6: JACINTO’S LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHY OF REVOLUTION 1

(Sligtly revised, 2014. This is chap. 6 of my book, Filipino philosophy:

Traditional Approach. Part I, Sec. 1. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Inc.,
2009.)

JACINTO’S LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHY OF REVOLUTION1

ROLANDO M. GRIPALDO

[This is a critical analysis of Jacinto’s philosophy of

revolution.]

Introduction

In his novel El filibusterismo, Jose Rizal (Guerrero 1975, 289-99;

Schumacher 1987, 103-107) presented two options to the Filipino people:
the first was the option of Father Florentino who wanted the Filipinos to
follow a peaceful revolution through education, and the second was the
option of Simoun who wanted the Filipinos to wage a violent revolution.
Although Rizal, for reasons of his own, took the Florentino alternative,
Andres Bonifacio and Emilio Jacinto, for reasons of their own,2 decided on
the Simoun alternative.
Jacinto’s philosophy of liberty provides a justification of national
liberation. It must be noted that when Bonifacio and Jacinto presented to
the Filipino people through the revolutionary newspaper Kalayaan their
philosophies of revolution, the members of the revolutionary society
Katipunan phenomenally increased. In one version, Agoncillo (1956, 47,
97) said that membership increased from the original 300 “at the end of
1893” and even up to mid-March 1896, the date of actual issue of Kalayaan.
With the distribution of this newspaper to the municipalities of the province
of Manila and to other provinces such as Bulakan, Batangas, Cavite, Nueva
Ecija, Pampanga, and Laguna, Katipunan membership increased to some
30,000 by the time the society was discovered in August 1896. It was a
hundredfold leap in membership in just a matter of approximately five
months.
In a second version, Agoncillo (1980, 161; 1990, 165; with Alfonso
1967, 196; with Guerrero 1983, 185) contended that from 7 July 1892, the
founding of the Katipunan, to 1 January 1896, the society “did not have
more than three hundred members, but since the appearance of Kalayaan
the membership had increased to around 30,000.” A third Agoncillo version
(1981, 178) argued that from mid-March 1896 to the Katipunan discovery,
the membership increased between 25,000 and 30,000. The international
Agoncillo version (1969, 80) conservatively described the increase as “no
less than 10,000.”
These four versions are not exactly inconsistent. The estimate itself
of “over 30,000” came from Pio Valenzuela (1946, 6; Agoncillo 1956, 122) in
2 FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY

his discussions with Jose Rizal at Dapitan, but Valenzuela qualified that
“many of those affiliated are not yet on our list due to lack of time to gather
the exact data. Many come to affiliate daily in the provinces, especially in
the province of Manila.”3
Whether the Katipunan leapt in membership from 300 to over 10,000
or 25,000 or 30,000, this increase—which was brought about by the
Kalayaan “power of the written word” (Agoncillo 1956, 76-97)—is
significant and in that sense we are justified in analyzing Jacinto’s
philosophy of revolution as he expressed it in that newspaper.

Jacinto’s Life and Works

Life of Jacinto

There is not much that we know about Emilio Jacinto. The most
extensive biography on Jacinto by Jose P. Santos (1935, 9-23) provides
little information. For example, Santos disputed Isabelo de los Reyes’s
description of Jacinto’s father, Mariano, as a “prominent merchant” and
yet Santos himself pointed to just that. According to Santos, Mariano
was a “tenedor de libros” or bookkeeper. Now one cannot be a bookkeeper
unless he is engaged in some kind of business—his own or belonging to
someone else. Surely, Santos mentioned the family business of making
tobaccos for chewing or smoking which were sold in the house and the
neighborhood. Some people in the community also requested Mariano’s
outfit—apparently with a fee—to make the tobaccos with their (the
clients’) own raw materials. But one cannot be known as a “tenedor de
libros” if he keeps the records of his business only to himself. At least
his clients or customers must know this situation. It could be that Mariano
had workers who were privy to his bookkeeping. Jacinto’s father was
more known with the nickname of “Don Mariano,” which connotes some
prominence.
Jacinto’s mother, Josefa Dizon, was a hilot, the local midwife. At the
time, the profession of the hilot was lucrative. The hilot of today (or even
during Santos’s time) pales in comparison with the hilot of Jacinto’s time
since today there are many professional midwives and obstetricians. In
Jacinto’s time, midwifery was the hilot’s virtual monopoly. Moreover, the
hilot’s activities need not be limited to midwifery. She could perform the
“act of massaging a part of the body, as in relieving pain or in restoring a
dislocated bone or bones” (Santos 1978, 624). Santos’s description (1935,
11) of Josefa’s work suggests this dual role. He mentioned only two
instances in the biography: “magaling na hilot” (literally, “good midwife”
or “good masseuse” or both) and “sa pinaghihilutan” (meaning, “whom
she served as a midwife or masseuse”). In short, although the hilot does
not deliver babies all the time, she may serve as a physical therapist or
masseuse from time to time.4
 6: JACINTO’S LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHY OF REVOLUTION 3

