Basically, the question. What was the turning point that turned the Catholic Church from being a dominant and conservative, pro-ruling class establishment into one that seems to be more publicly pro-people and critical of the establishment, even apart from their stance on pro-people policies like the RH and divorce bills? Or were there multiple turning points? I asked this in a sub-question in another post on this subreddit, but I thought I would elevate it into a full post because it's an interesting observation.

It seems out of character for one of the most enduring and long-term powerful organizations or institutions in the colony/country to suddenly become a constant opposition force. Somehow, I don't think the departure of the Spanish friars (since not all of them left after the Revolution, for example, many of them remained in UST) would have been enough to turn the Church as a whole more "liberal", "progressive", or "anti-authoritarian", though I suppose it depends on their leadership too, like with Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV, though that's too recent for this subreddit. In fact, I'm also surprised there were few Catholic Church or friar abuses of power reported in the American period, including under non-Spanish but foreign friars, like American, German, Belgian, Irish, etc. ones, though that's also another separate story in and of itself.

I asked this question based on the recent question about how much power the gobernadorcillos and cabezas de barangay had, and I'm interested in this period, so I'm curious to know what do we know about the range of wealth that the average ones of them were able to amass while in power/authority, in the late Spanish period (1850s-1898), both individually and covering at least their immediate families. (Or maybe near relatives too, given how we are a country/colony of dynasties and extended families.)

Was it similar in general to today's range of barangay captains and mayors, whether provincial/rural municipal mayors or mayors of Highly Urbanized Cities? Or was it roughly lower or possibly higher on average compared to average incomes across the colony, or compared to the salaries and income of colonial government officials at the time? (Of course they probably couldn't be as wealthy as the Governor-General or anyone in the higher levels of the government in Manila, but by how much?)

And of course, back then as with now, some of the wealth is legitimate, including any salaries they might be getting paid as government officials or "politicians" (is that accurate to call them?), and a lot is likely also illegitimate, taken from corruption, almost certainly, including any businesses they might be owners or contractors of, or nonstandard fees they might be extracting from the locals. How much did this add to the average income of said gobernadorcillos/cabezas de barangay?

 I'm not necessarily saying that it should happen, I'm more asking for the historical context for why we never but all things considered, you'd think the conditions in this country would've been ripe for a class-based revolution, civil war or even mob violence against the upper classes a long time ago. Observe:

• enormous economic inequality, worse than almost all of SE Asia
• very feudalistic land ownership and the dismal failure of successive attempts at land reform
• an extremely wealthy, powerful, conservative and abusive oligarchy of old families (in the old days = Spanish landowners; in more recent times = Chinese/mestizo landowners and conglomerates)—and not to mention the Catholic Church, which fits all these categories except for the family part, and sometimes not even then (and today similar authoritarian churches like the INC or Evangelical/Born Again churches)
• incredible and rampant degenerative corruption (that is, extractive corruption, as opposed to the corruption that still gets infrastructure built properly or allows the country to develop still, in places like South Korea and Malaysia)
• an increasingly restless common folk, some of whom are demanding increased participation, rights and accountability, even and especially among the middle class, and so on.

Many of these conditions parallel places like pre-1789 France or to a lesser extent Imperial Russia. What happened there that hasn't really happened here (or vice versa)? Was it the intrusion of colonial rule (because the Spanish gave Christianity/Catholicism and the Americans introduced democracy/elections, or their versions of it) or something? Even the Philippine Revolution didn't really succeed in the end with the Americans coming in (and a lot of it was elite led anyway), and even the Huk Rebellion and the CPP-NPA have never really entirely succeeded, even when the corruption, the inequality, the everyday hardships and at times even abuses of rights still become extreme or at least too hard to ignore sometimes. EDSA, meanwhile, no one thinks it really changed much of anything, and at least according to some people it might have made things technically worse.

I read online a source, I can't remember where, but it was talking about urban planning in the 1930s, and how back then they planned "properly" around rivers and waterways by not zoning them for development because they would flood. (I'm paraphrasing, but it was like that.) We now know that since then, the DPWH and its predecessor agencies under the independent Republic still build in those places anyway largely due to corruption in infrastructure projects, including flood control and building roads and places to put up private housing and development.

