MANILA, Philippines—Now that the Records Management and Archives Office (RMAO) has been transformed, by law, into the National Archives of the Philippines, we hope that it will continue the publication program initiated by the late Dr. Domingo Abella in the early 1970s. Abella was a medical doctor who was interested in the history of Bicol. He was not a trained historian or archivist, yet it was his energy and enthusiasm that made a mere records office into a national cultural agency. We can only hope that Congress will see fit to provide the funds for a modern and permanent home for all those historical documents. At the moment, the National Archives squats in the National Library that needs more shelves and storage space for a steadily growing collection of books and other Filipiniana materials.
We have heard horror stories of the odyssey of our archives half a century ago. Whatever survived the Battle for Manila in 1945 was stored in Bilibid prison where it was ravaged by floods, rodents and humidity. Cockroaches and ants ate the gum and glue in bindings, while termites and silverfish feasted on the parchment and paper. Foxing, acid, insects can be cleared with patience and chemicals, but the truly irreversible damage is that inflicted by humans. Old-timers remember how an enterprising employee sold bundles of ancient Spanish documents as scrap paper, with the sturdy paper that survived centuries ending up as “supot” [bags] in Manila markets. Today with the help of a modernization grant from the Kingdom of Spain, our documents are being cleaned, conserved and scanned for greater access.
I am told that the identification and classification of stray documents in the stockroom—estimated to run to a million sheets—is ongoing. I hope a listing will be made available on the Internet or in a printed guide so that Filipinos will know what bits of their past lie in the National Archives. Marietta Chou, acting Archives director, has a lot of work to do.
Two of the significant publications of the National Archives—now out of print and four decades old—are “Catalogo alfabetico de apellidos” (originally published in 1849 and reprinted in 1973) and “Cedulario de Manila” (originally published in 1836 and reprinted in 1973). I have previously written about “Catalogo de Apellidos.” It is an alphabetical listing, consisting of 141 pages with 6 columns containing at least 72 surnames each. The catalogue makes fascinating reading. Mixed with Spanish names like Cruz, Jimenez, Santos, etc. are names from our own languages like Gajasa, Bayot, Bacla, Otot, Tanga, Puqui, Tae, Dilangbutiqui, Baboy, Ongoy, Bajo, Bayag, etc. Some readers think I’m making this up. Find the book, and see and believe.
“Cedulario” is not as funny as “Catalogo,” it being a collection of laws emanating from Spain which governed the City of Manila from 1574 to 1832. It was published by the Archives to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the founding of Spanish Manila in 1971. Ably edited by Nicholas Cushner and Helen Tubangui of the Ateneo de Manila University history department, the book contains the original Spanish text with its archaic orthography and, on the margin, the editors placed an abstract in English. What caught my eye were a handful of laws that explain the titles bestowed on Manila and even a description of its coat of arms.
On June 21, 1574, Philip II approved for the city the title “insigne siempre leal ciudad de Manila” [distinguished and ever loyal city of Manila] originally given by its founder, Miguel Lopez de Legazpi. In the same order, Philip II also approved the name Nuevo Reino de Castilla [New Castille] on the Island of Luzon. All the documents begin with the name of the King and all his titles: “Don Felipe, by the grace of God, King of Castille, Leon, Aragon, the two Sicilies, Jerusalem, Navarra, Granada, Toledo, Valencia, Galicia, Mallorca, Sevilla, Cerdena, Cordova, Corzega, Murcia, Jaen, Algeciras, Gibraltar, Canary Islands, Indias orientales y occidentales; Archduke of Austria; Duke of Borgona, Brabante, Milan; Count of Apsburg, Flanders, Tirol, and Barcelona; Lord of Biscaya and Molina etc.”
On Nov. 19, 1595, this most impressive monarch noted that the governor, the Audiencia, and the cathedral were all found in Manila and thus it was the “cabeza y mas principal” (the head most important city in the Philippines). Then on March 30, 1596 to further give importance to the capital city, Philip II allowed the city to use a coat of arms on all its pendants, shields and flags. This coat of arms is now no more, but its main element, the merlion, is still in use. We often see this strange creature, half lion half fish, in the present symbol of Manila, but we do not know that the coat of arms came with specific colors, not just black and white:
“On the upper half of the [coat of arms] is a gold castle of gold on a red field, with a door and windows in blue, atop the shield a crown. On the lower half, on a blue field is [a figure] half lion half dolphin [a lion’s head on a dolphin’s body] in silver, with colored claws and tongue, the [merlion] holds in its paws an unsheathed sword.”
If the merlion as a symbol of Manila traces its origin way back to 1596, how come it is also the symbol of Singapore? The Singapore merlion is a late 20th-century invention, but it is now better known and recognized than that of Manila. So much for effective marketing.
* * *
Comments are welcome at aocampo@ateneo.edu.
