga prinsipyo. Hindi
tiniyak ng Foreign Service Act of 1952 ang mga prinsipyo hinggil sa patakarang panlabas ng Pilipinas. Sa kabilang
banda, ipinag-utos ng Foreign Service Act of 1991 sa Departamento ng Ugnayang Panlabas na itaguyod ang
“tatlong haligi” ng patakarang panlabas ng Pilipinas: 1. Preserbasyon at pagpapahusay ng pambansang
seguridad; 2. Promosyon at pagkakamit ng pangekonomiyang seguridad; at 3. Proteksyon ng mga karapatan at
promosyon ng kapakanan at interes ng mga Pilipino sa ibayong dagat. Ang “tatlong haliging” ito ng patakarang
panlabas ng Pilipinas ay kaparehas din mismo sa bahagi ng Deklarasyon ng Patakaran (Declaration of Policy) ng
batas ng 1991 na wala sa batas ng 1952.
Tunghayan sa ibaba ang mga sipi mula sa dalawang batas. Sa pamamagitan ng pagbabasa at pagaaral sa
dalawang batas na ito, inyong mapapansin ang mga pagkakaiba, pagkakahawig o pagkakatulad, at ang mga pagunlad at pagbabago sa mga batas na may kinalaman sa patakarang panlabas ng Pilipinas.
A. Primaryang Batis: Foreign Service Act of 1952 (RA No. 708)
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 708 – AN ACT TO REORGANIZE AND STRENGTHEN THE FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
Title 1. – General Provisions
Section 1. Title of Act. – This act shall be known as the “Foreign Service Act of the Philippines.”
Section 2. Objectives. – The Congress hereby declares that the objectives of this Act are to reorganize and
strengthen the Foreign Service of the Philippines so as:
(a) To enable the Foreign Service effectively to serve abroad the interests of the Republic of the Philippines;
(b) To insure that the officers and employees of the Foreign Service are broadly representative of the Filipino
people and are aware of and fully informed in respect of current trends in Philippine life;
(c) To provide improvements in the selection and training of personnel to insure that only competent persons
of good moral character are recruited into the service;
(d) To provide that promotions in the service shall be on the basis of merit;
3
(e) To provide guarantees that career personnel of the service shall be permanent and secure in their
positions during good behavior and satisfactory performance of duty;
(f) To provide salaries, allowances, and benefits that will permit the service to draw its personnel from
all
walks of Philippine life and to appoint persons to the highest positions in the service solely on the
basis
of their demonstrated ability;
(g) To provide a flexible and comprehensive framework for the directions of the Foreign Service in
accordance with modern practices in the public administration; and
(h) To codify into one Act all provisions of law relating to the administration of the Foreign Service.
Pinagkunan: Republic Act No. 708
B. Primaryang Batis: Foreign Service Act of 1991 (RA No. 7157)
AN ACT REVISING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 708 AS AMENDED
Section 1. Title. – This Act shall be known as the “Philippine Foreign Service Act of 1991.”
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 3. Declaration of Policy. — The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with
other states, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest,
and the right to self-determination.
Section 4. Objective. — The main objective of this Act is to reorganize and strengthen the Philippine Foreign
Service in order to:
(a) Upgrade the qualifications of the Career Foreign Service Corps and thereby enable its officers and employees
to serve effectively the interests of the Republic of the Philippines abroad;
(b) Strengthen the capability of the Career Foreign Service Corps to conduct studies, analyses and evaluation of
events, both domestic and international, that will serve as guidelines for achieving an independent foreign
policy for the country;
(c) Ensure broad representation of the Philippine society in the foreign service and, further, to ensure equal
opportunities in the enlistment and recruitment of officers and employees taking into account the ethnic
composition of the country;
(d) Institute improvements in the selection and training of personnel so that only competent persons of good
moral character are recruited in the Service;
4
(e) Provide that promotions in the Service shall be on the basis of merit;
(f) Guarantee permanence or security of tenure of the career personnel of the Service during good behavior and
satisfactory performance of duty;
(g) Provide suitable salaries, allowances and benefits that will attract personnel from all walks of Philippine life
and to appoint persons to the highest positions in the Service solely on the basis of merit and demonstrated
capability in the promotion of national interests;
(h) Provide a comprehensive and flexible framework for the administration of the foreign service consistent with
modern practices in this field; and
(i) Consolidate into one act all provisions of the law relating to the administration of the foreign service.
