Asia-Pacific Social Science Review 17(3) 2018, pp.

15-29

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Mabini’s “True Decalogue” and the

Morality of Nationalism
Napoleon M. Mabaquiao, Jr.
De La Salle University, Philippines
[email protected]

Abstract: For its significant role in legitimizing the Philippine revolution in 1898, the place of Apolinario Mabini’s “True
Decalogue” in Philippine history is already well secured. In this essay, I, however, demonstrate the continuing relevance
of this work in current discussions on the morality of nationalism. After explicating its arguments for why nationalism
should be regarded as a moral imperative, I explore how it handles the issue concerning the moral justifiability of national
partiality—referring to the partiality of a person to the interests of his/her own country and co-nationals. Using a combination
of content, logical, and comparative types of analysis as a method, I first exhibit the philosophical character of this work in
terms of both substance and form, after which I compare and contrast of its insights and views with some other perspectives
on the morality of nationalism. In the main, I show that Mabini’s work endorses a universalist type of nationalism, utilizes
both instrumentalist and non-instrumentalist modes of reasoning, and anticipates some of the critical considerations in
reconciling national partiality with the standard view, called moral universalism, which states that moral principles should
apply equally to persons of all kinds.

Keywords: Apolinario Mabini, True Decalogue, nationalism, national partiality, morality of nationalism

Apolinario Mabini (1864–1903) has been aptly of the Philippines (see Agoncillo, 1964, p. 23). Mabini
called “The Sublime Paralytic” for beneath his frail also became the country’s first Prime Minister and
and semi-paralyzed body (brought about by polio) was Secretary of Foreign Affairs during the revolutionary
one powerful and profound mind. And for utilizing government of Aguinaldo, and when later on this
this great mind for the noble cause of fighting for his government was changed into a republic, Mabini
nation’s independence, he has been widely regarded as headed its first cabinet. As a political philosopher,
one of the “brains of the Philippine revolution.” One of however, his significant contributions lie in his
his important achievements in this regard was being the writings aimed at legitimizing the Philippine revolution
chief adviser of Emilio Aguinaldo—the first president in 1898—that such a movement was guided by a

Copyright © 2018 by De La Salle University

16 N. Mabaquiao, Jr.

collective vision of the national good and motivated Decalogue). While the historical value of this work is
by an authentic love of one’s own country. Mabini, in widely acknowledged, its beauty and substance have
the words of Silliman (1965, p. 4), “saved the events not been fully explored. What we usually have are
of 1898 from being merely labelled ‘uprisings’ by general remarks about what the Decalogue is all about
presenting a theory of revolution….” or what it hopes to accomplish and some analyses
Mabini conceived of a true revolution as consisting of how it may have been influenced by the political
of two necessary and intimately connected aspects: ideas of certain European Enlightenment thinkers
the external and the internal. The objective of the (see, for instance, Silliman, 1965; Magdamo, 1965).
revolution in its external aspect, called external In his seminal work on Mabini, Majul (1996) devoted
revolution by Mabini, is to drive the colonizers out of a section on the Decalogue. But in the 11 pages that
the country; while its objective in its internal aspect, consist this section (pp. 126–136), Majul touched on
called internal revolution by Mabini, is to change those the specific contents of the Decalogue only when he
features of our consciousness responsible for making summarized the work in just one paragraph (pp. 130–
us easy victims to our colonizers. Majul (1996, p. 127) 131). The rest of the section elaborates on the historical
expounded, role and general objectives of the Decalogue. There
is apparently no close examination or analysis of the
Besides being the expression of a people specific contents of the Decalogue. For instance, how
challenging an old regime, the Revolution do the various kinds of love that Mabini talked about
was to be both a technique for the attainment in the work—namely, love of God, love of one’s honor,
of independence and a process for the moral love of country and countrymen, and love of one’s
development of a people. Mabini termed neighbor—relate to one another? Or how plausible or
the Revolution, considered a technique to
consistent are the justifications that Mabini provided
overthrow foreign domination, external
for these various kinds of love? Still, what grounds
revolution. As a process to do away with the
mental climate that depressed the people and to nationalism or love of country as a moral ought for the
free them from the fetters of habits and vices Decalogue, and what is the relevance of the Decalogue,
that make it easier for them to be ruled by as a work on the morality of nationalism, in light of
foreigners, the Revolution was termed internal emerging ethical issues concerning nationalism?
revolution. These two aspects of the Revolution In general, the studies done thus far on the
were viewed by Mabini as so inextricably Decalogue are mostly historical: the history of the
related that by neglecting one or the other text and the role of the text in Philippine history.
success was impossible. This, apparently, is a natural result of seeing the work
solely in light of Mabini being a national hero. On
Zaide (1964, p. 59) put this as follows: “The closer examination, the value of this work, however,
external revolution was our libertarian struggle to is much more than the historical. In this essay, I thus
overthrow alien rule so that our people may regain try to fill in what I consider to be a significant gap in
their freedom, while the internal revolution was the the literature on the work: what it offers as a way of
social regeneration of our people so that they may dealing with certain substantive issues concerning
be worthy of freedom.” Consequently, Mabini’s nationalism and political morality. In this regard, I try
two seminal works, namely, the “Ordenanzas de la to see the work in light of Mabini being a profound
Revolucion” and the “Verdadero Decalogo” (Mabini, Filipino thinker dealing with complex philosophical
1931), provided the necessary justifications as well issues (such as how love of God coheres with love of
as guidelines for carrying out the goals of these two country, and love of neighbor with the duty to defend
aspects of the revolution: the former the goal of the the sovereignty of one’s country from colonizers) in
external revolution, the latter that of the internal one order to construct a systematic and well-grounded
(see Majul, 1996, p. 135). framework for why Filipinos should love their country
This essay shall focus on the “El Verdadero as a matter of moral obligation.
Decalogo” (“True Decalogue,” henceforth simply as
Mabini’s “True Decalogue” and the Morality of Nationalism 17