However, it seems unlikely that there was no corruption in the Spanish period or even under the early American period when the Americans were more in control. Are there any reports or records that survive from then to today about the stories or kinds of corruption that happened in infrastructure projects and government agencies, local or colonial (that is, national)?

For Spanish period, it can be even just the 1800s. For American period, maybe until the Commonwealth. Preferably I'm looking for cases that involve native Filipinos who were engaged in the corruption, because it would be an easy enough answer to say "the Spanish friars or the American colonizers benefited from public works corruption." For example, Kennon Road (the road to Baguio) or Jones Bridge was built in the American period, was there no corruption involving natives there? How about the Manila Dagupan railway built under the Spanish, or the Puente de España? And were there not flood control projects in both colonial periods that were also corrupt?

Also, if you answer for Spanish period, I already know about polo y servicios**, so no need to answer that**. I know the Spanish benefited from that, and so did probably the principalia, but I fail to see what exactly was "corrupt" about that system, and anyway it doesn't really focus on the nature of the infrastructure itself, including the deals, contracts or under the table payments that happened back then. Most textbook discussions of polo y servicios only mention that the Spanish colonizers/friars used unpaid native labour to build churches and public works, but not what kinds of graft and corruption involved in the system.

Sometimes, when looking at online social media, almost every Filipino hero or historical figure has been called a traitor by native Filipinos at some time or another. The Aquinos are called that, the Macabebes are always called that, Aguinaldo is almost always called that, a lot of the other Revolutionary leaders/ilustrados are called that, but even Gen. Luna and Andres Bonifacio are sometimes called that, everytime online everyone just throws "traydor" accusations at every historical Filipino figure.

But how about him? It seems like every native Filipino wants to claim him but no one has ever admitted to calling him "traydor" to anyone. Why not, if so? Surely even he has to have been subjected to someone native-born in the PH calling him a traitor, whether when he was still alive or anytime since his death until today? And to which side/s, if ever? Not even Filipinos who say he was just a reformist but did not want independence are calling him a "traitor" at all, at least I have not seen this online.

(Of course, Spaniards and other foreigners would not count, since they have more obvious reasons to call him that. Also, I am NOT trying to claim that the "traitor" accusations BY ANYONE ARE TRUE. What matters is whether anyone HAS called him a traitor, traydor, etc., at all. Whether or not those are legitimate or truthful is another question.)

What was the rationale behind the decision to try parliamentary system of government in Bangsamoro, given that it was rarely tried before in Philippine history with few exceptions (that are not really exactly the same either), and that most of the majority of Filipinos still seem to be wary against it, though much of that being wary is tied with the general fears over Charter change?

Was it influenced by the groups that were pushing for federalism, even if the question on federal vs. unitary system is different and unrelated to presidential vs. parliamentary system? (The former concerns the level of control of the national government over regions/states, the latter is about the relationship of sharing power between the executive and the legislative.) But some of the pro federalism groups were also supporting shift to parliamentary system, for example CORRECT Movement.

As I understand, all other provincial governments are "presidential," that is, they follow the national presidential system with a Governor and an appointed Cabinet in the executive, a Sangguniang Panlalawigan in the legislative, and separation of powers between the two. The Bangsamoro Parliament, if I understand it, has a ceremonial head of state, but the position of Governor is more taken up by the Chief Minister, who is directly elected or comes from the Parliament, specifically the leader of the winning or dominant party in the election. Some of his or her Cabinet can also come from the Parliament, and the important thing to note is that they do not give up their position as legislators even in the executive.

Today, it is common for government offices at all levels to hang a portrait of the President of the Philippines, and sometimes also the Vice President. Then I wondered when and where this tradition started, and if it started in the colonial period.

So, I looked at some paintings of government offices in the Spanish colonial period, mostly local ones like Gobernadorcillo, and some of them have portraits of the King or Queen of Spain, but not of the Governor General/Capitan General, even if the latter is the one who is more directly overseeing/ruling the colony. Was it ever a practice to actually hang the Governor General's portrait in these local offices, ex. Gobernadorcillo, Cabeza de Barangay, or even Alcalde Mayor, or even any other government offices at any level at the time? Whether as an alternative to the King or Queen, or both/together?

