One Look at the Section 37 of the Philippine Republic Act 8491: Singing The Philippine National Anthem at International Boxing Matches

NOTE: I am sure I may be getting some skewed comments thinking that this is going to be biased AGAIN since one of the involved vocalists is the Journey front man Arnel Pineda (because he is one of my idols). AND, this is a very long read again. I don't expect much people to take time in reading this one.

And please, these are my own opinions. Very arugable opinions. It's ok to argue with these but please pay respect to my opinions as I would pay respect to yours.

---

It is always a controversial whenever a fellow countryman/countrywoman is chosen to sing the Philippine National Anthem before an international boxing match which includes a Filipino boxer in the competition. Why? Because there is this existing government agency that is actually monitoring the usages of our national symbols (do not get me wrong - I believe they are there for a reason, and the reason is legitimate).

It all adheres to the Republic Act 8491 (under Section 37) or the Flag and Heraldic Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupang_Hinirang#Usage_and_legal_regulation or http://www.chanrobles.com/republicactno8491.htm for more detail), which states:

"The national anthem must be sung in accordance with the original musical arrangement of composer Julian Felipe, who gave it a marching tempo. Violators may be fined P5,000 to P20,000 or jailed for a year."

From the latter link: Sec. 37. "The rendition of the National Anthem, whether played or sung, shall be in accordance with the musical arrangement and composition of Julian Felipe."

Get the whole Republic Act 8491 here - http://www.glin.gov/view.action?glinID=74097

This law was written in 1998, on the 100th year of its composition, 100th year after the Philippine independence from Spain, and 54 years after its composer passed away. Again, don't get me wrong - this is the law, and it was written in the very straightforward manner. I would put respect to any kind of law that is enforced by the government. But I would like to put an effort to question how was this law written this way, and how it is actually enforced nowadays.

If this is not a law, it would just boil down to preference (but even it IS the law now, I have read and heard different people's preferences). Some say why should these singers stick to the traditional composition when they can deviate a little; some say it's not that hard to follow the original composition.

Personally, I haven't decided yet what would be my personal preference to this. I am a musician, so I may tend to be yelling out the artistic sense of it, but law itself carries a good reason behind why it is there.

The chosen singers that were to sing the national anthem during international events should feel honored, having the opportunity to represent our country in the international stage in the means of delivering what would be one of the most important national symbols. But I am sure this has not been the case, as I am sure the most recent chosen ones are aware that a group of people are watching them not to feel so proud being represented by an amazing singer, but to dissect every note the singer sings and look for faults or errors that they can pinpoint. But from the singers' points of view and awareness, had they really been bothered by that thought at the actual moment they are singing the beloved anthem? Or the more general question would me, how did they exactly feel at the moment of singing with the fact that some people are watching and listening to them in a "lawful" way?

Do you think the law was well thought and well written? I understand the manifested objective of this law - to respect and to instill usage with respect of our National Anthem at all times. But do you think this written law is too stiff? Was it intentional to seem that way? Or does it lack something?

In my opinion, yes it does lack something. It honestly is lacking more than just one factor. Actually what is lacking are really big factors if you are going to write a law. So let me reiterate - "The national anthem must be sung in accordance with the original musical arrangement of composer Julian Felipe...". So where here in this law is the ORIGINAL MUSICAL ARRANGEMENT? Where do we look for a reference? If we are bound to this law, why are we also bound to look up for the original composition which is not really attached to the law itself. I think that is absurd.

By common sense, one way or another, we would know know the tune for the lead vocalist of our national anthem, whatever the key maybe (but BY LAW, it should be sang in the musical composition by Felipe, including the key signature). BY HEART, if I may add. But that is not enough not to include the composition (or at least an official reference) to the actual law. You know why? Today, I tried looking for a score sheet of Lupang Hinirang, but all I got is a two page sheet in the following link (http://www.free-scores.com/download-sheet-music.php?pdf=16729) which is an four-piece acapella arrangement of the song (with the credit goes to a NON-Julian Felipe).

My next concern would be very much related to the above fact. Is there or is not there an existing earlier composition for the voicing parts (e.g. SATB)? Take note that Felipe's original composition is an incidental music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incidental_music) and had no lyrics to go with it (until the next year). So BY COMMON SENSE, how do singers should cope up with the law? Sing however the trumpets or any other melodic instruments were played? So yeah, it's easy to say there are musical arrangements made for the lyrics, but I haven't found anything about Felipe's rearrangement for this (as it says ORIGINAL and JULIAN FELIPE = music with no voice).

And touching more on the SATB voicing (take a peek on the La Diva's video below - I know it's not a SATB setup), ASSUMING that the first instance the original music was meshed with voice OR ASSUMING that the first instance the original music was played by a number of melodic instruments on a SATB setup (or any voicing setup), is it enough for us to revisit the written law again and say that it's clear how to simply follow it? Again, no is my answer. A solo singer does not have a reference voice to follow with the assumptions I have made above, and even if the assumptions were not placed, that would lead the solo singer AGAIN to a blind spot still, citing again the "original composition" which is an incidental music. It's actually hard to miss this point out as there are a lot of public establishments out there which have been making use of the national anthem with a choir (or at least a SATB quartet) with different voicing parts (especially radio stations signing on/off) which are in the same lawful umbrella too.

