'Datu Penis' Tag Insulting
By: Recto I. Vidal
“Insulting and downright degrading.” This is how Aklan provincial board member Plaridel Morania described a letter sent by the National Historical Institute to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan here wherein the NHI chairman referred to Datu Kalantiaw as "Datu Penis."
"The NHI's letter was not only insulting to the intelligence of scholars, historical writers, researchers and stakeholders as well as Aklanons in particular. Adding insult to injury is the reference made by NHI chair Ambeth Ocampo to Datu Kalantiaw as Datu Penis," Morania lamented.
In a letter sent to Odon Bandiola, Aklan Sanggunian board secretary, Ocampo cited an NHI resolution "declaring that the Code of Kalantiaw has no valid historical basis."
Ocampo said that "a review of pre-colonial history notably by Mauro Garcia and William Henry Scott and further studies revealed serious inconsistencies, discrepancies and contradictions regarding the existence of Datu Kalantiaw and by extension his alleged code."
Ocampo added that the "only alleged sources supporting the evidence of Datu Kalantiaw namely the Antiguas Leyendas, the 1572 Povedano Map, Pavon manuscripts and other manuscripts were later proven to be 30th century fabrications by Jose E. Marco, and are now regarded as forgeries."
Previously, the Aklan provincial Sanggunian in Kalibo, Aklan passed a resolution wherein it expressed its belief in the credibility of the position paper of Aklanon historian Roman dela Cruz who anchored his dissertation on the historical writings of Digno Alba, member of the board of Textbooks which was reviewed by noted and authoritative historians such as Dr.Jorge C. Bocobo, Dr. Gregorio Zaide, Dr. Eufronio Alip, Dr. Jose Panganiban and Dr.Luis Enriquez rather than the researches and studies of the NHI which was mainly based on the works of lesser known historians like Mauro Garcia and William Henry Scott.
In a letter dated July 28, 2005, Ocampo informed Bandiola that the Institute's position on the Code of Kalantiaw was reached after a thorough deliberation by the NHI Research and Publications Division and the NHI Board following discussion over several years.
"The solution of historical controversy cannot be solved by the mere authoritativeness and preeminence of historians but by research and analysis of the primary sources. This is not a popularity contest. Furthermore, it should be noted that when Dr. William Henry Scott, designated in the resolution as a "lesser known historian" and worse, "a foreigner." First defended his work "A Critical Study on the Prehispanic Source Materials for the Study of Philippine History" at the University of Santo Tomas in 1968, two of his panelists were Dr. Gregorio Zaide and Dr.Eufronio Alip who were both believers in the Kalantiaw Code and are cited by the province of Aklan as authorities on the issue. Scott was not only able to make converts out of these two senior historians but was able to secure grade of "meritissimus" or "excellent" for his doctoral dissertation.
As to the Aklan Board's allegations that the NHI's resolution was unfair and insulting to the intelligence of scholars, historical writers, researchers and Aklanon stakeholders, Ocampo claimed that on the contrary, the NHI "corrects this historical error based on thorough research based on accepted methods of historical investigation."
"It would be worse if the NHI allowed a fraudulent code like Kalantiaw's to be accepted as truth. It is an insult to confer the Order of Kalantiaw given to retiring Filipino jurists. It would also be a greater disservice to millions of students who are made to believe on a deliberately made-fiction presented as fact," Ocampo averred.
As for the people of Aklan being the stakeholders, Ocampo claimed that Kalantiaw, if his life's story were to be believed, is neither from Aklan or Panay but from Himamaylan in Negros.
"It is also embarrassing to note that "lantiaw" in Chinese means "penis" and thus the legendary law giver Ka lantiaw is their 'Datu Penis.' Lantiaw does not exist in any of the Philippine languages," Ocampo disclosed.
The NHI chairman also clarified that it was not the Philippine Historical Institute which recommended to the late President Ramon Magsaysay through Executive Order No. 234 thereby establishing the Kalantiao Shrine in Batan, Aklan.
"According to Executive Order No. 234, issued on February 11, 1957, it was the municipality of Batan, not the PHI which recommended to President Magsaysay to declared the municipal properties as a national shrine. This was very clear in the third paragraph of the Executive Order," Ocampo stressed.
