WE Filipinos have a passion for titles that other peoples must find comical. Names are not enough, we must embellish them with titles, and the more impressive the better.
It does not suffice that some of our names unabashedly if not always truthfully proclaim the virtues of the bearer. Thus, we are told that Dimalanta is unfading. Panganiban must be feared, and Mabasa is studious. But those are surnames that can’t be helped for we cannot choose our families.
But some proper names are nothing but attempts at self-levitation. Parents have imposed such names as Venus upon a homely daughter and Heracleo upon a weakling. They have embarrassed their children for life.
Other people have adopted surnames to denote their trade, like Smith and Baker and Mason. Others have chosen colors like Brown and Gray and Black. There are also surnames denoting lineage or paternity like Johnson, meaning John’s son, and Patterson and Jameson. And let us not forget Vito Corleone, who was misnamed after his village.
The bearers of those names are addressed simply as Mr. or Mrs. or Miss or Ms. The usual exceptions are when they happen to be doctors or professors or government officials like mayors or legislators. Most professionals, including lawyers, do not deserve or employ a special title.
We have seen often enough on foreign shows how lawyers are not addressed by the judge as “Attorney.” No matter how distinguished they may, they are just “Mister” to the court and the public. But it is different in this country, where we seem to consider lawyers as belonging to a special breed. They are always complimented with the title “Attorney,” even by the Supreme Court.
Filipino practice seems to reserve “Mister” or “Mrs.” only for non-professionals and to address professionals by their occupation or calling. Things have come to such a pass, in fact, that in addition to calling the lawyer “Attorney,” we have to call Mr. Villanueva “Engineer Villanueva:” and Mr. Manalo “Architect Manalo.”
And how about “Socialite” Baby Arenas and “Madam” Imelda Marcos? I wouldn’t be surprised if pretty soon we will be calling Mrs. Mercado in the elementary school “Teacher Mercado” and Mang Julio who fixes our faucets “Plumber Hernandez.”
So obsessed are we with title that we seem to want to cling to them even beyond this life. Some obituaries proclaim the title of the deceased, to remind us that he was Atty. So and So, Engineer This, or Architect That. When it comes to titles in this country, death is not the universal leveler.
The question of titles was formally raised in the Supreme Court some years ago, when the members of the Judicial and Bar Council sought permission to call themselves “Justice.” A similar request was later made by the Office of the Court Administrator.
The members of the JBC submitted that they were justified in using the title because they enjoy the constitutional prerogative of nominating judges and even members of the Supreme Court itself. For its part, the OCA argued that it is a rank higher than the regional and municipal trial court judges because it has supervisory authority over them. Such authority would be exercised more effectively if its members were addressed as “Justices” and not as mere administrators.
The Supreme Court denied both requests. It pointed out that the members of the two offices were not even members of the judiciary, let alone appellate members. The court allowed the members of the JBC to use the word “Honorable” before their names, but it did not make a similar concession to the OCA.
In its resolution of Feb. 21,1989, the Court said that the title of “Justice” may be used only by incumbent and retired justices of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals (or its predecessor, the Intermediate Appellate Court) and the Sandiganbayan. No other officer can call himself or answer to that title, including “even those given the rank of said justices.”
Incidentally, there are some titles that are for life even if the holder is no longer incumbent. A judge is always a judge. A general does not lose his rank when he retires. The President does not become ex-President when his term ends; he is still President Macapagal although we may refer to one who has just retired as former President Aquino. Some of my retired colleagues refer to themselves as Justice So and So (Ret.), and so run the risk of being mistaken as Retarded.
The Commission on Elections was correct in refusing Senator Biazon the use of “General” as his nickname as it is a generic title that can be claimed by all other generals running for office. There are other nicknames that cannot pass for titles, like “The Guy” for Magsaysay, or “Bigotillo” for then Speaker Jose Laurel. The use of “Mr. Vilma Santos” as a nickname of Rep. Ralph Recto was not decisively resolved by the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.
Going back to the Supreme Court resolution, I suggest that the government corporate counsel not call himself “Justice,” and neither should the hearing officers call themselves “judges.” This admonition against the improper use of titles applies as well to the hearing officers of other administrative agencies like the Department of Labor, the SEC, and the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. They are not judges. “Mister” should be respectable enough for them.
May I say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the simple address of “Mister.” It is certainly less pretentious and sometimes more honorable than “Honorable” or “Congressman” or “Senator.” And how about the respectful “Ginoo” or “Ginang” or the demure-sounding “Binibini?” These sound more democratic in our supposedly classless society.