The Jacinto family was “poor,” as Agoncillo (1974, 207) alleged; this
writer believes the Jacintos belonged to, at least, the lower middle class.
Emilio Jacinto, who was born in Tondo on 15 December 1875, studied at
San Juan de Letran and at the University of Santo Tomas where he took up
law. Agoncillo (1956, 81-90), who included a narration of Jacinto’s life and
writings in his Bonifacio biography, virtually adopted the Santos story
without adding something significantly new.
Recent sketchy data gathered from the Internet suggests that the
family of Jacinto was relatively well-off and experienced a relative financial
discomfort only after the death of his father. It was said that his father died
“shortly after Jacinto was born” (see “Emilio Jacinto,” Wikipedia 2007)
and, as such, was apparently adopted by his mother’s brother, Jose Dizon
(see “Jose Dizon,” Wikipedia 2007). His mother taught Jacinto the rudiments
of reading and writing and he was able to speak Spanish and Tagalog at
age six. When his father died, his mother saved money by buying used
clothes for him from the pawnshop and spent for his pre-college education.
It is highly probable that if indeed his uncle adopted him—even
unofficially—then the former would have helped in the latter’s education
this early. Jacinto dressed simply and despite taunts from his wealthy
classmates persevered on his schooling until he finished it.
His mother took care of his cousin, Marina Dizon, the daughter of his
uncle (see “Jose Dizon,” 2007), who worked as an engraver in a Manila
mint. Marina’s mother died when she was about eight months old (see
“Marina Dizon-Santiago,” n.d.). While at work, Jose would leave Marina
with Josefa and Jacinto. In fact, Josefa took care of two babies since
Marina [b. 18 July 1875] was older than Jacinto [b. 15 December 1875] by
only five months. When Marina was eight months, Jacinto was three months
old. It was but natural that Jacinto would stay with his uncle who decided
to spend for his college and university education.
In his biography, Santos mentioned Juan Sumulong,5 Jacinto’s
schoolmate, as saying that even as a student, Jacinto had shown his deep
love of country; that he kept to himself in school, although he showed at
times that he had an iron fist. One sees a silent type of personality whose
inner self may have been that of a rebel or a nonconformist.
Jacinto joined the Katipunan while at the University of Santo Tomas
at a tender age of eighteen. Andres Bonifacio (de los Santos 1973, 135;
Santos 1935, 3) called him the “eye of the Katipunan” and the “soul of the
revolution.” Isabelo de los Reyes—while ascribing the soul of the
Katipunan to Bonifacio—described Jacinto as the “intelligence” and
“enthusiasm” directing that society; Agoncillo (1974, 207) described him
as the “Brains of the Katipunan;” and John Schumacher (1994, 94)
considered Jacinto as “second only to Rizal in the intellectual and moral
foundation he tried to impart to Filipino national consciousness.”
Using “Pingkian” (de los Santos 1973, 155), “Dimas Alan[g]”
(Schumacher 1994, 93), and “Dimas-Ilaw” (Agoncillo 1981, 160) as aliases,
4 FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY

Jacinto became the right hand of Bonifacio. He likewise became the

Katipunan secretary and the director of both the Katipunan printing press
and library. He was the editor of Kalayaan, the Katipunan newspaper. Like
Bonifacio, he was a wide reader, having gone through works on military
tactics, the manufacture of gunpowder and dynamite, the French revolution,
the Bible (de los Santos 1973, 155; Schumacher 1994, 94). Twice he headed
missions (de los Santos 1973, 156) for the country: firstly, by paying
respects to a Japanese admiral and giving him a memorial for the Japanese
emperor so that some form of help may be extended to the Katipuneros
(“the light that shone over Japan might also shed its rays over the Philippine
Islands”), and secondly, by disguising himself as a Chinese cargador to
enter Rizal’s cabin in a boat at Manila Bay to convince the latter,
unsuccessfully, to make common cause with the people.
When the Katipunan was discovered, Andres Bonifacio headed the
Katipunan forces in Manila while Jacinto led the armed struggle north of
Manila. Jacinto’s area of military responsibility was large as it comprised
the provinces of Rizal, Laguna, Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, and even Intramuros.
With the death of Bonifacio in May 1897, Jacinto continued his revolutionary
activities and in a skirmish with the Spanish militia in Maimpis, Magdalena,
Laguna in February 1898, he was wounded in the thigh (see “Emilio
Jacinto: Ang ‘utak’ ng Katipunan,” n.d.). He recovered from this wound,
but caught malaria and succumbed to it (Agpalo 1992, 51) on 16 April 1899
in Mahayhay, Laguna.6

Works by Jacinto

Most of Jacinto’s works are in Tagalog and only about three, all in
verse, are in Spanish. But of the Spanish verses only A la patria survived.
It was composed on 8 October 1897 in Sta. Cruz, Laguna and believed to be
an inferior imitation of Rizal’s Ultimo adios (de los Santos 1973, 157;
Agoncillo 1974, 207).
Of the Tagalog works, all in prose, a number survived, but some are
in Spanish and English translations and others in Tagalog as published
articles. The original works, in Jacinto’s handwriting, which Jose P. Santos
(1935, 8) discovered from a trunk he had inherited from his father, Epifanio
Cristobal de los Santos, perished during the Japanese occupation. We are
told that Jose sold his father’s collections to the Philippine government
after the latter’s demise, and placed what remained in his possession in
the University of the Philippines (U.P.) Library at Padre Faura. The Japanese
soldiers, however, used the U.P. books for fuel in cooking (Agoncillo 1973,
xi; Schumacher 1994, 93).
There were two issues of the Katipunan newspaper Kalayaan and,
according to Schumacher (1994, 93), no original copy has been found. Jacinto
contributed to the first issue but only the Spanish translations by Juan Caro
y Mora (1897, 58-64), which are included in Wenceslao E. Retana’s Archivo
 6: JACINTO’S LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHY OF REVOLUTION 5

del bibliofilo Filipino (1897), have survived (Schumacher 1994, 93-94; Santos
1935, 25). Jacinto wrote all the articles of the partially completed second
issue of Kalayaan which did not come off the press because of the discovery
of the Katipunan. What is unfortunate, however, is that none survived except
possibly the article “Ang kasalanan ni Cain” because of its anti-friar
orientation. The other writings, some written in Laguna in 1897-98, were
“practical documents” and “moral essays” (Schumacher 1994, 94).
Schumacher’s insightful analysis of the compilation of Jacinto’s works
as published in The revolutionists by Epifanio de los Santos (1973, 158-85)
and edited with an introduction and notes by Teodoro Agoncillo, reveals
inadequate translation. Here is what Schumacher (1994, 94) said:

...The De los Santos-Aguinaldo version is simply the 1918

translation of Gregorio Nieva, which is both greatly abbreviated
and not always faithful to Jacinto’s original essays as found in
Santos’s Buhay at mga sinulat ni Emilio Jacinto. Apart from
inaccurate translation, sentences and whole paragraphs are
omitted without any indications of excision, and separate
sentences are even combined for no apparent reasons.