My objective, in particular, is two-fold: first, 24, 1898 (Batungbacal, 1956, p. 100). Mabini wrote
to expose the philosophical nature of Mabini’s the Decalogue first in Spanish, but due to his ardent
work, and second, to demonstrate its relevance in desire for more Filipinos to understand his work, he
current philosophical discussions on the morality of later on also wrote it in English and Tagalog (Cuasay,
nationalism, focusing on the questions of what makes 1974, p. 109). What follows, which shall be the main
nationalism a moral imperative and what morally reference for our study and analysis of the Decalogue,
justifies the partiality inherent in nationalism. After is the full text of the work in its English version (as
explicating its arguments for why nationalism should quoted in Orosa & del Castillo, 1964, p. 4):
be regarded as a moral imperative, I explore how it
handles the issue concerning the moral justifiability First. Thou shalt love God and thy honor above
of national partiality—the partiality of a person to the all things; God as the fountain of all truth, of all
interests of his or her own country and countrymen— justice and of all activity; thy honor, the only
which prima facie contradicts a standard view power which will oblige thee to be truthful, just
and industrious.
regarding morality, called moral universalism, which
states that moral principles should apply equally to
Second. Thou shalt worship God in the form
persons of all kinds. which thy conscience may deem most righteous
This study utilizes a method that combines content, and worthy: for in thy conscience, which
logical, and comparative types of analysis. In the condemns thy evil deeds and praises thy good
context of this study, content analysis examines the ones, speaks thy God.
meanings of the concepts constituting Mabini’s work,
logical analysis examines the structure and overall Third. Thou shalt cultivate the special gifts
coherence of this work, and comparative analysis which God has granted thee, working and
examines how this work relates to other works on the studying according to thy ability, never
morality of nationalism. The discussion divides into leaving the path of righteousness and justice,
three main parts: the first introduces the Decalogue as in order to attain thy own perfection, by means
a text and as a historical treasure, the second exhibits whereof thou shalt contribute to the progress of
humanity: thus, thou shalt fulfill the mission to
the character of the Decalogue as a philosophical
which God has appointed thee in this life and
work both in terms of form (or structure) and content
by so doing, thou shalt be honored, and being
(or subject matter), and the third relates the insights honored, thou shalt glorify thy God.
of the Decalogue with the various viewpoints on the
morality of nationalism. It is shown that Mabini’s Fourth. Thou shalt love thy country after God
work endorses a universalist type of nationalism, and thy honor and more than thyself: for she
utilizes both instrumentalist and non-instrumentalist is the only Paradise which God has given thee
types of argumentation in advancing certain views in this life, the only patrimony of thy race, the
on the morality of nationalism, and anticipates some only inheritance of thy ancestors and the only
of the critical considerations in reconciling national hope of thy posterity; because of her, thou hast
partiality with moral universalism. Mabini’s work, life, love and interests, happiness, honor and
on the whole, is shown to be more than just a set God.
of patriotic injunctions, for it is at the same time a
Fifth. Thou shalt strive for the happiness of
coherent philosophical work that provides a moral
thy country before thy own, making of her the
justification for nationalism that is still relevant today.
kingdom of reason, of justice and of labor: for
if she be happy, thou, together with thy family,
Text and History shalt likewise be happy.

Mabini wrote the Decalogue sometime in May 1898 Sixth. Thou shalt strive for the independence
(Cuasay, 1974, p. 109); and it was published on June of thy country: for only thou canst have any
18 N. Mabaquiao, Jr.

real interest in her advancement and exaltation, (in which the vision and motivation of the revolution
because her independence constitutes thy own are clear) as they fight for their freedom and the
liberty; her advancements, thy perfection; and sovereignty of their nation. And he, in fact, made
her exaltation, thy own glory and immortality. this clear in his preface to the Tagalog version of the
Decalogue (Mabini, 1921, p. 3), thus: “[B]agama’t
Seventh. Thou shalt not recognize in thy
ako’y hindi si Moises at di rin namamansag na
country the authority of any person who has not
tagapagbatas ng ating bayan, ay naghahanay ako sa
been elected by thee and by thy countrymen:
iyong pagkukuro ng sampung katotohanan, na ang
for authority emanates from God, and as
God speaks in the conscience of everyman, pagkakilala’t pagsasagawa nito’y maghahatid sa atin
the person designated and proclaimed by the sa pagtatamo ng pinakananasang kalayaan, o kaya’y ng
conscience of a whole people, is the only one pangakong Kasarinlan.” We can translate these remarks
who can use true authority. into English as follows: “[T]hough I am not Moses and
likewise not aspring to be the lawgiver of our nation,
Eight. Thou shalt strive for a Republic and I am offering for your consideration ten truths, which
never for a Monarchy in thy country: for the when recognized and followed would lead us to the
latter exalts one or several families and founds attainment of the freedom that we have been hoping
a dynasty; the former makes a people noble and for, or of the promised Sovereignty.”
worthy through reason, great through liberty, These same remarks also shed light on why Mabini
and prosperous and brilliant through labor.
qualified his Decalogue as “true.” For surely it would
be asked, in what sense are its teachings true? To my
Ninth. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself:
mind, Mabini regarded the teachings of his Decalogue
for God has imposed upon him, as well as
upon thee, the obligation to help thee and not as true only in the sense of being “appropriate”—
to do unto thee what he would not have thee that is, as appropriate ways for Filipinos, given the
to do unto him: but if thy neighbor, failing in circumstances they were in at the time, to carry out the
this sacred duty, attempts against thy life, thy internal revolution. Furthermore, Mabini, in qualifying
liberty and thy interest, then thou shalt destroy his Decalogue as true, did not imply the falsity of
and annihilate him for the supreme law of self- the Mosaic Decalogue or its inferiority to his own
preservation prevails. Decalogue. This point is clarified when he noted that
he does not claim to be a Moses or the lawgiver for
Tenth. Thou shalt consider thy countryman his country. The reference to Moses was only intended
more than thy neighbor; thou shalt see in him to give an analogy in terms of laying down guidelines
thy friend, thy brother or at least thy comrade,
to achieve freedom and autonomy—if for the Mosaic
with whom thou art bound by one fate, by
Decalogue it was for the freedom and autonomy of
the same joys and sorrows and by common
the Israelites from the Egyptians, for Mabini’s it was
aspirations and interests.
for the freedom and autonomy of the Filipinos from
Therefore, as long as national frontiers subsist, their colonizers then. This point, incidentally, shows
raised and maintained by the selfishness of race the gross mistake of Mariano Sevilla’s objection to
and of family, with thy countrymen alone shalt Mabini’s Decalogue. For according to Sevilla, in the
thou unite in a perfect solidarity of purpose words of Majul (1996, p. 134), “… even the title solely
and interest, in order to have force, not only to considered was heretical, impious, and blasphemous,
resist the common enemy but also to attain all and a manifest offense against the very people to
the aims of human life. whom it was being offered… that to qualify Mabini’s
Decalogue with the word ‘true’ was to assert that the
Mabini, as earlier noted, intended his Decalogue Mosaic Decalogue was false, and hence also the god
as a guide for Filipinos in carrying out the internal of the Christians.”
revolution—to put them in the right frame of mind
Mabini’s “True Decalogue” and the Morality of Nationalism 19