In pursuance of the foregoing objective, the principle of nondiscrimination with respect to sex, creed, language,
ethnic identity and religion shall be strictly enforced.
Pinagkunan: Republic Act No. 71571
Mga Gabay na Tanong Para sa Dalawang Batas (RA No. 708 at RA No. 7157):
1. Ibigay ang mga pangunahing pagkakaiba sa mga layunin ng dalawang batas.
2. Sa punto ng patakarang panlabas, sa anong mga larangan nagtatagpo o naghihiwalay ang dalawang
batas?
3. Sa inyong palagay, sapat na ba ang deklarasyon ng patakaran at mga napapaloob na layunin ng RA No.
7157 para sa hinahangad na malayang patakarang panlabas ng Pilipinas? Pangatwiranan.
III.
Ang Patakarang Panlabas ayon sa mga Oposisyonista
A. Sipi Mula sa “Our Mendicant Foreign Policy” ni Claro M. Recto
Kilala bilang mga “kritiko” ng postwar Philippine Foreign Policy ang mga senador na sina Claro M. Recto
at Lorenzo Tañada. Ang dalawang makabayang senador na ito ay nagsulat ng mga talumpati na nagsisiwalat ng
kanilang pagsalungat sa patakarang panlabas ng Pilipinas. Naglalaman din ang kanilang talumpati ng mga
alternatibong solusyon sa patakarang panlabas ng Pilipinas.
1
Para sa buong kopya ng RA 708, RA 7157, atbp. mga batas sa Pilipinas, bisitahin ang www.chanrobles.com.
5
Tunghayan ang sipi mula sa talumpati ni Sen. C. M. Recto na pinamagatang “Our Mendicant Foreign
Policy.” Isa itong commencement speech ni C. M. Recto noong 1951 na kanyang binasa sa harapan ng mga
magsisipagtapos sa Unibersidad ng Pilipinas noong taong iyon.
Primaryang Batis: “Our Mendicant Foreign Policy”
Sentimentalism and emotionalism should not play a part in international relations. It is folly to expect any
nation to ever sacrifice its welfare and security to pure idealism or to sentimental attachments. As Filipinos, we
must look out for ourselves, because no one else will. That is the essence of our independence.
To be realists, we must free our minds from the foolish illusion that we play a big role in international politics
as if we were ourselves a great power.
To be realists, we must cease believing that there is altruism among nations.
To be realists, we must realize that in a world where the nation-state system still prevails, every state takes
care of its own national interests, and it is the responsibility of the government to determine what those interests
are, and to adopt and carry out the necessary policies towards safeguarding them, sacrificing if necessary the
more transitory interests, like temporary trade advantages, in the same way that the good strategist foregoes a
battle to win the war.
To be a realist is to accept the fact that it is to serve her own self-interest and to safeguard her security and
position as a world leader, and only incidentally for our own protection, that America built her imposing military
and diplomatic establishments in our country, and it is only in that sense that the words common
defense, mutual security, and partnership must be understood.
Time and time again I have consistently opposed dangerous and provocative entanglements. They distract
our attention from our own grave and urgent problems; they dissipate our already limited strength and energy
which we need so much to establish our political, social, and economic security; and, what is worse, they expose
our people to the fearful consequences of another war, a war which will be fought on Asian soil with only
expendable and bewildered Asians for sacrificial victims on the altar of power politics and international intrigue.
We have become victims of our own propaganda which we pompously call “psychological warfare”. Like a
small dog, we go tagging along behind Uncle Sam wherever he goes in Asia, barking here and there at the
Communists, with our little, almost inaudible, bark. Of course the enemy knows that “our bark is worse than our
bite” and so far we have not produced any reaction except perhaps some annoyance.