The same goes for the American period, and whether the US Governor General's portrait was also hung in the successor government offices, or just the US President, or both. I can't find any pictures of those yet, but I can look. The paintings below are probably from Lozano or a similar 1800s artist.

https://preview.redd.it/juapliy4njjh1.png?width=1332&format=png&auto=webp&s=dac38b24b1ca22cfd2c191da0f9911ce22cb4144

https://preview.redd.it/g00sgjp6njjh1.png?width=744&format=png&auto=webp&s=cab14b89b61ddf369f679ec4247514ee6c9ace7c

This is not entirely a historical question, since it's focusing more on whether a historical entity, practice or organization still exists today, but I asked it here because the Spanish-era tobacco monopoly is probably the only example most Filipinos today even know of that counts as a government commodity monopoly. Meron pa bang ganun today? Roughly, what I'm asking is if we still have that system where a particular commodity or product, like tobacco, famously, as well as other crops or products back then, like alcohol, and possibly opium (not sure), was regulated and controlled by the government as its sole or only legal buyer to use for obtaining taxes or revenue.

I'm not sure if service monopolies like for utilities like Meralco for electricity count, and maybe there are differences in how they are run, and anyway Meralco is privately owned, the same goes for other utility monopolies like for water such as Manila Water or Maynilad. (No, I don't think they compete with each other to deliver water.)

I would think that since Pax Silica is a mostly BBM/admin project, and is being pushed by the US pa, ang isip ko is that yung mga DDS would be more vocal against it, since they hate both BBM and to some degree, the US because it is an enemy or rival of China. Never mind that Sara seems to have admitted not knowing much about what it is, but she should have at least tried to sound like she opposed it. Kahit technically wala masyadong alam, but just basically knowing that the government is pushing it, then as the "opposition" e di automatic kalabanin nila, why not?

Some of this question will deal with more recent historical events, and partly I asked because I was thinking of the recent rise in right wing-related violence such as the nihilist online groups that influenced the Tacloban shooting, but this question can apply to basically all of modern PH history too, starting with independence in 1946. (Though I would also wonder if the Spanish and American colonial state had an equivalent to "terrorist designations". But for this, mostly it would mean the Republic of the Philippines government, apart from US influence, etc.)

Basically, the only groups that we know it has designated as terrorist groups or otherwise similar armed groups, not sure if insurgent groups in general counts, but more focusing on the "terrorism" label here, are some radical Islamist groups like Abu Sayyaf, Jemaah Islamiyah, the Maute Group, groups related to ISIS, etc. Outside of that, pretty much just Communist or Leftist ones like the CPP-NPA, but even that is mostly just a recent thing with the Anti-Terror Law, unless the government already did so under Martial Law in the 1970s, and did it ever do the same for the Huks in the 1940s-1950s?

But apart from that, why only Leftist ones and I guess the Islamist ones? Has the government, kahit sino pang presidente, ever designated legitimately Far Right terrorist groups in its history, or otherwise radical right wing or conservative in leaning? Whether they are also Christian ones or not. I was thinking more specifically about the Ilaga, the Alsa Masa, the Tadtad, and some other similar groups in the 1970s-1980s, many of which are combinations of Christian and Right wing, and maybe before and after that also. Why were they never officially branded as terrorist groups too? Maybe only because they were often aligned with the government and PH military against the Communist or Islamist groups? If not, why else?

Basically, this is coming from the same idea as unifying the cities under one government and restoring the Metro Manila Governor, but how about this time modeling it after the BARMM with a parliamentary system, with a Metro Manila Parliament headed by a ceremonial or figurehead Metro Manila Governor and a Chief Minister and Cabinet who is elected from the representatives or Members of Parliament from the whole NCR or MM. Would it make a difference? How might it turn out, and has anyone suggested it?

Most of the time, when we see a depiction of the balangay, like in textbooks and pictures, probably some movies (not sure if in Amaya they were, but not all boats there were balangays), as well as reconstructions like the one in the Pasig River recently, one thing that can be noticed is that they usually don't have katig or outriggers, those wooden or bamboo frames on the sides that help balance the boat and keep it afloat, unlike most smaller and more traditional boats still used in and around Philippine waters, and indeed in much of Southeast Asia and the Pacific. (I think that outriggers are even supposed to be an Austronesian or Polynesian invention, I'm not sure.)

So why would the balangay not have them? I don't think size was a factor in that larger boats might not have them, since I don't think they were very big, and anyway there were large boats like the karakoa that did have outriggers. There are, of course, traditional boats that didn't have outriggers, like the cascos of the Pasig River in the colonial period. They don't seem to have been preserved in the few precolonial surviving excavations that were discovered of them. Did they rot first? I don't know, maybe, but the rest of the boat is also made of wood, so why would that make a difference?

The assassination of Governor General Bustamante is, remember, that time in the 1700s when a mob led by the Spanish friars went to the governor general's palace and then killed him. It's the scene painted by Felix Resurreccion Hidalgo on a painting na nasa National Museum na today, and it was painted as part of the anti-friar sentiment of the ilustrados/Propaganda Movement and leading to the Revolution.

I don't know all of the circumstances that led to this, and I don't actually know all the details of whether the friars were all bad (or even mostly bad, like the ones in the time of the Propagandists), or whether Bustamante really was all good or mostly good as he was implicitly portrayed, but either way I just want to know:

Were there many, or even any, native Filipinos or indios who supported/followed the friars and participated in the killing of Bustamante back then? It seems na unlikely, even if it was set in Intramuros, that only Spaniards would have participated, but I don't know.

The question can apply whether yung government, civil society/public or even trolls working for either or both yung nag engage in red tagging sa mga ito. Can one not argue na technically baka mas delikado pa sa NPA yung iba sa DDS bloc na actively involved in trying to remove BBM and put Sara in his place? I mean, sa sobrang galit na nga ng lahat sa NPA and sa sobrang laos nito, e parang wala naman na silang capability sa alam ko na mag-launch ng actual destabilization efforts, unlike those under the INC and yung DDS leaning military elements like under Poquiz, etc. And most of all, many of them are pro-China, which last we heard, is literally Communist.

This is in relation to the earlier post about whether "separation of Church and State" as most modern Filipinos understand it is or might be too lenient and needs to be stricter. Part of the implication of this is the question of how much the government can do in the case of excessive political influence to the point of potential destabilization, as in the case of what the INC has been doing.

I managed to see some examples online of other countries using certain legal solutions to regulate the influence of churches that are becoming too powerful. Even the US, where our separation version is based on, was able to regulate the Mormon Church sometimes by, if I'm not mistaken, dissolving them as a corporation or their corporate structure, though this was in the late 1800s, and of course the Mormons, if ever they were affected then, they seem to have recovered.

So is there a way that the government can legally and constitutionally, actually rein in or regulate, or even at most extreme then break up the tight, hierarchical and cult-like structure the INC has and its strict, authoritarian control of its followers to the point of compelling political influence and block voting? Is there some way that any such regulation or even dissolution can be done within the bounds of our Constitution, even if it needs a new law, or will it have to be changed?

I'm trying to do some research on what the Iglesia Ni Cristo was like in its earliest years, starting from its founding by Felix Manalo in 1914, and throughout the American period proper where the PH was ruled under the American governor generals, until the Commonwealth and at the latest, the start of the wartime period, before the Japanese occupation in 1942? I became curious to see how they were able to develop their very strict or strongly bound organization, and what were their political activities like in the colonial era, before there were Philippine Presidents to endorse at elections. With special focus to before the Commonwealth in 1935, if possible.

(There were Senators as early as 1916, two years after the INC's founding, so I am naturally interested if they endorsed any of them, for example, as well as governors, Philippine Assembly members, or mayors.)

However, I am not asking for direct answers to what they did here, because that will be too sensitive. I just want to know what resources I can read or study, and which historians wrote a lot about the INC's history, especially its early history. Who was the one who wrote about their clash with the AFP or Metrocom during Martial Law? Is he or she a good source? Of course, they will have their own historians and sources, but I'm interested in anyone both inside and outside the organization who has competently researched this period.