Now in 1898, the Revolutionary Congress of the scholars also speak of four pieces of writing that
Philippines deliberated on what would serve as the Mabini could have possibly patterned his Decalogue
constitution of the Philippines. A constitution was on, or which could have possibly inspired its content
needed to pave the way for the transition of the form and form. The first is the Mosaic Decalogue—as
of government that the country had during such time, Quirino (1964, p. 33) noted, “Mabini’s True Decalogue
from a revolutionary one to a republic. There were is, of course, a definite echo of the Hebraic Ten
several proposed constitutions, and one of which was Commandments given to Moses at Mt. Sinai some
written by Mabini. As a prologue to Mabini’s proposed three thousand years ago. Since it is the basis of
constitution, his supporters used the Decalogue. But Christian-Hebrew religion he reworded it to make
because the Decalogue was perceived to be advancing of it the groundwork for Filipino nationalism.” The
freedom of religion and his proposed constitution second, as Mabini was a member of the Masonry, is the
was advancing the separation of the church and the Codigo Moral Masonic or the Masonic Moral Code—
state, Mabini’s proposed constitution encountered a as Silliman (1965, p. 9) noted: “The significance of
number of criticisms and eventually lost to the one by Masonry in the thought of Mabini is shown in the fact
Felipe Calderon. One of those who severely criticized that the moral rules in his ‘True Decalogue’ closely
Mabini’s proposed constitution, centering on the resemble some of the rules of the ‘Codigo Moral
Decalogue, was the Filipino priest named Mariano Masonic’ of the Grand Oriente Español.” Silliman,
Sevilla. Sevilla charged the Decalogue of dishonoring however, did not spell out which rules in Mabini’s
the name of God for placing the love of God on the Decalogue he thought closely resemble which rules
same level as the love of one’s own dignity (see Majul, in the Codigo Moral Mosanico. The third and fourth
1996, p. 134—we shall later on explain why this point are the two Katipunan primers written respectively
of Sevilla resulted from a superficial reading of the by Andres Bonifacio and Emilio Jacinto—referring
Decalogue). Be that as it may, Mabini still managed to to Bonifacio’s “Ang Dekalogo ng Katipunan” and
enforce his views on governmental policies, especially Jacinto’s “Ang Kartilya ng Katipunan.” In light of
his view on the separation between the church and the these two earlier texts by Bonifacio and Jacinto,
state. As Schumacher (1991, p. 200) narrated, Mabini’s Decalogue is regarded as the third among the
“decalogues” (the sets of rules intended to guide the
From June 1898 to January 1899, two views of conduct of Filipinos during the Philippine revolution
religious policy struggled for supremacy: that were generally referred to as “decalogues” despite the
of Mabini (and to some extent Buencamino), fact that Jacinto’s set consisted of more than ten rules).
executed largely through Fr. Gregorio Aglipay; De los Santos (1973, pp. 97–98) noted,
and that pursued by Fr. Mariano Sevilla with
the aid of Felipe Calderon and other laymen. Before the approval of the famous Cartilla
By January 1899 Mabini had come to power (primer) of Emilio Jacinto, Andrés Bonifacio
after having won against the Sevilla party in had already prepared a similar primer, but he
the questions of civil marriage, the appointment withdrew it because Emilio Jacinto’s seemed
of Aglipay as military vicar-general and better to him. Don Andrés did not call his primer
ecclesiastical governor of Nueva Segovia decalogue, though it was one in appearance,
diocese, and the separation of church and state. but simply Katungkulang Gagawin ng Z. Ll.
Through these means Mabini achieved his B. (Duties of the S(ons) of the P(eople)…The
objective of putting the church at the disposal Verdadero Decalogo of Mabini is therefore the
of the state. third of the decalogues. The first was Andrés
Bonifacio’s and the second Emilio Jacinto’s.
The Decalogue is said to have many influences. In
addition to the influence of the ideas of the European One may surmise that Mabini, guided by the
Enlightenment thinkers on Mabini’s overall political libertarian (or emancipating) spirit of the European
philosophy (see Silliman, 1965; Magdamo, 1965), Enlightenment, must have combined the spirit of each
20 N. Mabaquiao, Jr.

of these four texts together to form the essence of his work that advances views on related topics. To show
own Decalogue: say the religious spirit of the Christian that the Decalogue is one such philosophical work, we,
Ten Commandments (where the ethical is subsumed therefore, need to demonstrate, among others, that (a)
under the religious), the humanist spirit of the Masonic the ideas advanced by the Decalogue form a coherent
Moral Code (where the ethical is subsumed under system and are backed up by arguments and (b) that
the religious through the mediation of honor, clean the issues it deals with are philosophical in nature. In
conscience, and good deeds), and the nationalistic spirit short, we need to show the philosophical nature of the
of the Bonifacio–Jacinto Katipunan primers (where the Decalogue both in form and content. To begin with,
ethical and the religious are fused with love of country it shall be observed that the Decalogue speaks of five
and countrymen). kinds of love which are advanced as values, namely,
As for the historical value of the Decalogue, the (1) Love of God, tackled in the first, second, and third
following remarks by the following notable Filipino commands; (2) Love of one’s dignity or honor, tackled
historians and scholars best account for it. Zaide (1964, in the first and third commands; (3) Love of one’s
pp. 60–61) wrote that the Decalogue “was one of country, tackled in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eight
the noblest documents of the Philippine revolution”; commands; (4) Love of one’s countryman, tackled in
Quirino (1964, p. 33) said that it is “the groundwork the tenth command; and (5) Love of one’s neighbor,
for Filipino nationalism”; Bacobo (1964, p. 99) wrote tackled in the ninth command.
that “the influence of the precepts of the Decalogue One striking feature of the Decalogue, which sets it
at that time was tremendous; men of all ranks looked apart from its predecessors (the Katipunan primers of
upon them as the true expression of the overruling spirit Bonifacio and Jacinto, the Mosaic Decalogue, and the
of that movement”; Cuasay (1974, p. 114) remarked Masonic Moral Code), is that it does not only consist of
that if it so happened that the Decalogue was the only commands that seek to cultivate certain values; rather,
work written by Mabini in his entire life, it would be it also provides (1) reasons or arguments for why it is
sufficient for his noble name to be written, as it were, important to cultivate such values and (2) ways for how
in the hearts of the Filipinos; Batungbacal (1956, p. to best cultivate these values. In some instances, it also
100) wrote that it “breathes the most exalted spirit of provides (3) justifications for why such values are best
patriotism”; and Del Castillo (1964, pp. 114, 115) held cultivated in certain ways. Mabini, as it were, did not
that it “became the Bible of the rebels” and explained, only wants us to follow certain rules; he also wanted us
“Nowhere in the writings of any Filipino had one seen to understand why we ought to follow such rules, and
such clarity and loftiness of thought. Mabini’s True to know how such rules are to be carried out properly.
Decalogue can easily outmatch any similar political To clearly see and properly appreciate this feature
tract. Mabini expressed his noble conception in of the Decalogue, I have, in what follows, arranged
language which the people could never forget. Even its content in the following manner. First, the values
without his other writings, the True Decalogue would being cultivated (the kinds of love) are clearly stated.
remain a fitting monument for him.” Second, the ideas of the Decalogue under each value
are arranged according to: (1) why a value ought to be
Structure and Content cultivated, (2) how a value ought to be cultivated, and,
for some values, (3) why a value ought to be cultivated
To speak of the relevance of the views of the in a certain way.
Decalogue in current philosophical discussions on
the morality of nationalism is to assume that the
Decalogue, first and foremost, is one philosophical
Mabini’s “True Decalogue” and the Morality of Nationalism 21