La Diva:



So comparing those radio station quartets to the solo singers (who are obviously getting more attention with a percentage of detractors compared to the former), I believe you can sing along with any of the two entities without any problems (I can go musically technical on this part why, but it is not necessary for now), let alone the tempo as I will touch on that part just a little later on this entry. Take a peek on the videos below on Arnel Pineda, Charice Pempengco, and Regine Velasquez. They have delivered pretty much the same notes (the key signature may differ a bit), and basically any one can just sing along with their renditions with minimal problems(even if it's not needed). But the debate comes in the last part comes in. The line "Ang mamatay ng dahil sa'yo". Firstly, I surely remember from school that the syllables "-tay ng da-hil sa-" is just made within one measure for a 4/4 time measure, or two 2/4 time measure for the standard marching tempo (series of quarter notes), but at times those syllables are sung in two measures for a 4/4 time measure, and let alone the 2/4 time measure because a series of half notes for this part of the song isn't so "marching" sounding. So again, which is the correct composition? There is no reference. But concentrating on the notes themselves, by COMMON MUSICAL SENSE, the unison should sing the last line on notes (of the key signature) MI-DO-RE-(lower)TI-TI-DO. But I believe, in choirs the notes are more than that. In the SATB voicing, I am guessing that would be the tenor part, and the soprano part would be MI-DO-RE-SOL-SOL-SOL. That's exactly how the above mentioned vocalists did in the videos below (except for Regine who sang it MI-DO-RE-SOL-SOL-DO), and for me that's not exactly a way of showing some artistic expression as an erroneous connotation of "doing it your own way" but simply taking on a different set of notes that has been pre-arranged, simply to make the song exclamatory and more dramatic. It may prove to be a simple technique, but it is an effective one. And musicality-wise, I have to say the way those artists have sang it, they did it WITHIN the original composition because even if I didn't live in 1898 to hear the original version, I am sure those notes I have mentioned above were hit by any melodic instrument too.

Arnel Pineda:



Charice Pempengco:



Regine Velasquez:



Martin Nievera and Lani Misalucha's version in the ending were really their "artistic expressions" in a sense that the notes they sang were really off the original composition.

Martin Nievera:



Lani Misalucha:



How about the tempo? The law says that it should be played/sung on a marching tempo. Again, where is the reference to this marching tempo? Does the law have to rely on human common sense again on defining our own idea of a marching tempo? Or is there a separate law wherein a "march" tempo is definitive? But alright, for curiosity's sake, a marching tempo ranges from 120 up to 200 BPM. The law writer on this one must have felt lazy searching for at least the definite tempo rate, or he/she didn't feel the need to make the indication.

But now going back to the original written law, yes, I am very sure in some way, composer Julian Felipe would have appreciated this law as a nationalistic sign to respect his work for the country. But did anyone from the National Historic Institute foresee the string of incidents happening? If he were still alive, would you think he would appreciate the NHI's efforts in keeping the national anthem respected by IMPOSING FINES and JAILTIME?

Nobody can blame the NHI for doing what they are supposed to do. And at the same time, it's plain easy to call the attention of these chosen singers (notably the singers in the videos below) because if you slap the law to them, they'd all be technically defenseless. But the bad thing really is NHI is enforcing the law that they obviously did not write BY COMMON SENSE because there are a lot of loopholes in that section itself and the rest of the chapter. The closest ones that I consider to be "safe" are Sarah, Kyla and Karylle, but no still because the way they sang it wasn't really in the marching tempo (normally a 2/4 measure) even though they sang it as how Felipe composed it in terms of the notes. But when at times (or even if not at all) they say they sang it with nationalistic pride and honor and with all their hearts no matter how they sang the national anthem, I do believe them.

Sarah Geronimo:



Kyla:



Karylle:



As how the law was written and as how the NHI is enforcing the law, I don't think there is a single musician involved in the formation of that law and enforcing of the law, except for Julian Felipe himself. If there is at least a single musician other than Felipe involved, please let me know.

The law as it is now would either be very stiff or very vague. If I have the necessary power, I would have that law rewritten or at least put the necessary reference to it. The reason why - I have already enumerated them above. If the law is going to be too stiff to be revised, why not have a chosen singer sing the national anthem in front of the NHI people privately, agree on how the singer should deliver the anthem in the big stage even on the little deviations, then persecute the singer if he or she does not do it according to the agreement. If that still does not work, why not do what some other people I hear suggesting - play a pre-recorded mp3 file of the anthem. You can actually have different versions of it. In that way, no one has to worry who's doing a bad job.

So, here are my opinions to this. I do not mean to detract any person or group of people in this entry. I do not intend to degrade that law which has been present for 12 years already. I do not intend to push some movement to revise the said law, or something really stupid like that. These are just my opinions and nothing more than that.