Let us awake from the daydreams of adolescence, and cease to imagine ourselves as saviors of a world in
distress, riding on our fanciful adventures for which we have neither heart nor strength, while we neglect the
care of our own concerns. We have no manifest destiny to fulfill, no historical missions to carry out in the age of
superpowers. Our aims are simple and well defined: to preserve the integrity of our national territory, to
safeguard the independence and liberties of our people, and to promote their welfare by the enforcement of
6
our rights and the fulfillment of our obligations. It is on this irreducible basis of national interest that we should
build our foreign relations.
We are faced with the problem of our people's survival. I said that it is the problem of problems. If we all must
die in a nuclear war, we at least have a right to know why we have accepted such a sacrificial resolution. If after
we have been properly informed of the appalling consequences of having stockpiles of ballistic missiles and
launching bases in our midst, and if our people should still want to commit race suicide to help America survive,
then be it so. I can picture the last agonizing Filipino under the flaming clouds of a devastating nuclear attack
gasping out to Mother America the famous deprecation of St. Augustine, the greatest Doctor of the Church,
addressed to God perhaps in one of those trances when reason capitulates to faith: “Lord, if we are deceived, it
is by Thee.” Mother America, if we are deceived, it is by thee!
It is in the control of foreign policy that we may find the decisive difference between the Commonwealth and
the Republic, the one significant gain that we expected to make in moving from autonomy to independence.
Freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, self-rule, due process of law, social justice --all these rights we
already enjoyed under the enlightened imperialism of the American people, and perhaps we enjoyed them to a
greater degree during the Commonwealth than in these uncertain and ambiguous times of indefinite detentions,
private armies, fiat and farcical elections, de facto governments, and open rebellion. What we sought and what
we expected to gain with national independence was the right to give our own national interest, security and
welfare the primacy in our loyalties, services and sacrifices. Now that the clock turns back to strike alarms of
another war, we may well ask ourselves what we have done with our independence.
For unhappily, the times have not changed, and small nations must still pay the price of quarrels between
great powers. Already we see before our eyes a reenactment of the tragedies of the last conflict, when, in Europe
and in Asia, the small nations that became the battlegrounds of the great were compelled to endure the identical
horrors of conquest and liberation. What have we done with our independence to make sure that our country
will not again become the battleground of foreign wars? What have we done with our
independence to make sure that our people will not again be deserted in the interest of higher strategy and
military necessity, and left to fondle the hard comfort of another “I shall return”?
To find the answer to these questions, which are the test of the validity of our independence, and of the worth
of our foreign policy, we must begin by examining our present world position.
We are a small nation surrounded by the most populous races on earth, Christian among non-Christians,
westernized in Asia, conservative in the face of a continental revolution, clinging to a high standard of living amid
perennially starving masses, and yet unable in an age of industrialization even to feed, clothe, and arm ourselves.
Weak in numbers, we have compounded our weakness with disunity. Poor in developed resources and
therefore under the necessity of pooling our strength, we have plunged into a fratricidal struggle for whose
prosecution the government must waste fully one-third of its revenue, and which not only has rent national
solidarity, but also has worked incalculable harm on the nation’s economy. Still worse, each faction in the conflict
has openly proclaimed its adherence to one or the other of the two great antagonists in another world war
7
which they believe inevitable, so that if war comes it is a certainty that we shall become involved in the most
cruel and sanguinary manner, for our own people are already set, brothers against brothers, with unforgiving
hatreds.
Unable to defend ourselves against foreign aggression, we have not only weakened ourselves further with
domestic strife but also given cause and provocation for attack. We have become war-mongers without armies,
by making boastful challenges, threats and denunciations.
But what is beyond comprehension is that, having fought three wars for our independence, we have
surrendered it without a fight; and while vociferating about the reality of our national freedom, we have acted
as if we did not want it or believe in it. We are tied to the dollar without having any dollars. We continue to be
dependent upon the American market without having retained any permanent right of access to it. We continue
to be equally dependent upon American protection without any real guarantee that it will be timely and
adequately extended.