Nieva’s translations were originally published in The Philippine

Review (June 1918). The present interpretation of Jacinto’s libertarian
philosophy of revolution will have to make use of Caro y Mora’s Spanish
translation of Jacinto’s “Manifesto,” together with Nieva’s English
translation, since the original Tagalog entitled “Pahayag”7 can no
longer be found. Agoncillo (1956, 334-35) himself was constrained to use
Nieva’s translation even if he suspected it as “defective as it was translated
from the Spanish translation” which can be located in the Archivo.8
For Jacinto’s other ideas on liberty, I will rely on Santos’s Tagalog
collection. It is important to note, however, that Jacinto’s other works on
liberty are not inconsistent with Caro y Mora’s and Nieva’s translations of
Jacinto’s philosophy of revolution.

The Cause of Liberty

As earlier hinted, Jacinto’s philosophy of revolution can be found in

his Pahayag or “Manifesto,” which appeared in the first issue of Kalayaan.
Nieva’s English translation (Agoncillo 1956, 87-88) is a short piece—
consisting of ten paragraphs, sarcastic in tone, and full of symbolism. Caro
y Mora’s Spanish translation, Manifiesto (1897, 58-64), is longer: it has
thirty-one paragraphs, mostly short ones. Nieva omitted fifteen
introductory paragraphs—compared to the Spanish translation—or
summarized them into one: “Liberty appears to the youth much afflicted by
the misfortunes of his country; the youth recognizes her and lays before
her the just grievances of his compatriots.” In both translations, Liberty
6 FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY

personified appeared to a youth who narrated to her the plight of his

countrymen.
The youth informed Liberty that instead of feeding his compatriots
who were hungry, the one who taught him (the youth) to feed the hungry
was inconsiderate for ordering them to eat the refuse and crumbs of his
sumptuous and savory meal. To the thirsty he ordered them to drink the
tears and sweat of their brows; to the naked he wanted them wrapped in
chain; to the victim of injustice whose honor had been violated by a priest
or a wealthy man, the judge accused that victim as a brigand or an insane
person and ordered him or her imprisoned; to someone who requested a
little love or a little clemency and compassion, the judicial and spiritual
chiefs and his superiors accused him of filibusterism, of being an enemy of
God and of Spain, and ordered his exile.
At this juncture, the youth seemed to break down and wept. Liberty,
indignant, wanted to leave him who was cowardly, accustomed “to suffer
all sorts of affliction, contempt, and rebuffs.” However, taking pity on
the youth she stayed and said that in the distant past, when his forbears
had good qualities—without cowardice and debasement—they were
under her protection: they were happy, they breathed the air that gave
them life, her light illumined their minds, and their neighbors respected
them. But the day came “when Slavery arrived and told them she was
Virtue, Right, Justice, promising Glory to all who would believe in her.”
The brethren, the youth’s forbears, believed Slavery [Spanish
colonization] and worshipped her as “she came wearing the mask of beauty
and kindness, serene and affectionate of demeanor.” They forgot all about
Liberty, almost abhorring her.
Deciding to depart, Liberty once again stayed when the youth
prayed for her protection, and she said to him: “No man is worthy of my
protection and support who is not fond of me and does not love me, and
who cannot die for my cause” (italics mine). She told the youth he could
announce this to his compatriots.
Something in the eyes of the youth emerged at dawn, something
like “a smoldering project: the austere and apocalyptical Katipunan.”9
Jacinto’s philosophy of revolution encouraged the present
generation to strive for the liberty once enjoyed by their forebears; the
“Manifesto” was a call for joining the revolutionary society.

The Analysis

Meaning of Liberty

Liberty is a political value that is worth dying for. In the movie

Braveheart (1995), about the Scottish struggle for independence
against British domination in the thirteenth century, William
Wallace—whom the executioner was ready to release had he pleaded
 6: JACINTO’S LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHY OF REVOLUTION 7

for mercy—shouted “Freedom!” instead and was subsequently

beheaded.10
Liberty and freedom are synonymous terms. They denote the
unhindered exercise of the human will. In absolute terms they mean that
a person can do whatever s/he pleases. The political consequence of
such exercise, however, is the state of nature that Thomas Hobbes (1969,
24) described: that man is at war with every man. At least John Locke
(1993, 268) thought that in the state of nature, man need not be combative
nor must have a warlike predisposition. Locke saw individuals as
cooperative. Since each person does not have all he needs to preserve
his own human dignity, it is necessary that he furnishes the others with
what he produces and obtains from them what he lacks. But whatever,
both Hobbes and Locke agreed that in a civil society, the limit of man’s
freedom is where the fist of his stretched arm does not touch the tip of
his neighbor’s nose. Expressive of this limitation is the rule: “Do not do
unto others what you do not want others do unto you.”
Jacinto’s idea of liberty is similar to this rule. Jacinto (Santos 1935,
28) defined liberty as the “inherent reason of man to think and do
whatever he pleases for as long as it does not conflict with the inherent
reasons of others.”11 This definition implies three important things.
First, Jacinto believed that man’s reason which he has by birth
differentiates him from the beast (Santos 1935, 28-29)—an idea which we
find in Aristotle when he defined man as a rational animal. For Aristotle,
the differentia “rationality” distinguishes man from lower forms of animal
since only man can reason out. It is because of this reason, Jacinto said,
that man can say what he wants or does not want. In that respect, the
description of good or bad or the subjection to punishment is appropriate
to him.
Jacinto’s idea of liberty is not volitional but intellectual. It is not
freedom of the will, but the freedom to think unrestrictedly and to do
what reason dictates for as long as it does not conflict with the reasons
of others. Intellectual liberty is primary and the foundation of physical
and political liberty.
Second, according to Jacinto, liberty as “Heaven’s blessing” is a
precondition of the flowering of man’s inherent reason. Without liberty
reason would be replaced with unreason. Liberty (Santos 1935, 29) would
be “strangled with false and blind worship, with old and bad character,
and with decrees from suspected traitors.” There is reason because
there is freedom. Without political freedom, reason or the freedom to
think generally is doomed.
Lastly, what would happen to life without freedom? Jacinto argued
that man would not be able to discuss such ideas as honor (praise or
fame), reason, excellence, and he would not be worthy of being called a
man. “Life without freedom,” as Wallace said in Braveheart, “is no life at
all.”
8 FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY

Manner of Presentation

Jacinto wrote the “Manifesto” or Pahayag in the form belonging to

the “ancient genre of the consolatio, a branch of the diatribe which in
pagan Greece and Rome was especially the province of philosophy.” J.
Martha (Watts 1969, 19) maintained that the consolatio, which was then
cultivated in all schools of philosophy, became a “kind of moral medication”
by the time of Seneca. “It was only necessary to open the drawer
corresponding to the illness in question,” Martha went on, “in order to
find at once the remedies most appropriate for a cure.”
The best example of the consolatio during the fifth century is
Anicius Boethius’s (1969, 1-169) The consolation of Philosophy. Accused
of treason during the reign of Theodoric of the Western Roman Empire,
Boethius—a Neoplatonist—was exiled to Pavia and later executed. While
in prison, Boethius wrote the book where Philosophy personified
appeared to him, diagnosed his spiritual illness—“the loss of memory of
his true nature” since he dreamed of true happiness but his memory was
clouded (Watts 1969, 21-22)—and led him back by various ways to God
Himself.
In Jacinto’s case, Liberty diagnosed the illness of the youth’s
brethren as the loss of memory of Liberty herself since the brethren
worshipped Slavery disguised as virtue, right, and justice, and clothed
with the mask of beauty, kindness, serenity, and affection. Liberty offered
as a cure to this illness for the brethren to return to her, to love and be
fond of her again: “No man is worthy of my protection and support who
is not fond of me and does not love me, and who cannot die for my
cause.”
Jacinto’s work is very brief and the style is a combination of the
consolatio as the primary style and the dialogue as secondary. It is
likewise a work in sarcasm, for almost every paragraph cites internal
contradictions where those who are supposed to be protectors and high
in morals are themselves the corruptors and executioners. Boethius’s
work is relatively long, consisting of five chapters (“books”) with each
chapter having several sections. The style is eclectic—a combination of
the consolatio, the “apocalyptic dialogue,” and the “Menippean Satire .
. . in which sections of prose alternate with verse” (Watts 1969, 19-20).
There is no existing direct evidence to show that Jacinto had read
Boethius’s book, but from the foregoing it seems that Jacinto knew of the
consolatio and dialogic styles either from class discussions or from his
own readings during his student days at Letran or Santo Tomas. What
Jacinto did not have in comparison to Boethius were the verses.
It is not conclusive that Jacinto was a Platonist or even a
Neoplatonist.12 In his work it seems that Jacinto referred only to a simple
recollection of Liberty rather than the metaphysical idea of Platonic
recollection.
 6: JACINTO’S LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHY OF REVOLUTION 9

Content of the “Manifesto”

Jacinto was influenced by Jose Rizal. Schumacher (1987, 115; 1994,

93) and Majul (1967, 57) observed this dependence of Jacinto on Rizal’s
historical reconstruction of the Filipino past which was greatly based on
Antonio de Morga’s Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas (see Alzona 1990, 1-
353).
There are three levels of interpreting the content of Jacinto’s
“Manifesto.”
The first level is the racial perspective. Jacinto’s idea of liberty is
certainly influenced by the idea of liberty embodied in the slogan “Liberty,
Equality, Fraternity” of the French Revolution. Jacinto developed this idea
in his articles “Pahayag” and “Kalayaan.” He developed the ideas of
equality and fraternity in his other works, particularly “Ang tawo’y
magkakapantay” (“All men are equal”).13
The ideal of liberty espoused by the French Revolution is freedom
from monarchical tyranny, but involves the same type of racial nationality.
Jacinto was fighting for freedom from colonial tyranny in an Asian setting
which in the Filipino consciousness during the nineteenth century connotes
different types of racial nationality. This latter perspective is significant
because Jacinto’s racial interpretation of liberty is the first systematic
articulation of its kind in Asia.
The second level of interpretation is the temporal perspective. Jacinto
tacitly believed that the past had a relationship with the present and the
present could be used to interpret the past and perhaps restore it. From this
perspective, it is acceptable for Liberty to say to the youth that prior to the
coming of Slavery or Spanish colonization, the brethren loved her but later
abandoned her. Liberty’s restoration would entail great sacrifice: the
willingness and the commitment of the brethren to die for her cause, her
revival.
The last level of interpretation is the historical perspective. On the
one hand, did the pre-Spanish natives really enjoy intellectual liberty? On
the other hand, what type of political liberty is to be restored? Certainly,
Jacinto did not want to revive the datu-system of the past. It is important
to understand the tie-up of the two: intellectual liberty will only flourish if
there is political liberty.
According to Ileto (1979, 107-108), the term “kalayaan” that means
freedom, independence, or liberty, and even the root word “layà” did not
appear in the eighteenth-century dictionary of Juan de Noceda and Pedro de
Sanlucar. Ileto went on to say that “prior to the rise of the separatist movement,”
the word “kalayaan” was derived from the root word “layao” or “layâ,” which
means “bodily pleasure,” the “satisfaction of necessities,” or “giving to another
what he wants.” Jose Villa Panganiban’s recent orthographic interpretation of
“layaw,” Ileto argued, means “satisfaction of one’s needs,” “pampering
treatment by parents,” or “freedom from strict parental control.”
10 FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY

If Ileto’s version is correct, then “kalayaan” as liberty was a direct

importation as a political term from the French Revolution (through the
Spanish version libertad), and the propagandists and revolutionists
grafted it on an existing term “kalayaan” based on “layaw/layâ” thereby
generating two denotations: one to mean liberty, independence, or freedom;
the other to mean parental pampering or carefree lifestyle.
What does this development suggest? It suggests that Jacinto,
unconsciously perhaps, superimposed his contemporary perspective and
interpretation of liberty (as freedom to think) on a past situation where it
did not exist. Certainly, every human being has “inherent reason,” but
there was then no political issue as to whether it was free or not. However,
in view of the carefree lifestyle (“kalayaan” as “layaw/layâ”), which was
clearly autonomous, of pre-Spanish natives, then Jacinto’s idea of liberty
(as freedom to think) was easily grafted on the natives’ carefree autonomy.
Thus, from the Ileto’s version of “kalayaan,” the most that Jacinto could
restore was the general autonomous carefree lifestyle of pre-Spanish
natives which was indicative of the natives’ individual intellectual liberty.14
On the other hand, Jacinto did not simply want the restoration of the
autonomous lifestyle of the ancient natives. He wanted to restore political
liberty. Some writers believed that political liberty existed in the form of
democracy, which apparently means the absence of absolute control by
the executive of the three branches of government.
Raul Manglapus (1987, 71-73), in his book Will of the people, argued
that democracy existed in pre-Spanish Philippines. He cited Father Chirino
who said that by one’s own ability or prowess, or by accumulation of
wealth through hard work, a commoner could become a chief or datu.
Moreover, in some instances becoming a datu does not entail the good life
for his kin. De la Costa (1992, 3) maintained that “...a man who was chief
would have a son or brother a slave, and even worse than this, [a man
could be] a slave of his own brother.” Manglapus (1987, 73) bewailed the
transformation of this institution during the early Spanish era into a
hereditary one. The datu was “renamed cabeza de barangay who was a
hereditary officer representing not his people but the Spanish governor at
the capital in Manila.”
Manglapus likewise cited Robert Fox (1959, 33) who described the
early Filipino community as a democracy. According to Fox, “...decisions
were actually a consensus of opinions in which the participants involved
were represented.”
There are many descriptions of political and social structures of early
barangays, such as those of Juan de Plasencia (De la Costa 1992, 3;
Manglapus 1987, 72), Miguel Loarca (Blair and Robertson 1973, 5:149;
Scott 1992, 92-99), Miguel Lopez de Legazpi in 1565, and Juan de las Isla
(Scott 1994, 127-28), among others.
Essentially there were three classes: the datu, the maharlika, and
the commoners. The datu was the ruler, the maharlika—the nobility—
 6: JACINTO’S LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHY OF REVOLUTION 11

included the maginoo and timaos (children from the datu’s secondary wives),
and the commoners ,that is, the timawas and dependents of the datu and
maharlika. The dependents were the alipin or oripun. Unlike the European
type of slavery which had degrading aspects, the Filipino alipin or oripun
was essentially—according to Rizal (Schumacher 1991, 111)—a “familial
relationship.” William Henry Scott (1992, 101) contended that the oripun
who “only served his master part-time mitigated against any European
concept of slavery at all.” The selling of the oripun or alipin, he argued
(1992, 100), is only incidental, not basic, to the system. Viewed in a broader
sense, the alipin and oripun were helpers without salaries or wages, who
were beholden to their masters: some were househelpers for they worked in
the house while others were the artisans or “the basic producers of society.”
Scott (1992, 101) called them the “Filipino people” of today.
With regard to the political dynamics of the barangay, Pedro Paterno
(Schumacher 1991, 107) viewed the Tagalog barangay as displaying a
“kingdom” which was democratic in organization despite its being
monarchical. Remigio Agpalo (1992, 161-62) agreed with this view when he
said that the barangay is a communal “pangulo” regime where the executive
is dominant and yet, as Agoncillo (1980, 40) said, the participation of the
elders of the community was integral in the sense that legislative and judicial
decisions were arrived at by consensus among community elders (the datu
advisers), and among the jury, respectively.
What can be made out from the foregoing historical level of
interpretation?
In the first place, none of the Spanish interpreters of Philippine
barangays had actually traveled extensively throughout the Philippines in
order to describe accurately and comprehensively the political structure and
machinery of the barangays. In all likelihood the barangays were probably
not all politically of the same ideology. They might probably be like the
Greek city-states that could be tyrannies, monarchies, polities, democracies.
So in matters of succession, Agoncillo (1990, 39) may be right—for at least
some of the barangays—that “the first son of the . . . chieftain succeeded
his father; if the first died without leaving an heir, the second son succeeded
as chieftain. In the absence of any male heir, the eldest daughter became
chieftain.” But on the other hand, at least some of the barangays were also
situationally democratic in terms of political ascension where a commoner
could become a datu, as described by Father Colin, and democratic in terms
of political structure and dynamics, as analyzed by Scott with regard to the
oripun and alipin as not properly called slaves, and also by Agoncillo with
respect to the participation of barangay elders in the political process. Scott
(1994, 129) identified at least two political types of these barangays—the
autocratic and the democratic:

A datu’s authority arose from his lineage, but his power

depended upon his wealth, the number of his slaves and
12 FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY

subjects, and his reputation for physical prowess. Some were

therefore autocratic and oppressive: a courageous,
frightening datu was called pamalpagan from palpag, split
and flattened bamboo. Others were not, those whose subjects
were followers rather than vassals—“very free and
unrestricted,” as Juan Martinez said.