1. Love of God

Why should we love God? Because God is “the fountain of all truth, of all justice and of
all activity.” (Mabini, 1964, p. 4)

How should we love God? “[I]n the form which thy conscience may deem most righteous
and worthy.” (Mabini, 1964, p.4)

And why in this manner? “[F]or in thy conscience, which condemns thy evil deeds and
praises thy good ones, speaks thy God.” (Mabini, 1964, p. 4)

2. Love of One’s Honor

Why should we love our own honor? Because it is “the only power which will oblige thee to be
truthful, just and industrious.” (Mabini 1964, p. 4)

How should we love our own honor? By cultivating “the special gifts which God has granted thee,
working and studying according to thy ability, and never leaving
the path of righteousness and justice, in order to attain thy own
perfection.” (Mabini, 1964, p. 4)

And why in these manners? “[B]y means whereof thou shalt contribute to the progress of
humanity: thus, thou shalt fulfill the mission to which God has
appointed thee in this life and by so doing, thou shalt be honored,
and being honored, thou shalt glorify thy God.” (Mabini, 1964,
p.4)

3. Love of One’s Country

Why should we love our own country? “[F]or she is the only Paradise which God has given thee in this
life, the only patrimony of thy race, the only inheritance of thy
ancestors and the only hope of thy posterity; and because of her,
thou hast life, love and interests, happiness, honor and God.”
(Mabini, 1964, p. 4)

How should we love our own country? By: (a) striving “for the happiness of thy country before thy
own, making of her the kingdom of reason, of justice and of
labor”; (b) striving “for the independence of thy country”;
(c) “not recognizing in thy country the authority of any person
who has not been elected by thee and by thy countrymen”; and
(d) striving “for a Republic and never for a Monarchy in thy
country.” (Mabini 1964, p. 4)

And why in these manners? For (respective to each item above): (a) “if she be happy, thou,
together with thy family, shalt likewise be happy”; (b) “only
thou canst have any real interest in her advancement and
22 N. Mabaquiao, Jr.

exaltation, because her independence constitutes thy own liberty;

her advancements, thy perfection; and her exaltation, thy own
glory and immortality”; (c) “authority emanates from God, and
as God speaks in the conscience of everyman, the person
designated and proclaimed by the conscience of a whole people,
is the only one who can use true authority”; and (d) “the latter
exalts one or several families and founds a dynasty; the former
makes a people noble and worthy through reason, great through
liberty, and prosperous and brilliant through labor.” (Mabini,
1964, p. 4)

4. Love of One’s Countryman

Why should we love our countryman? Because “with whom thou art bound by one fate, by the same
joys and sorrows and by common aspirations and interests.”
(Mabini, 1964, p. 4)

How should we love our countrymen? By considering “thy countryman more than thy neighbor; thou
shalt see in him thy friend, thy brother or at least thy comrade.”
(Mabini, 1964, p. 4)

5. Love of One’s Neighbor

Why should we love our neighbor? “[F]or God has imposed upon him, as well as upon thee, the
obligation to help thee and not to do unto thee what he would
not have thee to do unto him.” (Mabini, 1964, p. 4)

How should we love our neighbor? “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself … but if thy neighbor,
failing in this sacred duty, attempts against thy life, thy liberty
and thy interest, then thou shalt destroy and hilate him for the
reme law of self-preservation prevails.” (Mabini 1964, p. 4)

Another striking feature of the Decalogue is that the honor, being higher than the love of one’s country,
values it promotes form a hierarchy. The first being the should be preferred.
most important, this hierarchy is as follows: first, love At this point, let us digress a little to deal with
of God; second, love of one’s honor; third, love of one’s Sevilla’s criticism against the Decalogue that its first
country; fourth, love of one’s countryman; and fifth, commandment dishonors the name of God “because it
love of one’s neighbor. Being so arranged, possible placed one’s honor in the same level or category with
conflicts among these values can easily be resolved: the God” (Majul, 1996, p. 134). Sevilla’s point can easily
higher value overrides the lower one. For instance, if be shown to be mistaken. What we are only allowed
a conflict arises between the love of one’s countryman to infer from the statement “Thou shalt love God and
and love of one’s country, love of one’s country, being thy honor above all things…” (Mabini 1964, p. 4)
higher than the love of one’s countrymen, should be is that love of God and love of one’s honor are both
preferred. Or if a conflict arises between the love of higher in value than the other kinds of love valued in
one’s honor and love of one’s country, love of one’s the Decalogue. But being both higher in value than
Mabini’s “True Decalogue” and the Morality of Nationalism 23

the other kinds of love does not necessarily mean and that, according to their privileged knowledge of the
that relative to one another they have the same value. will of God, it was God’s will for Filipinos to submit to
When we say, for instance, that numbers 9 and 10 are their rule. The Filipinos then were torn between their
both higher than numbers 1 to 8, we obviously do not love for God and their love for their own freedom and
mean as well that 9 and 10, relative to one another, are country, for they were made to believe that these two
equal. But what supports the view that love of God is loves were in conflict, and since love of God should
indeed higher in value than love of one’s honor? If we be prioritized they had to put aside their love of their
will compare the reasons for why we should love God country. Consequently, Filipinos believed that to fight
“God as the fountain of all truth, of all justice and of the Spaniards for their freedom was to go against the
all activity” [Mabini 1964, p. 4] and for why we should will of God.
love our honor [“the only power which will oblige thee With this conflict of values, the Filipinos then were
to be truthful, just and industrious” (Mabini, 1964, p. not in the right frame of mind to stage a revolution.
4), the reasons for the former are obviously greater in The beauty and power of the Decalogue, thus, is that
magnitude compared to those for the latter. it shows that these two loves—love of God and love of
Furthermore, in the third commandment, this is country—are not really in conflict. It tells us that love
what the Decalogue states: “…thou shalt fulfill the of country is a necessary consequence of love of God,
mission to which God has appointed thee in this life such that if we truly love God then we should love our
and by so doing, thou shalt be honored, and being country. Nationalism thus is a moral imperative with
honored, thou shalt glorify thy God” (Mabini, 1964, a divine justification. The Decalogue further tells us
p. 4). It is clear here that Mabini regards love of one’s that we should love our country because our country
honor as the appropriate means to achieve genuine love is the only Paradise that God has given us in this life,
of God. The idea is that a person who truly loves God the only patrimony of our race, the only inheritance
is an honorable person. Since the value of a means can of our ancestors, and the only hope of our posterity;
only be secondary to the value of its end, the value of and because it is through our country that we have life,
love of one’s honor, being merely a means to achieve love and interests, happiness, honor, and God. Loving
genuine love of God, can only be secondary to the God then implies loving and caring for the paradise
value of love of God. and context for the fullness of our being that God has
Now, that love of country is third in the hierarchy is prepared and designed for us.
stated in the fourth commandment: “Thou shalt love thy We earlier dealt with how the Decalogue sees
country after God and thy honor…” (Mabini, 1964, p. the relationship between love of God and love of
4). One fundamental presupposition of the Decalogue one’s honor. To recall, for the Decalogue, it is the
is that we can only truly love our own country if we honorable person’s love of God that is genuine. Now
understand why we have to do so. In the Decalogue, the Decalogue further states that if we are to maintain
this basically means seeing how such kind of love our honor, we have to act according to the dictates of
significantly relates to the other kinds of love that we our conscience—which for the Decalogue refers to
so value, such as our love for God, our honor, and the voice of God within us. As the Decalogue puts
neighbors. Nationalism, to be taken seriously, needs to it: “Thou shalt worship God in the form which thy
be situated in our system of values. That our love for conscience may deem most righteous and worthy: for
our country should not conflict with our love for God, in thy conscience, which condemns thy evil deeds and
in particular, is so important for us in light of the fact praises thy good ones, speaks thy God” (Mabini, 1964,
that religion was used by the Spaniards to colonize us. p. 4). Again, in the context of the Spanish colonization
On the whole, we, Filipinos, are God-loving people, of our country, Mabini here is speaking of the conflict
but this quality of ours was used by the Spaniards to between what the Spanish friars were saying about the
colonize us. The Spaniards, especially the friars, were will of God and what God’s voice within the minds and
able to convince the majority of Filipinos during such hearts of the Filipinos was telling them. And again, as
time that they were privileged to know the will of God, the Filipinos were convinced by the friars that they
24 N. Mabaquiao, Jr.

(the Spaniards) knew the will of God, Filipinos, out of our neighbor. In short, if our neighbors violated our
their love for God, had to disregard the dictates of their life, liberty, and interest, then we are morally justified
conscience. The Filipinos then, out of their love for to annihilate them.
God, had to give up their honor and submit to the rule Based on the two features of the Decalogue—(1)
of the Spaniards. Now what the Decalogue is saying that it presents arguments for the values that it advances
is that this is mistaken, for it is only when a person has as well as the appropriate ways for cultivating these
honor that his/her love for God is genuine. values and (2) that these values form a hierarchy—we
Finally, that love of one’s countryman is fourth can thus say that the Decalogue presents one coherent
and love of one’s neighbor is fifth in the hierarchy are system of ideas. The Decalogue is not just a set of
stated in the tenth commandment: “Thou shalt consider injunctions; it is a philosophical work in its own right.
thy countryman more than thy neighbor…” (Mabini, And as its content centers on the moral justification of
1964, p. 4). According to the Decalogue, among our nationalism—why we should regard nationalism as a
neighbors, we ought to love our countrymen more than moral obligation—we can, thus, further say that the
the others because our countrymen are our friends, Decalogue is one philosophical treatise on the morality
brothers, or comrades with whom we are bound by one of nationalism. It is, in short, philosophical both in
fate, by the same joys and sorrows, and by common form and content.
aspirations and interests. This means that among our
neighbors, we have a special relationship or bond with Nationality and Morality
our countrymen. In light of the fact that our country is
the paradise intended for us by God, our countrymen We have seen in the previous part how the
were intended by God as well to be our companions Decalogue dealt with the moral issues concerning
in this paradise. If it is only in our country where we nationalism occurring within its own historical
will achieve the happiness intended by God for us in period and in the context of the objective of either
this temporal life, it is only then in the company of our carrying out a genuine revolution or of legitimizing
countrymen that we will experience such happiness. a revolution. In this part, we shall examine the views
God wants us to love our neighbors in general. and insights of the Decalogue in light of the current
But what about those who threaten our life, should we discussions on the morality of nationalism in which
also love them as a result of our love for God? How the central point of contention is the moral justifiability
could the Filipinos then fight their colonizers if God of national partiality. But first, to fully appreciate the
wanted them to love their colonizers as well? Such a philosophical nature and significance of the issue of
conflict lingering in the minds of the Filipinos then the moral justifiability of national partiality, and to
would again put them in the wrong frame of mind to better situate the Decalogue in the overall discourse
stage a revolution against their colonizers. Here again on the philosophy of nationalism, we shall provide an
is the power and beauty of the Decalogue. It tells us overview of the types of philosophical questions raised
that there is a natural limitation set for our love for about nationalism.
our neighbors. The Decalogue states: “Thou shalt love
thy neighbor as thyself; but if thy neighbor, failing in Metaphysical and Ethical Questions
this sacred duty, attempts against thy life, thy liberty
and thy interest, then thou shalt destroy and annihilate Nationalism raises two broad types of questions: the
him for the supreme law of self-preservation prevails” descriptive, which seeks to understand the nature and
(Mabini, 1964, p. 4). Two things are worth noting here. origins of nationalism as a social phenomenon, and the
First, the so-called supreme law of self-preservation is normative, which seeks to evaluate the means by which
a necessary consequence of the violation of the sacred nationalism is pursued or maintained. In light of the
duty to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Second, two main components of nationalism, namely, national
it is only the conjunction of the things violated—life, identity and political sovereignty (see Miscevic, 2014,
liberty, and interest—that justifies our annihilation of p. 1), the descriptive questions ask what constitutes
Mabini’s “True Decalogue” and the Morality of Nationalism 25

