THE hearing last week of the Committee on Culture and the Arts of the Sanggunian Panlungsod on the proposed ordinance to change the name of Plaza Quezon to Plaza Arejola was a disaster. It was a disaster — not because the hearing did not push through — not because the committee adopted the policy of the National Historical Institute to preserve the names of Filipino Presidents in streets and plazas as relayed to the Sanggunian by NHI Director Ludovico Badoy — but because the proposed ordinance was not given a fair trial, because the decision to archive the proposed ordinance was not beyond any reasonable doubt.

        At the very outset the proposed ordinance is bound to be executed. Reason: the very composition of the committee is not culture-friendly. Not all of the three councilors, excluding the chair, who were present and in whose hands rests the fate of the proposed ordinance, have the orientation needed of one to sit and render suitable and fair judgment on any proposed ordinance or resolution on the preservation and enrichment of local culture and history. How can we expect fair handling of such resolutions or ordinances when those who sit in judgment of these proposed legislations do not have a fair grasp of the value of and events in local history?

        At the very outset the proposed ordinance was destined for execution by an “alleged” policy of an institution that may not at all represent the interests of the people of Naga and brazenly upheld in the committee hearing by officials of the local government unit of Naga — though the Sanggunian Panlungsod is empowered by Sections 15 and 16 in the Local Government Code “(to) exercise the powers expressly granted . . . and (to) ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture.’ Why the committee members did not entertain the suggestion that the policy stated by Badoy be verified and a copy be furnished the committee and that the conflict between the power of the local government unit to preserve and enrich its culture and the policy of the NHI to retain names of Presidents be resolved did not find fair and friendly treatment in the deliberation is beyond comprehension. Why must the enrichment of Bicol history be subjected to the decision of historians from Central Luzon and the Tagalog provinces? Why the haste in archiving the proposed ordinance? Why is the committee “fast and furious” in disposing the proposed ordinance’? Why must history still repeat itself today as it did in the times of Guardia Civil Corporal Elias Angeles and Felix Plazo who submitted themselves to the authority of General Emilio Aguinaldo through his henchman General Vicente Lukban? Why must there be Lukbans and Angeles and Plazo in the Sanggunian Panlungsod? Why is Councilor Nathan Sergio the only General Ludovico Arejola who fought for a Tierra Libre in the Committee on Culture and Arts?

        A similar dilemma on the naming of streets and plazas after Philippine Presidents was the subject of Postscript, a column by Federico D. Pascual, Jr. in the Sunday, July 29,2007, issue of the Philippine Star. Wrote Pascual in his article “This trick of naming roads, etc., after VIPs”: “What rules are there, if any, governing the naming of public structures after notable persons, dead or alive?” Indeed, what NHI rules were followed in naming the Naga kiosko after Quezon? If there was none, then, according to Councilor Nathan Sergio, the City council as author of the name “Plaza Quezon” can change the name to another.

        With the July 30, 2007 State of the City Report of City Mayor Jesse M. Robredo wherein he made special mention of his thrust on the enrichment and preservation of local culture, there is hope that the Lukbans and Angeles in the Sanggunian Panlungsod may after all do a General Ludovico Arejola. Or shall we resolve that from now on we should think thrice or even for several lifetimes before we name a street or plaza after a Philippine President?