In the second place, Jacinto could not have meant the restoration
of political liberty to include strictly monarchical and authoritarian
barangays as described by Agoncillo with respect to political
succession, but only the democratic type of barangays. In reality,
Jacinto gained knowledge of the past through Rizal’s works which
included the annotations of Morga’s Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas. In
the annotations, Rizal tried to capture at least a democratic semblance
of the barangay society of the past. And it is this democratic semblance
that Jacinto wanted to restore: (1) people are autonomous or unhindered
in the exercise of their reason; (2) political, social, and economic mobility,
both upward and downward, is possible; and (3) no slavery exists
although, perhaps, a modified form of Rizal’s “familial relationship”
may be permitted.

Conclusion

While it is true that Jacinto borrowed the idea of liberty from the
French Revolution, he skillfully appropriated it by making it a suitable
justification for a violent overthrow of the Spanish colonial situation in the
Philippines. The bottomline of both the French and Philippine Revolutions
was tyranny and the humanity of man with his inalienable rights. One of
these rights for Jacinto was liberty which he believed had existed prior to
the coming of the Spaniards and which he defined as an “inherent reason”
of man to think and do what he wants for as long as it does not conflict
with the inherent reason of others. Since in the Philippine colonial situation
there was no liberty, then inherent reason was clouded and converted into
unreason. The native was reduced to docility and servility. The colonial
government would not certainly allow the native’s inherent reason to
flourish; so the only option was to restore the liberty of the past through
violent revolution. In this sense, Jacinto was original.15

NOTES

1. Slightly revised version of the inaugural professional lecture

delivered on 6 March 1996 during the De La Salle University Week in
fulfillment of the Ariston Estrada Sr. II Professorial Chair in Liberal Arts.
The origial version of this lecture was also delivered on 23 October 1996 at
the Ateneo de Manila University during the 17th National Conference on
 6: JACINTO’S LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHY OF REVOLUTION 13

Local and National Histry, which was sponsored by the Philippne National
Historical Society, Historical Institue, Manila Studies Association, and
Ateneo de Manila University. The early version of this paper came out in
Σοφια (1996-97), 1-16) and in Churchill (1999, 9-25).
2. Rizal always believed that a bloody revolution was inopportune
for lack of money, arms, military leaders, and enlightenment. Besides, many
innocent women and children would suffer. On the other hand, Bonifacio
and Jacinto believed that a violent revolution was the only alternative left
to obtain independence.
3.Agoncillo (1956, 122) said that the province of Manila at that time
included nineteen areas—comprising what is now known more or less as
Metro Manila: Caloocan, Las Piñas, Malibay, Mariquina, Montalban,
Muntinglupa, San Jose de Navotas, Novaliches, Parañaque, Pasig, Pateros,
San Pedro, Makati, Taguig, Tambobong, and Manila Proper itself (including
Intramuros).
4. In the article, “Childbirth, hilot, OB-Gyn, and the Filipno doctors,”
Ethel Soliven Timbol (1996) cited Dr. Isidro Benitez, the chairman of the
Makati Medical Center Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, who
traces the history of childberth in the Philippines to the women themselves,
followed by birth attendants or hilots, by midwives, by doctors as general
practitioners, and finally by obstetricians (the specialists). According to
Benitez, even today—for lack of medical doctors—the hilots continue to
attend to 40% of childbirths.
5. Juan Sumulong could not be the best friend of Jacinto to whom the
latter coud confide in that if Jacinto has joined the Katipunan, in all
likelihood so would the former.
6. Santa Cruz as an alternative is still controversial. The National
Historical Institute, which recognizes Mahayhay, will still have to validate
Santa Cruz. It is necessary to distinguish where Jacinto died, where he was
buried, and where his death certificate, if any. was obtained (see Gripaldo
2001, 20).
7. Jacinto used the pen name “Dimas Alan” for this Kalayaan
article.There is a different article with the same title “Pahayag,” but it was
written in 1897 (see Santos 1935, 63-66).
Dr. Isagani Medina, a retired professor (now deceased) from the
University of the Philippines Department of History, gave the information
that Jacinto’s original works have been in the possession of three collectors:
Emmanual Encarnacion, Severina de Asis, and Ramon Villegas. However,
none of them possesses the original copy of “Pahayag” as published in
Kalayaan. When I inquiredd from Severina de Asis if she had in her
collection the original copy of Jacinto’s “Pahayag,” which was published
in Kalayaan (Letter, 16 May 1997), she said, in effect, she has none (Letter,
22 May 1997).
A printed copy of “Pahayag” in Tagalog is found in Almario (1993,
169-63).
14 FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY

8. In connection with my article on Bonifacio’s philosophy of

revolution, I asked Teodoro Agoncillo in January 1984 about a copy of
Kalayaan. He said he tried to secure a copy of it from Spain but could not
get one. Two years after (Gripaldo 1996), Ambeth Ocampo,who had gone
to Spain, informed me that he did research at the secret archives of Madrid,
but he did not find a copy of Kalayaan.
9. The Spanish translation talks only of “proyecto.” It did not mention
the work “Katipunan,” as in Nieva’s translation.
10. What was originally a personal misfortune (the death of Wallace’s
wife in British hands) became a presonal cause for grievance and eventually
a national cause for political independence. [This version of the article
(from the 2004 and 2008 editions) rectifies the 1996 and 2000 versions,
which maintained that Wallace was “hanged.”]
11. Here is the original Tagalog: “Ang kalayaan ng tao ay ang katuirang
tinataglay na talaga ng pakatao, na umisip at gumawa ng ano mang ibiguin
kung ito’y di nalalaban sa katuirang [sic] ng iba.”
12. In Platonism, the soul existed before the body and apprehended
immediately the essences in theWorld of Ideas. When it transmigrated to
the World of Matter, it forgot what it originally knew as true knowledge
and could only recall them with the help of sense perceptions or with the
teacher’s questions and suggestions. In Neo-Patonism (Plotinian
version), matter is the lowest link in the hierarchy of the universe: the
prime essence of the “One” (the Higest Principle, equivalent to Plato’s
“Idea of the Good”), mystically emanates matter. The knowledge of the
One is attanined though mystic ecstasy, but the initial clearing of the
path towards it is aided by experience and reason. The Neo-Platonism of
Boethius is much closer to the Platonic doctrine of remisniscence (see
Knowles 1967, 1: 328-30; Merlan 1967a, 5: 473 and 1967b, 6: 351-59; see
also Boethius 1969, 1-169).
13. It must be noted that in developing the idea of liberty, Jacinto
used the Biblical interpretation. The same is true with his racial interpretation
of equality, which he attributed originally as coming from Jesus Christ
Hiself. To qoute Jacinto (Santos 1935, 30): “‘Kayong lahat ay
magkakapantay, kayong lahat ay magkakapatid’—sinabi ni Cristo” [“‘You
are all equal, you are all brothers’—said Christ.”]
14. Dr. Medina mentioned the 1889 dictionary of Pedro Serrano-
Laktaw entitled Diccionario Hispano-Tagalog (1965a) andthe1914
Diccionario Tagalog-Hispano (1965b), where —according to Medina—
the word “kalayaan” as independence or liberty is found. (Discussion at
the Ateneo de Manila University, 23 October 1996.)
Granting that the Spanish libertad was translated into Tagalog by
Marcelo H. del Pilar in 1892 (see Almario 1997, 2007-2008; cf. Salazar 1997,
37-49) and subsequently used by Rizal thereafter, the Serrano-Laktaw
dictionary did not nullify the Ileto version of “Kalayaan” as “layao.” I
agree with Ileto that the Tagalogs did not have the indigenous concept of
 6: JACINTO’S LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHY OF REVOLUTION 15

liberty (“kalayaan”) prior to the 1789 French Revolution. The de Noceda-

de Sanlucar (1860, 1-285) Vocabulario de la lengua tagala of 1624 will
attest to this. Between 1789 to 1889—a period of 100 years—there were
many Spanish colonies which became independent (such as Argentina in
1816, Chile in 1818, Mexico in 1821, among others) which Filipino reformists
(like Jose Rizal) and revolutionists (like Bonifacio and Jacinto, at least in
the case of Mexico) were aware of (see in this connection, Lynch 1994, 1-
39). Although Filipino reformists and revolutionists knew about the
American revolution of 1775-81 (they read the lives of American presidents),
they were more influenced by the French revolution, especially the slogan
“Liberty, Fraternity, Equality.” By the time of the Propaganda Movement,
the term “kalayaan” as liberty had already been in wide circulaton among
the expatriates in Spain and among the reformists in the Philippines. This
fact is a lexicographic basis of Serrano-Laktaw’s 1889 dictionary, that is,
seven years after Rizal went to Spain in May 1882.
15. We can see at least two parallels of Jacinto’s thinking. The first
category is the belief of Karl Marx that the capitalist would not permit the
proletariat to rise from its alienated and degraded condition because of the
former’s selfish desire to maximize profits and, therefore, the only
alternative for the latter is a bloody revolution. Marx thought this was
inevitable. Jacinto likewise thought—although implicitly—that the
Philippine revolution was inevitable based on the fact that Rizal’s La Liga
Filipina, which basically aimed at a peaceful transformation of the nation
into a united, progressive, and automous one did not prosper. The difference
is that Marx’s thought is grounded on the economic conditions of man
while Jacinto’s thought is grounded on man’s colonial conditions and his
reason. The second idea of parrallelism is Bonifacio’s idea of restoration,
but it was Bonifacio’s idea of economic conditions of the past—not
specifically liberty as Jacinto argued—that would be restored.

REFERENCES

Agoncillo, Teodoro. 1956. The revolt of the masses: the story of Bonifacio and
the Katipunan. Quezon City: University of the Philippines.
________. 1969. A short history of the Philippines. New York: New American
Library; reprint ed. 1975. Caloocan City: National Book Store, Inc.
________.1973. Intoduction. In The revolutionists: Aguinaldo, Bonifacio,
Jacinto. By Epifanio de los Santos. Manila: National Historical Commission.
________.1974.Filipino nationalism 1872-1970. Quezon City: R. P. Garcia
Publishing Co.
________. 1980. Ang Pilipinas at ang mga Pilipino noon at ngayon. Quezon
City: R. P. Garcia Publishing Co. Inc.
________. 1990. History of the Filipino people, 8th ed. Quezon City: R. P.
Garcia Publishing Co.
________ and Oscar M. Alfonso. 1967. History of the Filipino people. Quezon
16 FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY

City: Malaya Books.

