What makes a nation? A nation is a people bound together, identifying themselves as a single whole. Far too often, those concerned with building the nation mistakenly concern themselves solely with the practical and the tangible: with GDP, military strength, international milestones. And while these are important, they are not the only matters crucial to the wellbeing of a nation. The recent outrage concerning the Captain’s Peak Resort – located in the middle of a part of the Chocolate Hills – is our latest reminder of that fact.
What is it that binds a people together? It is more than laws, labels or lines on a map. While many nations are born, officially, by signatures on a treaty or legislative issuances, in most cases that merely recognizes what was already present in the hearts of the people. Absent the bonds among people, no true nation can be said to exist – the proof of that is in the many nations in the past that have splintered and shattered when their people turned against each other.
What binds the hearts of people together and transforms individuals into a nation is a shared heritage. The word “heritage” is not a simple word, used as it is to describe everything from monuments to cooking styles, from buildings to naming conventions. But while the objects that it may be applied to are myriad, the core meaning of the word is clear enough – an attitude of respect and reverence for something that connects us with a shared past. Heritage is something that is “inherited,” something that is passed on to us from previous generations and that places us in a continuum with them, as part of the same community. Heritage is a link to the past, one that forms a part of our identity in the present and at the same time makes us responsible for preserving it for the future. Protecting our heritage is one of the indispensable duties of the State and of its citizens.
This is why the footage of the private Captain’s Peak Resort in the middle of the Chocolate Hills stirred such outrage in the hearts of many Filipinos. It’s similar to many other incidents where private interests have clashed with the perceived preservation of an aspect of heritage, such as when the Torre de Manila building was constructed near the Rizal Monument. And, as with the Torre incident – which the Supreme Court ultimately resolved in favor of the construction of the building – it is illustrative of the need for better protection for our heritage.
In the case of both the Captain’s Peak Resort and the Torre de Manila, the structures were built on privately owned land and meaningful action was only taken after much time and resources had been expended in building the structures – and in the case of the Captain’s Peak Resort it had been in operation for years before the footage of it went viral last month. While both instances riled the public, it is difficult to say that the legal issues were black and white. In the case brought against Torre de Manila, the Supreme Court held that there was no prohibition against the obstruction of sightlines and vistas of claimed heritage properties; and when it comes to the Captain’s Peak Resort, while the Chocolate Hills are a protected area, there remain private lots and permitted types of construction in the area.
Yet the public reaction makes it clear that for important objects of heritage such as the Rizal Monument and the Chocolate Hills, the government must go beyond merely protecting the objects themselves. The value of objects of heritage such as the Chocolate Hills and the Rizal Monument are such that even the environment and vista around them must receive some form of protection. To be fair to those with property rights that may be affected by the same, these protections should be clear and explicit. However, they must also include the right of the public to be informed about plans that may impact how these objects of heritage are experienced and appreciated – before they are approved by the government, before ground is broken, before the first stone is laid.
Further, in cases where the protection involves private compliance with strict regulations, there must be regular coordination between the various government agencies concerned. Red tape or bureaucratic oversight cannot and should not lead to orders of the government being ignored by private parties. This is exactly what happened with the Captain’s Peak Resort, where it is unclear whether important documents such as the DENR’s Temporary Closure Order or Notice of Violation were ever furnished to local governments or local authorities. Protection is not merely about a glut of legal provisions, but the efficient and wholistic enforcement of the law as well.
Should the government alone be insufficient, then it must seek to form alliances with NGOs and private individuals. The public reaction to threats to our shared heritage should make it clear that the government will find no shortage of allies and, in fact, much of the effective action taken in these cases has involved, or been spurred by, private individuals and organizations. It is ordinary people that, day in and day out, pay their respects to objects of our heritage and it is the people who notice first if something is amiss. There must be a more streamlined and effective way for the public to air any concerns about the state of objects of our heritage – it should be clear whom they should call and what assistance they can provide.
What unites a nation? Our shared heritage. And the responsibility to make sure that heritage is preserved is also shared amongst us. The government must provide a clear and efficient structure where all of us, in the private and public spheres, can do our part to safeguard the identity of our nation.