The NHI chair also corrected the Aklan Board's assertion that "under the law and principle of prescription of the right of the National Historical Institute to question the existence of the Code of Kalantiao has already prescribed and because the said Institute should have questioned the matter earlier."
Ocampo said that the law on prescription does not apply in historical research.
"In the study of history, everything is open to new discoveries and findings, or even the re-writing of history. These findings and discoveries may lead to the reinterpretation of history. Recent changes in history are the change of the date of Philippine Independence day from July 4 to June 12; and the anniversaries of government agencies such as the Office of the President, the Philippine Military Academy, the Philippine Navy. These are resisted by certain quarters but these are not meant to distort history but to enrich it and lead to its better understanding," he disclosed.
Ocampo also corrected the perception raised by the Aklan Board that the NHI research was allegedly confined only to the Western World particularly the United States and some few countries of Europe but not in Asia such as Borneo, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan, India, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Greece, Persia as well as in the middle Eastern countries with which the Philippines has close association, historically, culturally, commercially and such as other intercourses, as in trade and economic and social contacts.
"Works by early chroniclers like Ignacio Alcina who wrote about the Bisayan people in the 17th century and other historians like Pedro Chirino and Gaspar de Medina and other documents at the Philippine National Archives and not even precolonial Chinese records such as Ming Shih do not mention Kalantiaw. While the study of history is open to to new discoveries including other countries mentioned in the Sanggunian Resolution, the position of the NHI remains that Kalantiaw and his Code are non-existent." Ocampo maintained.
He added that while the NHI "respect the sentiments of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Aklan, we regret to inform you that we maintain our position regarding Resolution No.12, S.2004 of the NHI Board regarding the Code of Kalantiaw, as we reiterate our offer to meet you and discuss the restructuring of the Kalantiaw Shrine into a museum of Aklan history." /MP mailto:madyaas_pen@yahoo.com
By: Recto I. Vidal
“Insulting and downright degrading.” This is how Aklan provincial board member Plaridel Morania described a letter sent by the National Historical Institute to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan here wherein the NHI chairman referred to Datu Kalantiaw as "Datu Penis."
"The NHI's letter was not only insulting to the intelligence of scholars, historical writers, researchers and stakeholders as well as Aklanons in particular. Adding insult to injury is the reference made by NHI chair Ambeth Ocampo to Datu Kalantiaw as Datu Penis," Morania lamented.
In a letter sent to Odon Bandiola, Aklan Sanggunian board secretary, Ocampo cited an NHI resolution "declaring that the Code of Kalantiaw has no valid historical basis."
Ocampo said that "a review of pre-colonial history notably by Mauro Garcia and William Henry Scott and further studies revealed serious inconsistencies, discrepancies and contradictions regarding the existence of Datu Kalantiaw and by extension his alleged code."
Ocampo added that the "only alleged sources supporting the evidence of Datu Kalantiaw namely the Antiguas Leyendas, the 1572 Povedano Map, Pavon manuscripts and other manuscripts were later proven to be 30th century fabrications by Jose E. Marco, and are now regarded as forgeries."
Previously, the Aklan provincial Sanggunian in Kalibo, Aklan passed a resolution wherein it expressed its belief in the credibility of the position paper of Aklanon historian Roman dela Cruz who anchored his dissertation on the historical writings of Digno Alba, member of the board of Textbooks which was reviewed by noted and authoritative historians such as Dr.Jorge C. Bocobo, Dr. Gregorio Zaide, Dr. Eufronio Alip, Dr. Jose Panganiban and Dr.Luis Enriquez rather than the researches and studies of the NHI which was mainly based on the works of lesser known historians like Mauro Garcia and William Henry Scott.
In a letter dated July 28, 2005, Ocampo informed Bandiola that the Institute's position on the Code of Kalantiaw was reached after a thorough deliberation by the NHI Research and Publications Division and the NHI Board following discussion over several years.
