Renaming the Philippines to Maharlika

( A Position Paper by Gesra Marie L. Hospital, STEM 1-A)

"If we want to be truly independent, then we should throw away the bonds of colonialism
by establishing our own national identity. For our country to move forward, we should identify a
name for our country that genuinely reflects our national aspirations, a name that signifies our
values and self-determination" (Alejano, 2017).
Recently, President Rodrigo Duterte suggested during his speech in Maguindanao the
renaming of the country from Philippines to Maharlika. Year 2017, Magdalo Representative Gary
Alejano filed House Bill 5867 or An Act Constituting a Geographic Renaming Commission to
Rename Our Country. In addition, then- Batasang Pambansa member Eddie Ilarde that sought to
change the name of the country from Philippines to Maharlika proposed Parliamentary Bill 195 in
1978. The reason for this name change proposals has been synonymous ever since. To celebrate
our independence and embrace our pre-colonial roots. Renaming a country must be thoroughly
measured because will undeniably create a huge impact not only to the future of the country, but
also to its citizens. Considering, Philippines should not change its name to Maharlika given the
following points.
Essence
Alejano (2017) cites that neighboring nations have reverted to their pre-colonized name
after gaining freedom from their colonizers, to serve as emphasis on the empowerment of their
liberty, identity, and independence. The Philippines did not have a pre-colonized name before its
discovery. In fact, it is only through the discovery of the Spaniards that brought together a then-
scattered archipelago, leading to the existence of the country as a whole. The name Philippines
had since been the only unifying factor that held us together as a country. If the aim is to find the
country a name that would uphold our roots and identity, then the name Philippines- a
representation of a then scattered nation and its unification is serving its purpose.
Cost
Changing the name of a country requires everything inclusive of the name, changed. From
official archives, birth certificates, and official documents to the name of aircrafts, vehicle license
plates, banks and buildings. Costly, but not impossible. An example of a country who had
succesfully undergone renaming is the Kingdom of eSwatini in Africa, formerly known Swaziland.
The country had undergone the changes mentioned above during the renaming. However, in
contrast with the Philippines, its land area and population of 17,364 km² and 1.367 million (World
Bank, 2017) respectively, is relatively small compared to the Philippines with land area of 300,000
km² and population is 104.9 million (World Bank, 2017). Renaming the country would require
more funding and resources than the 30 million proposed budget of Magdalo Representative Gary
Alejano in his filed House Bill 5867.
Establishment
According to Dela Cruz (2019), the archipelago has been involved in a maritime trade with a long
history of Chinese and Islamic influence even before the Spanish arrived. Historically, the claim of
the Philippines having a completely authentic indigenous past is a fallacy. Philippines is a country
that was never a single entity, but an integrated mix of race and culture. In approximately 450
years of history, culture, and establishment, the word Philippines has been a branding not only to
the Filipinos, but also to the world. Names are central to branding, that is to say, that like a
company or a product, cities and states must also be easily identifiable by their names. This mark
of distinct identification can only be achieved over a period of time. Hence, changing names of
places after they have gained universal recognition spawns confusion (Singh, 2018).
Currently, the Philippines is facing issues and problems far more vital than its name or
identity that deserves to be the priority of the government and its citizens. Filipino or Maharlikano,
the responsibilities of every citizen of the country is still the same. After all, the representation of
the people and their identities is not solely dependent on the name of the country, or its origin.
Rather on its essence- how its people had been able to establish it on to what it truly represents.
It is not the name that carries the identity of the country and its people. But it is the people carrying
the name of the country that gives the nation its identity.