We all know how basketball became famous in the PH because of American influence and teaching, though when it was first introduced, it and volleyball were actually kind of "secondary" in promotion to Filipinos compared to, of course, baseball, which was more common in the American period itself, but in the postwar period or after independence, gave way to basketball, mostly, and then volleyball too, recently. But the point is that the Americans introduced them all.

Football or soccer, meanwhile, was not introduced by the Americans, but surprisingly I don't think it was introduced by the Spanish either. If it were, we would have seen it become popular in the PH before the Revolution. (I may ask in another post for whether Spain ever introduced or focused on promoting any varsity sports in the Catholic/friar run schools or universities like UST, or in the short public education system it began in the late 1800s, but that's for another post.)

But how about American football, as in the one with the oval shaped ball, the helmets, the quarterbacks, and the grid lined field? By its very name, it's very much a staple of American sports like baseball is (and somehow "more stereotypically American" in some places or ways than even basketball may seem), and in fact seems to be even more closely tied to the American school and college system, but there seems to be no record of promoting that in the PH under American rule. Was it ever promoted here or taught in schools or universities? If not, why not? (I don't think it's just because it was outcompeted by baseball or basketball or volleyball, because I don't know of even a small niche exception where American football was taught here, before or after independence. I also don't think that our being smaller and lighter in physique would have made a difference if Americans really wanted to promote it here, because they promoted basketball and we are now obsessed with it, despite being very short. If the Americans had so wanted, they could make us get obsessed with American football even if we are very small and lightweight.)

Every time information about the precolonial Philippines that's centered in the Pampanga region and sometimes carrying over to Tagalog region/Manila/Luzon or Lusong in general, is spread online, it often gets traced back to the same few historians and history content creators: Mike Pangilinan, Kirby Araullo, and Robby Tantingco. They seem like they're the only or usual names that appear in that context.

However, at the same time pansin ko, it seems there are always questions raised around the information they tend to come up with, to different degrees depending on the historian but some of them receive this more than the others -- but basically, some of them are often accused of having questionable sources or interpretations of the research on precolonial Pampanga/Central Luzon history, culture, mythology and religion, especially since a lot of it seems to be passed through the narrative of "Tagalog vs. Kapampangan" or "Tagalogs stole or took credit for Kapampangan achievements", essentially their version of "Imperial Manila" that many Visayans/Mindanaoans also use. At worst, one could almost claim they, or some of them, sound almost like they're promoting a "Kapampangan Supremacy" narrative.

So, are there any other historians of precolonial Pampanga, including history, culture and religion/beliefs, and the surrounding regions (including interactions with the Tagalog parts, Luzon/Lusong in general), who are NOT often surrounded with these controversies such as an implicit "Kapampangan Supremacy" promotion, to the point that the sources and interpretations they make can be called into question?

I guess non-Kapampangan historians studying the area, but all I can give is William Henry Scott citing Central Luzon (well, the Spanish friars and official chroniclers writing about it) in Barangay, but beyond that, I don't know any others, especially not local/Filipino ones. The only other name I can name currently who deals with Pampanga is Ian Alfonso, who wrote about the Macabebes, but I don't know if he does precolonial Pampanga too.

We all know that the official holiday here is Dec. 30, but now, more and more lately it seems like we're also celebrating or observing the birthday, Jun. 19, at least on media and social media, even though of course it's not yet also a national or official holiday. When did this start, and why does this more often now seem to be the case?

And are any other Filipino national heroes or Revolutionaries, historical figures, etc., accorded the same or any similar level of "observation of dates that are relevant to them"? I don't think Andres Bonifacio has been remembered much on the day he died (May 10) as opposed to the day he was born on Nov. 30, the official holiday, and let alone any other heroes beyond that. (At least, not nationally, if locally, provincially or regionally maybe this could be different.)

And, besides, could a hero technically have multiple national holidays for himself or herself? Is two the limit, one for the death anniversary and one for the birthday? Or what other days can be used to observe and remember their lives or legacy?