Justice Isagani A. Cruz 
Judicial and Bar Council, Office of the Court Administrator, Social Comment, Supreme Court
A passion for titles, February 25, 1995
In 1995 on May 13, 2015 at 1:05 amWE Filipinos have a passion for titles that other peoples must find comical. Names are not enough, we must embellish them with titles, and the more impressive the better.
It does not suffice that some of our names unabashedly if not always truthfully proclaim the virtues of the bearer. Thus, we are told that Dimalanta is unfading. Panganiban must be feared, and Mabasa is studious. But those are surnames that can’t be helped for we cannot choose our families.
But some proper names are nothing but attempts at self-levitation. Parents have imposed such names as Venus upon a homely daughter and Heracleo upon a weakling. They have embarrassed their children for life.
Other people have adopted surnames to denote their trade, like Smith and Baker and Mason. Others have chosen colors like Brown and Gray and Black. There are also surnames denoting lineage or paternity like Johnson, meaning John’s son, and Patterson and Jameson. And let us not forget Vito Corleone, who was misnamed after his village.
The bearers of those names are addressed simply as Mr. or Mrs. or Miss or Ms. The usual exceptions are when they happen to be doctors or professors or government officials like mayors or legislators. Most professionals, including lawyers, do not deserve or employ a special title.
We have seen often enough on foreign shows how lawyers are not addressed by the judge as “Attorney.” No matter how distinguished they may, they are just “Mister” to the court and the public. But it is different in this country, where we seem to consider lawyers as belonging to a special breed. They are always complimented with the title “Attorney,” even by the Supreme Court.
Filipino practice seems to reserve “Mister” or “Mrs.” only for non-professionals and to address professionals by their occupation or calling. Things have come to such a pass, in fact, that in addition to calling the lawyer “Attorney,” we have to call Mr. Villanueva “Engineer Villanueva:” and Mr. Manalo “Architect Manalo.”
And how about “Socialite” Baby Arenas and “Madam” Imelda Marcos? I wouldn’t be surprised if pretty soon we will be calling Mrs. Mercado in the elementary school “Teacher Mercado” and Mang Julio who fixes our faucets “Plumber Hernandez.”
So obsessed are we with title that we seem to want to cling to them even beyond this life. Some obituaries proclaim the title of the deceased, to remind us that he was Atty. So and So, Engineer This, or Architect That. When it comes to titles in this country, death is not the universal leveler.
The question of titles was formally raised in the Supreme Court some years ago, when the members of the Judicial and Bar Council sought permission to call themselves “Justice.” A similar request was later made by the Office of the Court Administrator.
The members of the JBC submitted that they were justified in using the title because they enjoy the constitutional prerogative of nominating judges and even members of the Supreme Court itself. For its part, the OCA argued that it is a rank higher than the regional and municipal trial court judges because it has supervisory authority over them. Such authority would be exercised more effectively if its members were addressed as “Justices” and not as mere administrators.
The Supreme Court denied both requests. It pointed out that the members of the two offices were not even members of the judiciary, let alone appellate members. The court allowed the members of the JBC to use the word “Honorable” before their names, but it did not make a similar concession to the OCA.
In its resolution of Feb. 21,1989, the Court said that the title of “Justice” may be used only by incumbent and retired justices of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals (or its predecessor, the Intermediate Appellate Court) and the Sandiganbayan. No other officer can call himself or answer to that title, including “even those given the rank of said justices.”
Incidentally, there are some titles that are for life even if the holder is no longer incumbent. A judge is always a judge. A general does not lose his rank when he retires. The President does not become ex-President when his term ends; he is still President Macapagal although we may refer to one who has just retired as former President Aquino. Some of my retired colleagues refer to themselves as Justice So and So (Ret.), and so run the risk of being mistaken as Retarded.
The Commission on Elections was correct in refusing Senator Biazon the use of “General” as his nickname as it is a generic title that can be claimed by all other generals running for office. There are other nicknames that cannot pass for titles, like “The Guy” for Magsaysay, or “Bigotillo” for then Speaker Jose Laurel. The use of “Mr. Vilma Santos” as a nickname of Rep. Ralph Recto was not decisively resolved by the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.
Going back to the Supreme Court resolution, I suggest that the government corporate counsel not call himself “Justice,” and neither should the hearing officers call themselves “judges.” This admonition against the improper use of titles applies as well to the hearing officers of other administrative agencies like the Department of Labor, the SEC, and the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. They are not judges. “Mister” should be respectable enough for them.
May I say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the simple address of “Mister.” It is certainly less pretentious and sometimes more honorable than “Honorable” or “Congressman” or “Senator.” And how about the respectful “Ginoo” or “Ginang” or the demure-sounding “Binibini?” These sound more democratic in our supposedly classless society.
Share this:
Related