No, Freddie Aguilar, no!

IT IS possibly the only government instrumentality designed to make national decision-making consequences out of private-sector participation. It is the Philippines’ own attempt to forge an independent government body that oversees culture and the arts. Elsewhere, many countries have adopted their own devices to keep culture and arts governance insulated from fleeting political fortunes.

Why is that? Republic Act No. 7356 explains it as a matter superseding universal principle: “Culture is a manifestation of the freedom of belief and of expression and is a human right to be accorded due respect and allowed to flourish.” That is the essence of the law that created the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) in 1992—“The Filipino national culture shall be: independent, free of political and economic structures which inhibit cultural sovereignty.”

Through a unique four-step process, ordinary citizens are afforded the chance to shape the state of national culture and the arts.

The first step takes place in all the country’s localities from Tawi-Tawi to Batanes when peers submit nominees to the NCCA’s 19 committees: architecture and allied arts, cinema, dance, dramatic arts, literary arts, music, visual arts, archives, art galleries, historical research, libraries and information services, monuments and sites, museums, northern cultural communities, central cultural communities, southern cultural communities, cultural education, language and translation, and communication.

In the second step, cultural workers and artists sitting as members of the 19 committees get to democratically elect their respective committee heads.

The elected committee heads then choose the heads of their respective subcommissions: arts, cultural heritage, cultural communities and traditional arts, and cultural dissemination.

In the final step, democratically elected subcommission heads (this has to be emphasized) automatically sit as members of the Board of Commissioners where the chair is democratically elected (again, the emphasis). An interesting sidebar: Commissioners do not get hefty remunerations; they only receive a honoraria of P5,000 each for “meetings actually attended.” Susmaryosep what loose change, but actually a strategy at keeping the culture and arts sector free from political patronage.

“In the early days of the NCCA, there wasn’t even that amount, except for a tiny transportation allowance if there was a commission meeting,” recalls Felice Prudente Sta. Maria, author, National Museum trustee, Unesco Philippines commissioner, and former NCCA commissioner for cultural heritage.

Despite all the mechanisms to shield the NCCA from political caprice, presidents always made attempts to meddle in its affairs. Gloria Arroyo made her own “insertions” into the NCCA’s list for National Artist. Last Saturday, July 16, was in fact the third anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that shot down her illegal “national artists.” Both Fidel Ramos and Joseph Estrada were known to have inserted as well their own preferred awardees without subjecting them to the rigorous peer-reviewed vetting process.

Noynoy Aquino was no better. He deliberately made known his choice for NCCA chair (the candidate was not elected). We thought that was the worst. But the present administration is proving otherwise. “Change is coming.” The mantra should have been applied not only to ensure the quality of appointees (most of whom belong to an “amateur hour,” as we can clearly see now), but also to get rid of the stain of political patronage once and for all. But lo and behold, comes Freddie Aguilar reportedly as the choice for “NCCA chair.”

Let’s get matters straight: Under the law, the chairmanship of the NCCA is not an appointive position. And the term of office of the present chair, the scholar Felipe Mendoza de Leon (UP professor of arts studies, humanities, aesthetics, semiotics, mythology, social transformation; former project director of the First National Bamboo Music Festival; son of the National Artist for Music Felipe Padilla de Leon), does not end till Dec. 31, 2016. Which brings us to the second point, there simply is no vacancy at the top of the NCCA; the position is not up for grabs.

Aguilar then makes a pitch that his “marching order” was to aim for the creation of a “Department of Culture.” In the NCCA, that is old topic. It has been consistently debated and deliberated on for the past six years, a process in which I had the privilege of participating.

Here is where the very essence of instituting the sovereignty of culture and arts governance must be zealously defended. In a so-called Department of Culture, the secretary will be a presidential appointee, like all Cabinet members. That will automatically remove the NCCA’s built-in invulnerability to political partisanship. Worse, it will immediately and effectively remove private sector participation.

“Appointing” Aguilar as NCCA chair is a flagrant, brazen act of circumventing the law. Dash to smithereens the now-abused mantra—it introduces a dirty element by giving out a chairmanship as a political reward. The position is not a prize for political support, however one is an artist or cultural worker.

Aguilar was asked what to do with the Torre de Manila issue. Feigning expertise, he replied that Rizal’s monument be transferred to the spot across the street where the stone carabaos are. That is certainly a jaw-dropping idea, to say the least; he obviously has no knowledge of RA 10066, the National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009. Naughty netizens quipped: He can ride the carabaos.

Levity aside, Malacañang (the Office of the President), the seat of national law and order, has no authority to circumvent the law. Period.