The tragedy of our foreign policy is that, being an Asian people ten thousand miles away from the effective
center of American power, our behavior has been that of a banana republic in the Caribbean. We have fed upon
the fancy that we are somehow the favorite children of America, and that she, driven by some strange
predilection of our people, will never forsake us nor sacrifice our interests to her own or to those of others for
her own sake.
Unfortunately, our preferences have been disappointed by so prosaic a thing as geography, and so indelicate
a topic as race. The Creator, in His inscrutable wisdom, gave a brown pigment to our skins, and brought forth our
people in the littoral of Asia. It is therefore an illusion to believe that America has the same strategic obligations
to a Caribbean republic as to a distant archipelago across the expanse of the Pacific, fairly exposed to enemy
conquest; while to believe that America, or any other great power for that matter, in the terrible crisis of war,
will under the imperative urge for self-preservation, ever sacrifice her own security and interest to idealism or
to continental attachments, is to misunderstand the biological laws which determine the course of action of any
great power in war or in peace, and to ignore the categorical imperatives of international behavior.
Yet our foreign policy was conducted from the very beginning, and is being pursued, on the erroneous
assumption of an identity of American and Filipino interests, or more correctly, of the desirability, even the
necessity, of subordinating our interests to those of America. Thus, on the fourth of July 1946 it was announced
that our foreign policy would be to follow in the wake of America. We have, indeed, followed. We followed
America out of Spain and back again; we followed America in her aimless pilgrimage in the Holy Land, from Jew
to Arab and Arab to Jew, as the American need for Arab oil and the administration’s desire for Jewish votes
dictated; we recognized e independence of Indonesia when America did, and not one moment before. In the
world parliament of the United Nations, it is no more difficult to predict that the Philippines will vote with the
American Union, than that the Ukraine will vote with the Soviet Union. American policy has found no more
eloquent spokesman and zealous advocate, and Russian policy no louder critic and more resourceful opponent,
than the Philippines. Americans may disagree violently with their own foreign policy, but it has no better
supporters than the Filipinos.
8
We have followed America even in our domestic affairs. Nowadays any American Ambassador to the
Philippines may be given, without incongruence, the concurrent title of Governor-General, High Commissioner
or Proconsul, to whom the President of this Republic himself must go humbly to apologize in person for an
offensive press release. For its part, we have seen our Congress, since the fourth Monday of January, engrossed
in the singular task of enacting into law the recommendations of an American economic survey mission.
Organized pressure has been brought to bear with ill-concealed impatience to stampede the passage of the
desired legislation.
Whom are we to blame for this curious process of legislation through foreign control, this unprecedented
surrender of the most cherished privileges of an independent state? When we are so dishonest, inept, and
prodigal, that we cannot run a government on the resources of the potentially richest and most democratically
schooled people in Asia, and must beg constantly for subsidies, then the United States have the right to see to
it that the dollars they lend are not dissipated in extravagance, purloined by malefactors in high office, or
misspent on fraudulent elections, and that, in return for their assistance, they shall have the final say on our
foreign policy and receive the services of our diplomats as their spokesmen and press relations officers.
A bankrupt administration must necessarily have a foreign policy of mendicancy; and it is inevitable that it
should invite foreign intervention to do what it cannot do for itself. When a government cannot count on the
united support of its own people, then it must unavoidably have recourse to the support of a foreign power; and
because beggars cannot be choosers, we can be safely ignored, taken for granted, dictated to, and made to wait
at the door, hat in hand, to go in only when invited.
Our only possible lifeline is obviously the traditional American connection, drawn across the vast expanse of
the Pacific, and made more tenuous still by lack of confidence. Dependent entirely upon American arms for selfdefense, we find it increasingly difficult to secure them. Having rested our hopes upon American bases, we find
that rather than be a source of protection they may become targets for attack. We have been encouraged to
oppose and fight the expansion of Communism in Asia, and we have done as we have been told, but in return
we have received only vague and uncertain promises of assistance, and the confirmation of a policy that would
surrender Asia rather than imperil Europe.