"The solution of historical controversy cannot be solved by the mere authoritativeness and preeminence of historians but by research and analysis of the primary sources. This is not a popularity contest. Furthermore, it should be noted that when Dr. William Henry Scott, designated in the resolution as a "lesser known historian" and worse, "a foreigner." First defended his work "A Critical Study on the Prehispanic Source Materials for the Study of Philippine History" at the University of Santo Tomas in 1968, two of his panelists were Dr. Gregorio Zaide and Dr.Eufronio Alip who were both believers in the Kalantiaw Code and are cited by the province of Aklan as authorities on the issue. Scott was not only able to make converts out of these two senior historians but was able to secure grade of "meritissimus" or "excellent" for his doctoral dissertation.
As to the Aklan Board's allegations that the NHI's resolution was unfair and insulting to the intelligence of scholars, historical writers, researchers and Aklanon stakeholders, Ocampo claimed that on the contrary, the NHI "corrects this historical error based on thorough research based on accepted methods of historical investigation."
"It would be worse if the NHI allowed a fraudulent code like Kalantiaw's to be accepted as truth. It is an insult to confer the Order of Kalantiaw given to retiring Filipino jurists. It would also be a greater disservice to millions of students who are made to believe on a deliberately made-fiction presented as fact," Ocampo averred.
As for the people of Aklan being the stakeholders, Ocampo claimed that Kalantiaw, if his life's story were to be believed, is neither from Aklan or Panay but from Himamaylan in Negros.
"It is also embarrassing to note that "lantiaw" in Chinese means "penis" and thus the legendary law giver Ka lantiaw is their 'Datu Penis.' Lantiaw does not exist in any of the Philippine languages," Ocampo disclosed.
The NHI chairman also clarified that it was not the Philippine Historical Institute which recommended to the late President Ramon Magsaysay through Executive Order No. 234 thereby establishing the Kalantiao Shrine in Batan, Aklan.
"According to Executive Order No. 234, issued on February 11, 1957, it was the municipality of Batan, not the PHI which recommended to President Magsaysay to declared the municipal properties as a national shrine. This was very clear in the third paragraph of the Executive Order," Ocampo stressed.
The NHI chair also corrected the Aklan Board's assertion that "under the law and principle of prescription of the right of the National Historical Institute to question the existence of the Code of Kalantiao has already prescribed and because the said Institute should have questioned the matter earlier."
Ocampo said that the law on prescription does not apply in historical research.
"In the study of history, everything is open to new discoveries and findings, or even the re-writing of history. These findings and discoveries may lead to the reinterpretation of history. Recent changes in history are the change of the date of Philippine Independence day from July 4 to June 12; and the anniversaries of government agencies such as the Office of the President, the Philippine Military Academy, the Philippine Navy. These are resisted by certain quarters but these are not meant to distort history but to enrich it and lead to its better understanding," he disclosed.
Ocampo also corrected the perception raised by the Aklan Board that the NHI research was allegedly confined only to the Western World particularly the United States and some few countries of Europe but not in Asia such as Borneo, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan, India, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Greece, Persia as well as in the middle Eastern countries with which the Philippines has close association, historically, culturally, commercially and such as other intercourses, as in trade and economic and social contacts.
"Works by early chroniclers like Ignacio Alcina who wrote about the Bisayan people in the 17th century and other historians like Pedro Chirino and Gaspar de Medina and other documents at the Philippine National Archives and not even precolonial Chinese records such as Ming Shih do not mention Kalantiaw. While the study of history is open to to new discoveries including other countries mentioned in the Sanggunian Resolution, the position of the NHI remains that Kalantiaw and his Code are non-existent." Ocampo maintained.
He added that while the NHI "respect the sentiments of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Aklan, we regret to inform you that we maintain our position regarding Resolution No.12, S.2004 of the NHI Board regarding the Code of Kalantiaw, as we reiterate our offer to meet you and discuss the restructuring of the Kalantiaw Shrine into a museum of Aklan history." /MP mailto:madyaas_pen@yahoo.com
1 comment:
i totally agree with mr. ambeth ocampo's stand on this matter, being the head of the NHI. i have read Dr. scott's book and it is believable as it is supported by years of study and documents. sometimes, we just have to accept changes in the light of new historical findings. we aklanons are proud of our history and culture, but can we be proud of something that is nonexistent?
Post a Comment