national identity and political sovereignty, while the and (g) having a common history and mission (see
normative ones ask whether the means by which Gilbert, 1998).
national identity is cultivated (or preserved) and by On the other hand, it cannot be denied that there
which political sovereignty is achieved are good are unethical actions done in the name of nationalism,
or bad. In this context, the descriptive questions, such as what has been called “ethnic cleansing” and
philosophically speaking, are metaphysical questions some forms of terrorism. Current discussions on the
since they concern the reality or true nature of certain morality of nationalism, however, focus on the issue of
phenomena related to nationalism, whereas normative what morally justifies national partiality, as this is what
questions are ethical questions since they involve value fundamentally makes nationalism morally problematic.
judgments about certain acts related to nationalism. As Hurka (1997, p. 139) wrote, “The moral issues about
Examples of metaphysical questions about nationalism arise from the character of nationalism as
nationalism are: What is a nation? What defines a a form of partiality. Nationalists care more about their
national unit? When do we say that a certain group of own nation and its members than about other nations
people constitutes a nation? Is nationalism a natural and their members; in that way nationalists are partial
or a constructed phenomenon? When can we say that to their own national group.” Or as Baumgarten (2007,
a nation has political sovereignty? And when can we p. 2) succinctly put it, “National partiality apparently
say that a certain group of people has national identity? contradicts the view that regards ethical principles as
On the other hand, examples of ethical questions about universal, according to which these principles should
nationalism are: Why do we have to be a nationalist, apply impartially or equally to persons of all kinds”
or why do we need to care about the national identity (see also McMahan, 1997, p. 109).
and political sovereignty of our nation? Are there
proper and improper motivations for nationalism? Is The Decalogue on National Partiality
nationalism inherently good or bad, or is it good or
bad based solely on its consequences? What morally The Decalogue is first and foremost concerned with
justifies the partiality engendered by nationalism? And the morality of nationalism and not with its metaphysics.
what sort of actions is morally permitted to attain and Surely, the Decalogue must have presupposed a certain
maintain the political sovereignty of a nation? theory of how nations came about, but this is not what
Regarding the origins of nations (see Seton-Watson, the Decalogue problematizes. What the Decalogue is
1977; and Hobsbawm, 1990), some of the contending primarily offering is not an account of how nations or
perspectives view nations as natural entities (called nationalism as a social phenomenon came about but
primordialist view) as social constructs (called social an account of why nationalism should be regarded
constructivism) as culturally necessary institutions as a moral imperative (see Majul, 1996, p. 129).
(attributed to Gellner, 1983) as an imagined community This topic, however, has already been tackled when
resulting from print capitalism (attributed to Anderson, we earlier analyzed the content and structure of the
1991) as European in origin which came about during Decalogue. Thus, at this point, we shall instead focus
the periods of Enlightenment, the French revolution, on how the Decalogue handles another fundamental
and the birth of centralized French state (attributed to issue concerning the morality of nationalism, namely,
Kedourie, 1966) and as an irrational and destructive the moral justifiability of national partiality.
ideology (likewise attributed to Kedourie, 1966). As As nationalism is not a unitary concept, we first need
regards the question of when a certain group of people to be clear about the kind of nationalism that is assumed
becomes a nation, answers vary—some argue it is when in our discussion. In this regard, we consider the
people consider themselves as (a) constituting a nation, distinction made by some scholars between universalist
(b) being in a group that is part of or given by nature, nationalism and particularist nationalism (see Hurka,
(c) being in a group that they have commonly willed, 1997; Miscevic, 2014; and Dias, 2005). Hurka (1997,
(d) attached to or located in a particular territory, (e) pp. 139–140) explicated this distinction as follows:
having a common language, (f) sharing unique values, “… I will consider only ‘universalist’ nationalism, the
26 N. Mabaquiao, Jr.

view that all people ought to be partial to their own ought to love our own country can equally be said to
nation and conationals. This is a more interesting and the citizens of any other country—why they ought to
plausible position than the “particularist”—one could love their own respective countries.
equally well say “chauvinist”—view that only one’s Having clarified that it is only within the framework
own nation, say, only Canada, deserves special loyalty.” of universalist nationalism where the issue of the
It is not hard to see that particularist nationalism will moral justifiability of nationalism can meaningfully
necessarily result in unethical actions, for if a certain be posed, what then are the types of reasoning that
group of people believes that the interests of their own can morally justify nationalism? More specifically,
nation and co-nationals are of supreme value or are what type of moral justification is appropriate for
superior to the interests of all other nations and their national partiality? On this point, there are two types
respective co-nationals, then they will also believe of justification that philosophers of nationalism speak
that they have the right to impose their own interests of: non-instrumentalist and instrumentalist types of
on other nations, or that it is the duty of other nations justifications (see Hurka, 1997, p. 140; and Dias,
to serve the interests of their own nation. For this 2005, p. 1063–1069). For the non-instrumentalist
reason, if nationalism is understood as referring to the justification, the moral goodness of national partiality is
particularist type, then nationalism is never morally deemed to have been brought about by some necessary
justifiable. Consequently, it can only be within the features of national partiality believed to be inherently
context of the universalist type of nationalism that the good, while for the instrumentalist justification, it is
question of the moral justifiability of nationalism can deemed to have been brought about by the good or
meaningfully be posed. beneficial consequences of national partiality.
With regard to the nationalism advanced in the Examples of these two types of justification
Decalogue, it is clear that it is of the universalist type. can be seen in how an argument for the morality of
In its fourth commandment, we can read, “Thou shalt nationalism is explained. This argument refers to
love thy country after God and thy honor and more the point that nationalism is morally good because it
than thyself: for she is the only Paradise which God has satisfies our deep need for community (see Miscevic,
given thee in this life, the only patrimony of thy race, 2014). But what makes satisfying our deep need for
the only inheritance of thy ancestors and the only hope community in turn morally good or desirable? One
of thy posterity; because of her, thou hast life, love and non-instrumentalist answer states that belonging to an
interests, happiness, honor and God” (Mabini, 1964, p. ethno-national community is valuable in itself because
4). There is nothing here that can support the inference it is only within the context of such a community that
that Mabini was advancing the view that the interests of meanings and values significant for the members are
the Philippines are superior to those of other countries. created and transferred. Since the members of the
As the Philippines is the paradise created by God for community have special cultural proximity, certain
Filipinos, any other country is likewise the paradise obligations arise such as their moral obligations
created by God for its respective citizens—and this is towards one another and their obligation to preserve
for the same reasons: because their country is the only and cultivate their own language and customs. The
patrimony of their race, the only inheritance of their assumption here is that the generation of values,
ancestors and the only hope of their posterity, and so on meaning, and obligations is good in itself. On the
and so forth. Furthermore, in the 10th commandment, other hand, the instrumentalist answers can be varied.
we are told that the partiality that we ought to accord For instance, it can be said that belonging to an
to our countrymen is solely based on the fact that we ethno-national community will enable the members
“art bound by one fate, by the same joys and sorrows to flourish, develop their personal identity, learn moral
and by common aspirations and interests” (Mabini, traditions, and contribute to the diversity of human
1964, p. 4), and not for the reason that it is the Filipino cultures (as each ethno-national community preserves
race that has been ordained by God to be the superior its own unique culture). And the assumption here is
race. What the Decalogue says about why we Filipinos that flourishing, developing personal identity, learning
Mabini’s “True Decalogue” and the Morality of Nationalism 27