If war should come, therefore, we would be doomed to another and a worse Bataan. Once again, as
Manuel Quezon feared and lived to see from the tunnels of Corregidor, ill-fed, ill-armed and ill-trained Filipinos,
discriminated against by their friends and outmatched by their enemies, would take on their flesh
and bone the first shock of aggression by an overwhelming power. Once again our people would have to endure
the horrors of war, compounded beyond human experience by weapons of mass extermination and wholesale
destruction, and the agony of enemy occupation, stretched beyond human endurance by the perfected
techniques of tyranny; and, for added tragedy, would find themselves divided into irreconcilable factions, one
clearly committed to the United States, and the other allegedly aligned with Soviet Union, in the most cruel of
all wars, a fratricidal war.
9
But as long as we are an independent Republic, we can and should act as a free people and as Filipinos. As
Filipinos we must profess and declare that the security of our nation is paramount, and as a free people we must
profess and declare that, while the liberties of other peoples are important to us in this world of
interdependence, our first duty is to our own.
The first objective of our government must be peace, for, as a small and weak nation, it is to our prime interest
to explore with patience and sincerity every avenue of honorable and enduring settlement by negotiation and
mutual concessions. If war must come, it must not be of our own making, either directly or indirectly.
We understand that even the vast resources of America are not unlimited, and that, in the priorities that must
be assigned between Europe and Asia, every appeal of racial instinct, every atavistic impulse, every consideration
of a common heritage of culture, and even the requirements of domestic politics, would draw the American
people to the homelands of their ancestors. If that is so, and it is so, then America should also understand that
Asia cannot be more solicitous than America herself for her own interests.
While the American administration has openly reaffirmed its preference for Europe and its racial kinsmen in
the Atlantic Community, we continue parroting the slogans and mimicking the gestures of American policy.
But no reasonable, no patriotic, no self-respecting Filipino can be content with promises to return, or relish a
situation where we place ourselves in the vanguard of an atomic war, without arms, without retreat, without
cover or support, destined to be annihilated at the first encounter, and therefore rendered unfit for a belated
liberation. If America really believes that war is inevitable, then let her give us in Asia a resolute leadership we
can trust; let her give us the same unconditional pledge and guarantees and the same actual evidence of a spirit
of equality and common fate that she has given to her kinsmen and allies in the Atlantic Community; and we
shall have justification for the risk of war, and incentive to make common cause.
Otherwise, we must restrain our enthusiasms, dissemble our sympathies, moderate our words and actions,
and in fulfillment of the primordial duty of self-preservation, make no enemies where we can make no friends,
and hold our peace. It may be a precarious peace, of uncertain duration, at the mercy of military time-tables and
power-politics, but if it is broken, at least it shall not be said that we sought it, and if we are attacked, that we
deserved it. Meanwhile we must, whether in rebel camps or in the inner sanctums of governmental power,
whether within or beyond the pale of present authority, forswear allegiance to any foreign power, and cease to
fight the battles of one or the other of the super-states beyond our borders. Whatever our economic theories,
social grievances, and political beliefs and affiliations, and whatever the future has in store, we must stand
united, under a lawful and legitimate leadership, as citizens of one country, one flag, and one Constitution, so
that if war comes, it will not find our nation rent asunder in a paroxysm of self-annihilation.
Let not Macaulay’s traveler from New Zealand exploring the spectral ruins of Manila in the course of his postatomic war peregrinations, and cautiously testing the radioactive waters of the Pasig, from the broken arches of
the Quezon Bridge, have cause to ponder that in those shattered tenements and poisoned fields and rivers once
lived a nation unique in the annals of mankind, free men who put their liberties on the auction block, a sacrificial
race with a mysterious urge to suicide, who, being weak and weaponless took upon themselves the quarrels of
10
the strong, and having been warned of their abandonment still persisted in their lonely course, and whose
brutalized and monstrously deformed survivors, scrambling with stunted limbs in the infected debris of their
liberated cities, had forgotten even the echo of the memory of the strange illusion for which their race had
fought and perished.
Pinagkunan: Claro M. Recto, Our Mendicant Foreign Policy
B. “The Folklore of Colonialism” ni Lorenzo Tañada
Noong 1960, yumao si C. M. Recto ngunit ipinagpatuloy ng kanyang kasama na si L. Tañada ang
pakikibaka tungo sa isang makabayang patakarang panlabas. Ang sunod na talumpati na iyong matutunghayan
ay ang talumpati ni Sen. L. Tañada na pinamagatang “The Folklore of Colonialism.” Ito rin ay isang
commencement speech na binasa ni L. Tañada sa Lyceum ng Pilipinas noong Mayo 7, 1965. Kagaya ng talumpati
ni C. M. Recto, ang talumpating ito ni L. Tañada ay naglalaman ng mga kritisismo sa ugnayan ng US at Pilipinas
sa partikular at sa Patakarang Panlabas ng Pilipinas (Philippine Foreign Policy) sa pangkalahatan.
Primaryang Batis: “The Folklore of Colonialism”
We have been living by illusions for such a long time that we seem not to have noticed the changing
realities of our time. We belong to neither the advanced capitalist countries nor socialist camps. Our thinking
and behavior, however, belie our real status – that we are a developing nation.
Our habit of self-delusion has been a principal cause of our miseries. Many countries like our own have
heroically resisted the excursions of metropolitan powers. Some have succeeded, while others are still fighting
the pernicious hold of foreign interests. This determined struggle on their part has earned for them the respect
of the nations of the world.
Because we have refused to recognize our real status, we have not only not resisted, we have even
abetted foreign economic domination. We have been deluded into thinking that this is the correct road,
because we are so anxious to establish affinity with an advanced power and because we believe any other road
is unwise.
We have been on this road for such a long time, yet we have not progressed from this mistaken
orientation have sprung all the myths that imprison us. We have lived on rhetoric and ignored reality. We pride
ourselves so much on being the most westernized country in Asia that we actually sometimes tend to look
down upon our fellow Asians.
11
We have professed to have some links with our brother Asians but we tend to look condescendingly on
them because they do not speak English the way we do and have not adopted western ways. This is the first of
the myths we live by.
The Myth of the “Free World.”
We like to believe that we belong to the free world and we find it difficult to accept that the political life of a
nation can be different from ours and still not be evil: that a person’s economic, political and cultural life is
determined by its own needs and that one cannot just impose a particular way of life upon a nation, for each
nation has its own peculiarities.
A nation that does not have the same form of government and philosophy as ours is not necessarily
undemocratic. Democracy admits a diversity of forms, it can be diverse as the number of nation-states.
We have relinquished the sovereign initiative that belongs to an independent state by following America too
closely. We rely almost entirely on western, especially American experts for opinion and judgment, and we
have not developed our own powers of assessment.
We are enamored of enchanting phrases like “free world,” “free enterprise,” etc. and we are easily swayed by
stirring calls to the defense and protection of “freedom and democracy.”
Do we read the news and comments of other countries, even those which are generally considered as part of
the free world but which think independently of the United States? Very few of us do.
Instead we are content to allow only the experts of American news agencies to fill the columns of our papers
with their own not disinterested view of world events; we are satisfied to see our young people get their
intellectual nourishment almost exclusively from American comics and magazines, American TV programs and
movies from Hollywood.
We have not been discriminating at all in our choice of intellectual fare. Consequently, we have not
learned to be original.
Pinagkunan: Lorenzo Tañada, The Folklore of Colonialism
Mga Gabay na Tanong sa mga Talumpati nina C. M. Recto at L. Tañada:
1. Bakit pinamagatan ni C. M. Recto ang kanyang talumpati na “Our Mendicant Foreign Policy?” Bakit
tinawag niya ang ating patakarang panlabas na “nagpapalimos” (mendicant)?