________ and Milagros C. Guerrero. 1983. History of the Filipino people, 5th
ed. Quezon City: R. P. Garcia Publishing Co.
Agpalo, Remigio E. 1992. Liwanag at dilim: the political philosophy of Emilio
Jacinto. In Adventures in political science. Quezon City: University of the
Philippine Press and College of Social Sciences and Philosophy.
Almario, Virgilio S. 1997. Panitikan rebolusyon(g 1896). Quezon City:
University of the Philippines Press.
Alzona, Encarnacion, trans. 1990. Historical events of the Philippine Islands,
by Antonio de Morga. Manila: National Historical Institute.
Blair, Emma Helen and James Alexander Robertson, trans. and eds. 1973. The
Philippine islands 1493-1898 [55 vols.]. Vol. 5. Mandaluyong: Cachos
Hermanos, Inc.
Boethius, Anicius. 1969. The consolation of philosophy. Translated by V. E.
Watts. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd.
Braveheart. 1995. Produced and directed by Mel Gibson. A full-length motion
picture.
Caro y Mora, Juan. 1897. “Manifiesto,” by Emilio Jacinto. In Archivo del
bibliofilo filipino [5 vols.], by Wenceslao Retana. Vol. 3. Madrid: Minuesa
de los Rios.
Churchill, Bernardita Reyes, ed. 1999. Revolution in the provinces. Manila and
Quezon City: Philiipine Natinal Historical Society
de Asis, Severina. 1997. Letter to Eden M. Gripaldo, 22 May 1997.
de la Costa,Hracio.1992. Readings in Philippine history.: Selectedhistorical texts
0presented with a cmmentary.Makati:Bookmark.
de los Santos, Epifanio. 1973. The revolutionists: Aguinaldo, Bonifacio, Jacinto,
ed. Teodoro A. Agoncillo. Manila: National Historical Commission.
De Noceda, Juan Jose and Pedro de Sanlucar. 1860.Vocabulario de la lingua
tagala compuesto por varios religioso doctos y graves, y coordinado.
Manila: De Ramirez y Giraudier.
Edwards, Paul, ed. 1967. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 8 vols. S.v. Boethius,
Anicius Manlius Severinus (vol. 1), by David Knowles; Neoplatonism (vol.
5), by Philip Merlan; and Plotinus (vol. 6), by Philip Merlan.
Emilio Jacinto. 2007. Wikipedia. Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Emilio_Jacinto/. Accessed: 20 March 2008.
Emilio Jacinto: Ang “utak” ng katipunan. N.d. Avaliable at http://
www.etaput.com/jacinto01.htm. Accessed: 20 March 2008.
Fox, Robert. 1959. The Philippines in pre-historic times. Manila: UNESCO
National Commission ofthe Philippines.
Gripaldo, Rolando M. 1984. Brief conversation with Teodoro Agoncillo. Faculty
Center, University of the Philippines. Diliman, Quezon City. January.
________. 1996. Brief conversation with Ambeth Ocampo. William Hall, De La
Salle University. September.
________. 1996-97. Libertarian philosophy of revolution. Σοφια 26.
________ and Eden M. Gripaldo. 1997. Letter to Severina de Asis, 16 May
 6: JACINTO’S LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHY OF REVOLUTION 17

1997.
Guerrero, Leon Ma. 1973. El filibusterismo. Hong Kong: Longman Group (Far
East) limited.
Hobbes, Thomas. 1969. Leviathan, ed. John Plamenatz. London: Fontana
Library.
Ileto,Reynaldo C. 1979. Pasyon and revolution. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila
University Press.
Jose Dizon. 2007. Wikipedia. Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Jos%C3%A9_Dizon. Accessed: 20 March 2008.
Knowles, David. 1967. S.v. “Boethius, Anicius Manlius Severinus.”
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 1. Edited by Paul Edwards.New York:
Mcmillan Company and Free Press.
Locke, John. 1993. The second treatise of government. In The political writings
of John Locke. Edited by David Wootton. London: Penguin Books Ltd.
Lynch, John, ed. 1994. Latin American revolutions: 1808-1826. Norman and
London: University of Oklahoma Press.
Majul, Cesar A. 1967. The political and constitutional ideas of the Philippine
revolution. Quezon City: University ofthe Philippines Press.
Manglapus, Raul. 1987. Will of the people. New York: Freedom House.
Marina Dizon-Santiago. N.d. Available at http”//www.geocities.com/
sinupan/Dizon-San M.htm?200820. Accessed: 20 March 2008.
Merlan, Philip. 1967a. S.v. “Neoplatonism.” Enclyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol.
5. Edited by Paul Edwards.New York: Mcmillan Company and Free Press.
________.1967b. S.v. “Plotinus.” Enclyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 6. Edited
by Paul Edwards.New York: Mcmillan Company and Free Press.
Retana y Gamboa, Wenceslao Emilio. 1897. Archivo delbibliofilo filipino. 5
vols. Madrid: Minuesa de los Rios.
Santos, Pedro P. 1935. Buhay at mga sinulat ni Emilio Jacinto. Manila: Jose P.
Bantug.
Santos,Vito C. 1978. Filipino-English Dictionary. Manila: National Bookstore,
Inc.
Salazar, Zeus. 1979. Ang kartilya ni Emilio Jacinto at and diwa ng Filipino sa
agos ng kasyasayan. Quezon City: Palimbagan ng Lahi.
Schumacher, John, S.J. 1987. The Noli me tangere as catalyst of revolution. In
The Noli me tangere a century after: An interdisciplinary perspective.
Edited with an introduction by soledad S. Reyes. Budhi Papers No. 7. Quezn
City: Phoenix Publishing House, Inc.
________. 1991. The propagandists’ reconstruction of the Philippines past. In
The making of a nation: essays on nineteenth-century Filipino nationalism.
Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
________. 1994. “The civic and religious ethic of Emilio Jacinto.” In Morality,
religion and the Filipino, ed. Rene B. Javellana, S.J. Quezon City: Ateneo
de Manila University Press.
Scott, William Henry. 1992. Looking for the prehispanic Filipino. New Day
Publishers.
18 FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY

________. 1994. Barangay. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Serrano-Laktaw, Pedro. 1965a. Diccionario Hispano-Tagalog [1889]. Madrid:
Ediciones Cultura Hispanica.
Serrano-Laktaw, Pedro. 1965a. Diccionario Tagalog-Hispano [1914]. Madrid:
Ediciones Cultura Hispanica.
Timbol, Ethel Soliven, ed. 1996. Childbirth, hilot, OB-Gyn, and the Filipino
doctors. Manila Bulletin, 4 January.
Valenzuela, Pio. 1946. Memoirs of the K.K.K. and the Philippine revolution.
Translated from Spanish to English by Luis Serrano. [Mimeographed.] U. P.
Library.
Watts, V. E., trans. 1969. Introduction. In The consolation of Philosophy, by
Anicius Boethius. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd.