By “Plaridel” (Marcelo H. del Pilar).

Three centuries have passed since the blood of Legaspi and of Sikatuna mingled in a cup of which both partook in token of eternal friendship, thus ratifying their oaths to fuse thenceforward into a single ideal the aspiration of Spain and the Philippines. But the passage of time, instead of making firmer this fusion, has only strengthened the predominance of the religious orders who have turned the islands into a colony exploited by friars.

No one is ignorant of the rebellion of the friars against the highest political and religious authorities of the archipelago; nor is anyone ignorant of the violent death of some, the coercion exercised on others and the vexations visited upon all those who in governing the country have dared to place the interests of the motherland of the Catholic religion before the convents.

The immunity of those implicated and the predominance of the rebellious elements compel the unhappy belief that Spain has already abdicated the sovereignty in favor of Philippine friarism.

So it is worth while to dissipate this erroneous impression. Sad is it to think that the planning of Charles V and Philip II, the efforts of Magellan and Elcano, the sufferings of Villalobos, the prudence and the valor of Legaspi, the sacrifices of Salcedo, Lavezares, Goiti, and the others, only served as a stepping-stone for enthroning the friar orders.

The Filipino people are passing in these moments through an interesting period. Already they have manifested their aversion to the friars, and I believe the time has come to draw attention to the aspirations which palpitate in their bosoms.

On the one hand their future and on the other the attitude of China, Japan and other nations which from Europe and Asia have fixed their gaze on the map of Oceanica, offer to the thoughtful man problems of deep seriousness which perhaps may be resolved in time to forestall and smooth out future difficulties.

Luna’s palette has revived the recollection of the “Blood Compact” between Legaspi and Sikatuna, and the Filipino cannot view without regret the powerful intervention of the friar interests which, blocking every tendency toward fraternity between Spain and the Philippines, are creating a difficult situation by increasing the former’s unfriendliness and the latter’s burdens. For this they rely on the difference of language between the governing and the governed classes; and to maintain that difference, to impede popular instruction and to prevent at all cost that the people and their government shall come to understand each other is the best way to maintain them in perpetual antagonism.

How far this plan has already gone can be estimated by analyzing the relations of the friarocracy with the official institution which makes up the organization of the towns of the Philippines. As everywhere else, in the Philippines the relation of residents to the municipal officers is of the utmost importance. The petty governor, or chief of the village, in each locality constitutes the channel of communication and the agency for carrying out the ideas of the government, and according to the activity or inertness of this element the plan of the higher authorities works out effectively or suffers sad shipwreck.

The parish priest has no vote in these elections, but controls them because in his hands is the veto power. In forwarding the returns for the ratification of the election result, the parish priest makes two reports: one is public in character and is limited to setting forth the grade of instruction of the candidate in the official language; the other is confidential and under no restrictions whatever.

The candidate who has no legal impediment, unless he is of the priest’s following, will turn out disqualified in some other way, thanks to the confidential report. He will be anti-Spanish, an agitator (filibustero), separatist, and if this report cannot be controverted the candidate of the town meeting will be thrown out. The parish priest, in the final result, is master of the situation.

In carrying on their municipal duties, the local authorities are dependent upon the parish priest. For a report on the conduct of a resident, a hundred of the principal men are not enough; the vital point is having the “O. K.” of the parish priest. In turning in the tax rolls of the neighborhood, his signature is necessary. For the calling to the colors of the young men to whom the lot has fallen to serve as soldiers, the parish priest’s “approved;” to validate accounts and other official documents, the parish priest’s “approved;” in everything and for everything there is demanded as the essential requisite the approval of the parish priest.

In exchange there exists no corrective provision which regulates the conditions under which the parish priest may grant or withhold this approval. He grants or withholds it according to his own free will or as he is directed by his ecclesiastical superiors. The chief local authority is the only one on whom falls this burden of regularizing his acts with the indispensable approval of the parish priest. If the parish priest refuses it, then the chief incurs the discipline of his superiors.

Manifold are the functions of the chief local authority in the Philippines. Aside from his judicial duties, he has charge of the administration, of the tax collecting, of the port, etc., and, given the dependence upon the parish priest in which he finds himself, it is not to be wondered at that the latter controls even to the official correspondence, in fact retaining the right to authorize its transmission.

Orders from above are complied with when it so pleases the Most Reverend Parish Priest. If the higher authority attempts to impose and require energetic compliance with his commands, the parish priest communicates it to one of the superiors of his order, and this obtains the overthrowing of the official. For it he has an argument incontrovertible and of magic effect, to wit, that it endangers the national indivisibility. If it is an effort to open a road and the parish priest doesn’t want it, then it endangers the national indivisibility. Or if the public health requires that dead bodies should not be taken into the church, still it is no reason,—it would imperil the national indivisibility.

And in everything, the same tendency.