BOOK REVIEW

THE POLITICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL IDEAS OF THE PHILIPPINE

REVOLUTION. Cesar Adib Majul, University of the Philippines, Quezon City,
Philippines, 1957. pp. 212.

Dr. Cesar Adib Majul is the author of several publications that was of national and
international class. Among his famous works were The Political and Constitutional
Ideas of the Philippine Revolution, Mabini and the Philippine Revolution, Muslims in the
Philippines, The Contemporary Muslim Movement in the Philippines and Islam and
Conflict Resolution: Theories and Perspectives.

He was born on October 21, 1923 in Appari, Cagayan to a Syrian Damascene

immigrant father and a local Spanish-Malay mother. He took his primary and secondary
eduction at De La Salle High School and spent his college years at the University of the
Philippines studying Philosophy. A year later after graduating, he took his Masters at the
same university. He then took his doctorate degree at Cornell University in New York
City and on January 1957, he received his Ph.D in Philosophy. In the 1960’s and 1970’s
he occupied various administrative positions at the University of the Philippines. He was
also chairman of the Presidential Commission that drafted the “Code of Muslim Personal
Laws of the Philippines” during that time period.

In his book “The Political and Constitutional Ideas of the Philippine Revolution”,
Dr. Cesar Majul attempts to present the movement of ideas during the course of the
Philippine Revolution. He seeks to identify what these ideas were and how these ideas
influenced and inspired the Filipino masses that led to a spark of rebellion against the
colonizers. Compared to contemporary publications regarding Philippine history, more
specifically, the revolution, it would seem that the ideas are obsolete but looking through
the point of view of the author during his time period, the book is an in-depth
presentation through the course of Philippine revolution that made it better to understand
history.
 The book achieves at two things; First, a vivid description of the events of the
Philippine Revolution which was mostly presented at Chapter 1 of the book; Second, an
explanation of how events took place through the ideas of Filipino political thinkers.

Dr. Majul’s analysis of the ideas of the revolution shows the roots and characteristics
of the revolution - that it was more of a social movement to reform the Church and
improve educational opportunities of Filipinos rather than a political one, and how the
Filipino political thinkers played a crucial part in starting the revolution. This was clearly
presented from Chapter 1 to 6.

Chapter 1 reveals a detailed context of the History of Philippine revolution. Chapter

2 ,3 and 5 on the other hand, reveals the ideas that lead to the revolution from the
perspective of three Filipino Political Thinkers- Rizal, Jacinto and Mabini; Rizal wanting
to instill a sense of nationalism to the minds of the Filipino people; Jacinto proposing the
appeal by Filipinos to recover their rights by separating from Spain; Mabini justifying the
revolution. In Chapter 3, it was made clear that failures of the government, such as
depriving the people of their rights to freedom and not recognizing their welfare, earlier
fueled up the desire of the Filipino people to revolt. In Chapter 5, a vivid description of
revolution was given to us; revolution was a tool used by a people to gain its
independence and control its own government or simply, revolution is a recovery of
sovereignty from the preexisting government. This description of revolution was
supported by the fact that revolution was not an option, but since other means of
attaining the people’s desires failed, it was necessary to bring a social change and
therefore, political change could take place. In this sense, revolution was a tool used for
political means.
Years before the revolution took place, the desire of the people to change society
already manifested only that the people was voiceless and did not know how to express
themselves affixed them to their present situation. The ills of the society existed partially
because the people allowed themselves to be ruled by a government who does not
recognize their freedom and did not provide the necessary conditions for certain rights to
exist. According to Rizal, a corrupt people produces a corrupt government so the blame
settled on these two entities.
Years later, at the height of the secularization controversy which centered on the
demand on the part of the Filipino priests to increase their opportunities to hold more
parishes, three Filipino priests were garroted by the Spanish Government. The
controversy became a national issue because of the sympathy of the Filipino people to
the Filipino priests. Man, according to the Filipino political thinkers, has an intrinsic
value and possessed certain intellectual and moral capacities which ought to be allowed
to develop unhampered and any repression towards man’s innate value could lead to a
stronger desire to have it expressed. This was then used by the propagandistas to spark
the rise of Philippine nationalism and revolution to serve political ends. At first, the
revolution was centered only in the Katipunan but then became a national movement
which proves that the ideas of the educated class of Filipino that was looked upon by the
masses proved to be effective. Though the revolution was never an aspiration of the
people, nor was it favored by some political thinkers such as Rizal, it was resorted to by
the Katipunan when other means of attaining the wishes of people failed. Furthermore,
the revolution was more social than political. This was clearly presented by the steps
taken to secularize the parishes, the attempt to erect a Filipino ecclesiastical hierarchy,
denial of the traditionally privileged position of the Church, plans to improve educational
opportunities and the desire to improve economic conditions.

