The Ghost in the Room: Why We Need to Talk About Our "Traditions"

Part 1 of 3

I was stuck in traffic the other day—which, let’s be honest, is where all great Filipino philosophical crises begin—and I found myself looking at the back of a jeepney plastered with religious stickers and colonial-era slogans. It hit me: so much of what we call “Filipino Tradition” is actually just a leftover colonial hangover we’ve mistaken for a personality.

We pride ourselves on being a conservative society. We hold onto “the way things were” like a life raft. But if we look closer at the conservatism rooted in our religious and colonial history, you have to wonder: is that raft actually a weight pulling us under?

The “Friar” Filter

It’s a bit ironic, isn’t it? We defend certain values as “inherently Filipino,” yet if you trace them back, they were imported on a galleon from Spain. The rigid moralism, the obsession with appearances, the “Huwag kang sasagot” (don’t talk back) culture—these aren’t ancient Pinoy traits; they’re the mechanics of colonial control.

By clinging to this specific brand of conservatism, we aren’t protecting our heritage. We’re protecting a version of ourselves that was designed to be submissive.

The Cost of “The Old Way”

When we talk about policy, this isn’t just an abstract debate. It has real-world casualties.

• The Divorce Debate: We are the only country left in the world (besides the Vatican) where divorce is illegal. We’d rather see people trapped in abusive or dead marriages than “offend” a tradition that isn’t even working for the modern family.

• Health and Identity: From reproductive health to LGBTQ+ rights, we often hit a wall of “moral” opposition. But whose morals are they? Usually, they’re the morals of a century that didn’t have the internet, modern medicine, or a globalized economy.

A Lack of Empathetic Comprehension?

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the term empathetic comprehension. In simple terms, it’s not just feeling for someone; it’s the intellectual work of actually understanding their reality.

When we stick to rigid conservatism, we lose that comprehension. We stop asking, “Why is this woman struggling to feed five kids?” or “What is the lived experience of a trans person in a provincial town?” Instead, we just point to a rulebook written hundreds of years ago and say, “The book says no.” True empathy requires us to look at the world as it is today, not as it was in 1890. If we can’t comprehend the modern struggle, how can we hope to lead a modern society?

The Stagnation Trap

There’s also the economic side of it. Conservatism, by its very nature, is suspicious of change. But change is the engine of progress. When we prioritize patronage and “the old boys’ club” (another colonial gift) over merit and innovation, we stay stagnant. We treat poverty as a cross to be borne with “resilience” rather than a systemic failure that needs to be dismantled.

The Big Question

I’m not saying we should toss out every value we have. Respect for elders, community spirit, and faith are beautiful things. But when our conservatism is used as a tool to exclude, to silence, and to keep us in the past, we have to ask the hard question.

Is conservatism a compass that keeps us grounded, or is it a cage that keeps us from finally becoming the nation we’re supposed to be? Is there still a place for it in 2026, or have we outgrown the old coat our colonizers left behind?