moral traditions, and the like are morally desirable while that of a morally desirable of form of partiality
consequences of nationalism or of satisfying our deep is familial partiality—that is, the form of partiality
need for community. that we give to our family members. In what follows,
Now which of these two types of justifications is let us examine what makes familial partiality morally
appropriate for morally justifying national partiality is desirable and how its moral desirability could be
still a contentious matter. In the case of the Decalogue reconciled with the universality of morality.
it shall be observed that it utilizes and thus gives equal Under the universalist view of morality, in a
importance to both types of moral justification for situation where a moral principle equally applies, for
national partiality. Its non-instrumentalist justifications instance, to a stranger and one’s mother, it would not
are laid down in its fourth commandment, according really matter, morally speaking, whose welfare one
to which, we ought to love our country because of its prefers. In this situation, there is, however, something
following features that are intrinsically good, namely, intuitively wrong if one does prefer the welfare of
(1) that it is the only Paradise that God has given us in the stranger over that of one’s own mother. Perhaps
this life, (2) that it is the only patrimony of our race, to make this clearer, imagine that an action which
(3) that it is the only inheritance of our ancestors, and when done towards a stranger and done towards
(4) that it is the only hope of our posterity. These are one’s own mother would lead to the same undesirable
features of our country that are good not in virtue of consequences. If one were to choose to perform
their consequences but in virtue of what they are. this action towards one’s own mother instead of the
On the other hand, the instrumentalist justifications stranger, there is something intuitively wrong about
of the Decalogue for nationalism in general and national this decision. On the other hand, in a situation where
partiality, in particular, are laid down in a number of a stranger intends to perform a morally good action
commandments. In the fourth commandment, it while one’s own family member intends to perform a
tells us that we ought to love our country because morally bad action, it is, of course, morally wrong for
it is through our country that we have life, love and us to prefer the action of our family member.
interests, happiness, honor, and God. In the fifth Our considerations above actually point to a
commandment, it tells us that we ought to love our possible synthesis between the universalist view of
country because if our country is happy, we, together morality (sometimes called “moral universalism”) and
with our family, will also be happy. And in the sixth the view that there are at least some forms of partiality
commandment, it tells us that we ought to love our that are morally justified—in this case, familial
country because its independence will result in our partiality. Using familial partiality as the justified form
liberty, its advancements will result in our perfection, of partiality, we can formulate this synthesis as follows.
and its exaltation will result in our own glory and In cases where a moral principle is violated by the
immortality. The overarching idea is that we ought to action of one person but not by the action of the other,
love our country because in so doing we shall achieve it is but moral that we prefer the action of the person
certain good things. who does not violate the moral principle, regardless of
Finally, how do we reconcile the universality of whether this person is a stranger or a family member.
morality with the partiality of nationalism? While it can But in cases where a moral principle is not violated by
be said that the view that moral principles should be the actions of both the stranger and family member,
applied equally to all persons appeals to our common it is but moral that we prefer the action of the family
intuitions, its entailment that any form of partiality member. Of course, if the actions of both the stranger
is morally unjustified seems to go against common and family member violate moral principles, then it is
intuitions. This is because it seems to be widely moral that we do not prefer any of their actions—unless
regarded that while there are indeed certain forms of we are forced to choose the lesser evil.
partiality that are not morally desirable, there are also Hurka (1997) argued that since familial partiality is
those that are. In this regard, a paradigm example of the paradigm example of the types of partiality that can
a morally undesirable form of partiality is racism, be reconciled with the universality of morality, we can
28 N. Mabaquiao, Jr.