2. Bakit pinamagatan ni L. Tañada ang kanyang talumpati na “The Folklore of Colonialism?” 3. Ibigay ang
pagkakatulad at pagkakaiba ng dalawang talumpati?
4. Anong mensahe ang nais iparating ng dalawang makabayang senador na ito sa mga lider ng ating
pamahalaan?
12
IV.
Ang Patakarang Panlabas Ayon sa mga Konstitusyong 1935, 1973, at 1987
A. Primaryang Batis: Sipi Mula sa Konstitusyong 1935
Article II, Section 3
The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy and adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of Nation.
Pinagkunan: The 1935 Philippine Constitution
B. Primaryang Batis: Sipi Mula sa Konstitusyong 1973
Article II, Section 3
The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality,
justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.
Pinagkunan: The 1973 Philippine Constitution
C. Primaryang Batis: Sipi Mula sa Konstitusyong 1987
Article II, Section 7
The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states the paramount
consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to selfdetermination.
Article II, Section 8
The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from
nuclear weapons in its territory.
Pinagkunan: The 1987 Philippine Constitution
Mga Gabay na Tanong sa Patakarang Panlabas Ayon sa mga Konstitusyong 1935, 1973, at 1987:
1. Ano-ano ang mga pagkakatulad ng tatlong konstitusyon na may kinalaman sa patakarang panlabas ng
Pilipinas?
2. Isa-isahin din ang pagkakaiba ng tatlong konstitusyon na may kinalaman sa patakarang panlabas ng ating
bansa.
13
3. Sa inyong palagay, naipapatupad na nga ba ng lubusan ng ating kasalukuyang pamahalaan ang patakarang
panlabas na itinatadhana ng Konstitusyong 1987? Suportahan ang sagot.
Paglalagom
Ang dalawa sa pangunahing usaping kontrobersyal na kinaharap ng bansang Pilipinas pagkatapos ng Ikalawang
Digmaang Pandaigdig ay ang usapin ng nasyonalismong ekonomiya at patakarang panlabas. Neo-kolonyalismo
ang naganap na ugnayan ng Pilipinas sa US simula noong 1946 dahil sa patuloy na impluwensya at pakikialam
nito sa Pilipinas sa aspektong pang-ekonomiya at pampulitika (lalo na sa mga patakarang panlabas).
Naglabas ng kanilang mga opinyon ang dalawang makabayang senador na sina C. M. Recto at L. Tañada tungkol
sa ugnayang RP-US pagkatapos ng digmaang pandaigdig. Kapwa naghahain ang dalawang senador ng isang
malayang patakarang panlabas upang maprotektahan ang pambansang interes ng
Pilipinas.
Pinuna ang Rehimeng Marcos na tumagal ng 20 taon dahil sa pagiging masunurin at magalang nito sa
mga Amerikano. Sa katunayan, ang mga impraistrukturang nagawa ng kanyang rehimen ay nagmula sa
malawakang pangungutang ng Pilipinas sa labas. Pagkatapos ng pagbagsak ng kanyang diktadurang rehimen
noong 1986, isang bagong konstitusyon ang ipinahayag at pinagtibay ng mamamayang Pilipino noong 1987 na
nagtatadhana ng isang direksyong malinaw at malaya ugnay sa patakarang panlabas para sa Pilipinas.
Pagpapaganang Pagtataya
Pagtalakay sa Paksa (50 puntos)
• Sagutin nang may kahusayan ang dalawang tanong. Mamarkahan ka sa pamamagitan ng rubrik na nasa
Schoolbook.
1. Sa inyong palagay, sapat na ba ang deklarasyon ng patakaran at mga napapaloob na layunin ng
Republic Act No. 7157 para sa hinahangad na malayang patakarang panlabas ng Pilipinas?
Pangatwiranan.
2. Gamit ang kanilang mga talumpati, anong mensahe ang nais iparating ng dalawang makabayang
senador na sina Claro M. Recto at Lorenzo Tañada sa mga lider ng ating pamahalaan?
14