Name: Kadapi, Norhaifa Sarip

Reflection

Upon watching the vedio and reading the article stating that the Philippines was owned by the
Tallanoclan, I recalled from my Philippine history classes that the concept ofPhilippines being
a country happened only during the Spanish time, that in1521, it was discovered by a Portuguese
explorer, Ferdinand Magellan, whowas serving the Spanish crown. He was then killed on a rebellion by a
Datunamed Lapu Lapu in Mactan Island. The Philippines got its name after PrincePhillip of Spain, where
Spain ruled our country for about 356 years. I haven’tencountered anything before that the Philippines
was once ruled by a royalfamily prior to the Spanish times; it was never taught in school. Thus, theclaim
of the Tallanos that they own the Philippines seems to be so surprising.If this is really true, then, why it
wasn’t taught? Why is it only now that thisarises? Is there something behind this that shouldn’t be
known by the Filipinosor is it simply a tale? As I understand from what I read, the Tallanos are claiming
that they own thePhilippines by virtue of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. T-01-4, which isthe Title of
the Philippine Archipelago. Reading the first part of the articlemakes me wonder whether there is a truth
with this claim, though it wasstated in the last part of the title that it exists and was found authentic. I do
nothave sufficient knowledge regarding legal issues, but I am not sure if the saidauthenticated title is
true or is there something that goes beyond beingauthenticated to disprove or to prove the
claims of the Tallanos. As far as Iknow, the title still needs verification to prove its authenticity and
validity.Effective possession of property or control of it is one of the indices ofownership. This claim
of the Tallanos is spurious and bordering lunacy. Whyis this part been neglected from the textbooks that
were used in schoolconsidering that it is an important part of Philippine history that every
Filipinosshould know? Will there be any consequence if this part of history is valid and who will bethe
ones affected? Assuming this claim is true, the ones who will be affectedare us, our nationality as
Filipinos and our sovereignty as a nation. Can theTallano royal family (which means any of its successor
which may be a Britishsince Tallano was married to a British lady) just land grabbed the country
inreference to the said authenticated title? Are we only borrowing lands fromthem? With a mere insight,
we shouldn’t be bothered; our existing governmentcan protect us in this part, and give due-process to
the people. I think the titlewouldn't be enough for the claim because it would be suppressed or
becomevoid through our present Constitution, since in my own opinion, theConstitution
supersedes any law.If indeed worse comes to worst, and any successor of the royal family takesover the
country, the second question is, would they withstand the current power of the people they will
subordinate, and how will they govern? I knowthat in the article the family has a well respected leader in
the character ofKing Luisong, and that the country seemed to be very prosperous in his era.There was no
saying of an uprising back then in his terms. It is maybebecause some of the resources are equally
allotted to the people and alsobecause almost all of his subordinates are family
members/relatives. IfFilipinos are well-known to have respect and submission to their
elders,maybe this is one example why there’s a zero revolt on the ruler. But if we areto imagine this great
royal family running this country today, there will bemany fights for reform in all directions as you can
see in the news since thereare people coming from different families with diversified principles/views.
Theidea of family-oriented ruling is subordinated by nationalistic approach for thecommon good. This
fight for reform or form of revolt will extend up in terms of economicgrowth. Back then, it is pictured in
the article that the Philippines is a wealthycountry since those who were in the ruling power or those
who governed werewealthy together with the rest of their descendants. Given the fact that
themeasurement of the Economic Growth is how much change happened toGDP with the expenditure
approach saying that there must be large personaland government spending, investments and export
over import. Meaning, ifthere’s the royal family having much of the wealth, government spending isjust
equal to personal spending since wealth revolves in all their subordinateswhich are family
members/relatives. In comparison with what’s happeningtoday, if this will be the case where there are
no longer relational ties/bondamong the government and the people. There will only be few who will
bebenefited by the portion of spending. Neither personal nor governmentspending would
contribute to the economy. Hence revolt must be needed tobring back or seek balance in the economy.