make it as the basis for justifying the compatibility of God has given thee in this life, the only patrimony of
national partiality with the universality of morality. The thy race, the only inheritance of thy ancestors and the
reasoning is that if familial partiality can be reconciled only hope of thy posterity; because of her, thou hast
with the universality of morality because of some life, love and interests, happiness, honor and God”
features of familial partiality, then national partiality (Mabini, 1964, p. 4). And in the area of shared history
too can be reconciled with the universality of morality of the appropriate kind, the Decalogue, to recall, tells
if national partiality shares these features of familial us that we ought to love our countrymen because of our
partiality. Given this, the question in order is: What shared history with them, in particular, because it is our
then are the morally justifiable features of familial countrymen, which we see as our friends, brothers, or
partiality? Hurka (1997), in response, spoke of our comrades, with whom we “art bound by one fate, by
special ties that we have with our family members that the same joys and sorrows and by common aspirations
are brought about by (1) our closeness of contact with and interests” (Mabini, 1964, p. 4).
them, (2) qualities that they have that we consider good,
and (3) our shared history—of the appropriate kind— Conclusion
with them. This appropriate kind of shared history
here consists of (a) performing good deeds together or According to Mabini (2000, 1931), the struggle for
working together in bringing about the good, and (b) the country’s independence would not be successful
suffering evil or oppression together. There might be and legitimate if Filipinos did not have the right frame
special ties that might develop in performing evil deeds of mind, that is, if they did not have the right motivation
together, but partiality arising from these special ties is and a clear idea of the place of this struggle in their
never morally justifiable. For instance, the special ties system of values. Thus, Mabini wrote the Decalogue
that developed between two Nazi officers because they to guide Filipinos in acquiring this right frame of mind,
were together in several acts of exterminating Jews as well as to provide them the moral justification for
could never morally justify the partiality that one of why they ought to acquire it. One fundamental internal
the Nazi officers would accord to the other. conflict that needed to be resolved then was the conflict
National partiality, Hurka (1997) analyzed, fails portrayed by the colonizers, of which they were quite
in the area of closeness feature for the obvious reason successful, between Filipinos’ love of their country
that it is impossible that we can be close to all our and their love of God. The Decalogue did a wonderful
countrymen. However, in the areas of good qualities job in demonstrating the error of this conflict. For the
and shared history (of the appropriate kind), national Decalogue, if one truly loves God then one ought to
partiality can succeed. Hurka added that these areas love one’s own country. Loving one’s own country
where national partiality can succeed can make up is thus, for the Decalogue, a moral imperative with a
for the area where it fails. As a consequence, Hurka divine justification. In addition to its historical value,
concluded that national partiality is reconcilable with the Decalogue is a relevant philosophical work on the
the universality of morality. There are, of course, morality of nationalism. Its patriotic injunctions are
critics of this conclusion of Hurka. For our purpose of backed up by arguments and the values it advances
situating the Decalogue in the present discourse in the form a coherent system. Furthermore, its insights have
philosophy of nationalism, let us grant the plausibility anticipated some of the key considerations in current
of Hurka’s conclusion. Now, it is clear that the two areas analyses of the moral justifiability of nationality.
that reconciles national partiality with the universality
of morality that Hurka spoke of, namely the areas of References
good qualities and shared history (of the appropriate
kind), can be found in the Decalogue. In the area of Agoncillo, T. (1964). Mabini: A portrait of the man as
good qualities, the Decalogue, to recall, tells us to love Filipino. In S. Orosa & T. Del Castillo (Eds.), Mabini
our country because of the inherently good qualities centenary issue, 8(2 & 3; pp. 20–30). Manila: Philippine
Historical Association.
of our country, namely, that it is the “[p]aradise which
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections
Mabini’s “True Decalogue” and the Morality of Nationalism 29

on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso. Mabini, A. (2000). The Philippine revolution (with other
Bacobo, J. (1964). Apolinario Mabini. In S. Orosa & T. documents of the period, vol. 2). An English translation
Del Castillo (Eds.), Mabini centenary issue, 8(2 & 3; of La Revolucion Filipina. Manila: The National
pp. 95–106). Manila: Philippine Historical Association. Historical Institute.
Batungbacal, J. (1956). Great architects of Filipino Magdamo, E. D. T. (1965). Mabini: Sources of his political
nationality. Manila: University Publishing Company. thought-3. In A. V. H. Hartendorp (Ed.), Mabini: The
Baumgarten, E. (2007). In search of a morally acceptable sources of his political thought (pp. 74–95). Manila:
nationalism. Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 42(3), 1–8. Alberto S. Florentino.
Retrieved from http://www-personal.umich.edu/~elias/ Majul, C. A. (1996). Mabini and the Philippine revolution.
nationalism.pdf Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.
Cuasay, P. (1974). Si Apolinario Mabini at ang himagsikan McMahan, J. (1997). The limits of national partiality.
[Apolinario Mabini and the revolution]. Rizal: Navotas In R. McKim & J. McMahan (Eds.), The morality
Press. of nationalism (pp. 107–138). New York: Oxford
Del Castillo, T. (1964). Apolinario Mabini. In S. Orosa & University Press, Inc..
T. Del Castillo (Eds.), Mabini centenary issue, 8(2 & 3; Miscevic, N. (2014). Nationalism. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The
pp. 107–117). Manila: Philippine Historical Association. Standford encyclopedia of philosophy (pp. 1–29).
De Los Santos, E. (1973). The revolutionists: Aguinaldo, Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/
Bonifacio, Jacinto. Manila: National Historical sum2010/entries/nationalism/
Commission. Orosa, S., & del Castillo, T. (Eds.). (1964). Mabini
Dias, M. (2005). Moral dimensions of nationalism. Villanova centenary issue, 8(2 & 3). Manila: Philippine Historical
Law Review, 50, pp. 1063–1071. Retrieved from http:// Association.
digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol50/iss4/10 Quirino, C. (1964). Mabini’s emergence to national
Gilbert, P. (1998). The philosophy of nationalism. Boulder, prominence. In S. Orosa & T. Del Castillo (Eds.), Mabini
Colorado: Westview Press. centenary issue 8(2 & 3; pp. 31–36). Manila: Philippine
Gellner, E. (1983). Nation and nationalism. Ithaca: Cornell Historical Association.
University Press. Schumacher, J. (1991). The making of a nation: Essays on
Hobsbawm, E. (1990). Nations and nationalism since 1780: nineteenth-century Filipino nationalism. Quezon City:
Programme, myth, reality. Cambridge: Cambridge Ateneo De Manila University Press.
University Press. Seton-Watson, H. (1977). Nations and states: An enquiry
Hurka, T. (1997). The justification of national partiality. into the origins of nations and the politics of nationalism.
In R. McKim & J. McMahan (Eds.), The morality of Colorado: Westview Press.
nationalism (pp. 139–57). New York: Oxford University Silliman, G. S. (1965). Mabini: The sources of his political
Press, Inc. thought-1. In A. V. H. Hartendorp (Ed.), Mabini: The
Kedourie, E. (1996). Nationalism. London: Hutchinson. sources of his political thought (pp. 1–37). Manila:
Mabini, A. (1921). Ang sampung aral ni Mabini sa bayang Alberto S. Florentino.
Pilipino [The ten lessons of Mabini for the Philippine Zaide, G. (1964). Apolinario Mabini, the reformer. In S.
nation]. Isinatagalog ni A. Dimayuga. Manila: G. D. Orosa & T. Del Castillo (Eds.),
Katigbak. Mabini centenary issue, 8(2 & 3, pp. 59–66). Manila:
Mabini, A. (1931). La revolucion Filipina (con otros Philippine Historical Association.
documentos de la Epoca). Documentos de la Biblioteca
Nacional, Vols. 1–2) [The Philippine revolution].
Manila: Bureau of Printing.
Mabini, A. (1964). True decalogue. In S. Orosa & T. Del
Castillo (Eds.), Mabini centenary issue 8(2 & 3; p. 4).
Manila: Philippine Historical Association.