However, I personally find a problem regarding to this viewpoint of society and

freedom- The ills of the society existed partially because the people allowed themselves
to be ruled by a government who does not recognize their freedom. The Filipino people,
should not be blamed for the loss of their freedom to the Spanish government. I present
two arguments; First, is the definition of society according to Mabini. Society was
referred to as a system of relations where people would interact to satisfy their multiple
needs by the mutual exchange of these individual products. This, I assume, would
absolve the Filipino people in that they, during pre-colonial times, would trade to
multiple civilizations such as the Chinese and then the Europeans solely on the basis of
satisfying multiple needs. But the Spaniards then colonized the Philippines as it was their
prime initiative- to colonize new lands for resources and to spread the Catholic faith.
Moreover, Filipinos at that time were not unified in that they were separated in tribes that
was easily overpowered by the colonizers. This leads me to my second argument. To be
blamed of loosing freedom to the colonizers merely because of deceit and by being not
unified is not blameworthy otherwise, blaming the Filipino people is to judge that they
did not, in any means, resisted Spanish influence.

Dr. Majul’s analysis of the origin and aims of the Government and the necessity and
obedience of law proposing that law was an essential part of a government, was
presented in Chapter 3 and 4, through the ideas of the Filipino political thinkers.
Society was referred to as a system of economic relations. Some individuals would
alienate the products of other individuals by means of force or deceit which resulted to
loss of freedom. As man enters society, he therefore interacts freely or be reduced to
servitude. Therefore, government was essential which was an efficient tool for the
coordination of society and aided the achievement of the welfare of the people. With the
existence of the government, comes “law” which was to be obeyed by all so as it was the
expression of the popular will and impartial to all which must not be utilized for the
benefit a single individual. In this case, there was a need for an executive as high
political official. To assure that an executive would not abuse his power, the legislative,
which are representatives of the people, is created to check for a possible tyranny. Then
followed by the Judiciary that determines the kind of punishment for evil in the society.
These three now constitute as an authority. The authority serves to protect the rights of
the people and provide certain conditions for those rights to exist. Rizal and Jacinto
wrote that the government was established for the sole purpose of the welfare of the
people. Mabini also added in Chapter 4 that governmental power originated from the
people by natural right and God as the ultimate source of all authority. This technique
was utilized mainly for a justification of the Revolution.

Rights according to the Dr. Majul referred to the aspirations of the Filipino people
but since the Filipino people were generally voiceless, Dr. Majul took on Rizal’s
demands from Spain which were the right to liberty and light, right to educate, right to
dignity; Mabini’s functions of the government which were the personal security and the
greatest number of liberties, the maximum satisfaction of economic wants and the best
possible education.
Chapter 6 and 7 talks about the relationship between the state and church and how
did it come to a separation between the two entities. The primary initiative of Spain was
to conquer Philippines, but it was through the means of spreading the Catholic Faith.
King Phillip II was even told that holding the Philippines will only mean additional
expenses for the Spanish Monarch but King Phillip II put forward that he was chosen by
God as a “Divine Instrument”, for the conversion of the whole kingdom of Luzon.
Together, Spanish priests and soldiers, undertook to establish Spanish authority. Chapter
6 also reveals the social inequality experienced among Filipino people. One example is
the right to education. The Catholic Church at that time monopolized education because
most schools were run by Spanish priests. But despite the atrocities of the Catholic
Church, the Filipino remained faithful to the Catholic Faith. This was then exploited by
the Spanish government during the Spanish-American War. Another example is the
opposition of the Spanish clergy to the rising Filipino clergy, the latter being backed up
by the aspirations of the Filipino people. During the making of the Malolos Constitution,
it was stated that there was a problem with the Church and as Section III of the Malolos
Constitution stated, “the state recognizes the equality of all religious worships and the
separation of the Church and the State”.

The major strengths of this book is that it has presented well its purpose of shedding
light on the ideas that kick-start the revolution (Spanish and American Revolution) and
the ideas of constructing the Philippine constitution. It contributes to the accumulation of
new information of Philippine history and provide a sense of nationalism to the reader.
This book is highly recommended to explore more about history and to learn how the
constitution, during that period, was formulated and the important role played by the
Filipino political thinkers. Though obsolete, applying the ideas on this book to the status
quo of the Philippines in the modern time, would aid educated people to be more
expressive, to develop the love of study and what is just and noble, cultivate moral
virtues and most importantly, to be more participative in political and social events of the
country. Students, like me, can learn a lot from this book but I think the most important
lesson we get from Dr. Majul’s publication is that, the youth who are blessed with the
opportunity to study should not take for granted education for education can be used for
the betterment of the country. Education was something our forefathers had been
deprived off while some barely had it at that time but needed it. Meanwhile, the author
clearly supported his thesis through the publications and ideas of Filipino political
thinkers but I personally think that the author had barely consider and refute opposing
viewpoints at the early chapter of this book. But I praise the book and the author as well,
for having shed light on this topic at a very extensive level.

Mark Anthony S. Arancina

Division of Social Sciences University of the Philippines Tacloban College
Email: markyarky18@yahoo.com
© Mark Anthony Arancina