Gone in 55 seconds

Raising this matter again may somehow groan like the broken record. But this is very elementary, you know (sounding like Manny Pacquiao)! I do have this big respect for artistic freedom but please – por Dios, por Santo – spare the “Lupang Hinirang”.

After all those booboos, I feel that it’s about time the National Historical Institute train an official singer of the national anthem and commission him/her to any match, of sorts, whenever-wherever there’s the need to sing the patriotic hymn. It would be best for the NHI to tap a grader who looks up at his/her mentor as the bearer of the absolute truth; so, he/she executes as directed, and as expected.

Yes, this is very elementary. At grade one, children listen and sing the national song until they get familiar with it. Also, the children are taught the proper way of saluting the flag. At second grade, children are expected to read and sing along and able to identify “Lupang Hinirang” as a symbol of the Philippines.

As they move on to grade three, they are to perfectly sing the lyrics correctly: its melody, proper timing, and dynamics; to sing with proper expression and feelings. At grade four, children are now expected to understand the national anthem by heart and continue participating solemnly in singing the “Lupang Hinirang” with feelings.

As for the fifth grader, love of country is now deeply instilled through the song. And that it shows them how our heroes bravely fought and fearlessly died for our country’s independence so we could enjoy being FREEMAN.

At the sixth grade, children already view our national anthem in terms of nationalism and loyalty. And that we adults should have the initiative, at such crucial stages, to share and guide them in learning the song to heart.

Very elementary, indeed, as espoused by our Vibal-published books!

The “Lupang Hinirang” should be over in 55 seconds! How come? Go back to Republic Act 8491 or the Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines. Section 37 specifically provides that the rendition of the national anthem, whether played or sung, shall be in accordance with the musical arrangement and composition of Julian Felipe. The original version was composed in duple time (i.e. in a time signature of 2/4). But because some singers find it hard to literally follow the said measure, the quadruple time (4/4) was adopted.

But the anthem may be played during the following: international competitions where the Philippines is the host or has a representative; local competitions; during the “signing off” and “signing on” of radio broadcasting and television stations; before the initial and last screening of films and before the opening of theater performances; and other occasions as may be allowed by the Institute.

The Oath of Patriotism (Panatang Makabayan) must be recited after the singing of the national anthem in basic education institutions. The Pledge of Allegiance (Panunumpa ng Katapatan sa Watawat ng Pilipinas) may be recited as well, though the law did not specify who is required to do so.

Section 20 of the law also states: “The observance of the flag ceremony in official or civic gatherings shall be simple and dignified and shall include the playing or singing of the anthem in its original Filipino lyrics and march tempo.”

Under Section 48 of RA 8491, “failure or refusal to observe the provisions of this Act; and any violation of the corresponding rules and regulations issued by the Office of the President, shall after proper notice and hearing, shall be penalized by public censure which shall be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation.”

It prescribes that any person who will violate its provisions may be punished by a fine of at least P 20,000 or imprisonment of not more than one year.

Even moviegoers who do not stand up when the National Anthem is being played in cinemas will be sanctioned subsequently, as it empowers the security personnel and ushers in movie houses to arrest a violator and summon law enforcement officers to assist in conducting citizens' arrest.

Amendment, as proposed by Akbayan Rep. Ana Theresia “Risa” Hontiveros-Baraquel, to give way to artistic freedom, should make it a requirement that the singer cares primarily for history, for patriotic pride and sensitivity; for the blood of our forefathers poured to reclaim our homeland. A well-raised child knows how to live up to the expectation that Filipinos, in this modern age, are indeed worth dying for.

 Why the fuss again? I’m fed up with our choices of “Lupang Hinirang” singers. If we “birit” the Lupang Hinirang, then why do we teach, in the first place, the youngsters to sing such in the so-called “proper manner” and “with fervor”? Why don’t we teach them then to do it the emo way; the hair rock fashion; the reggae-dub-ska?

This is very elementary. “Lupang Hinirang” is not only about the singer or about any boxer or his winning match. It’s about you and me and the rest who appreciate what it’s like to be held together by recurring themes of love of freedom, pride in motherland and shared cultural roots; of nationhood; of cultural traditions and ideals that various forms of colonization cum tyranny failed to strip off.

Treasuring and preserving our forefathers’ legacy is expected of us. Nothing less.

House panel to criminalize incorrect rendition of ‘Lupang Hinirang’

Improvised singing of “Lupang Hinirang” may soon be considered a criminal act.

The House committee on basic education and culture, chaired by Rep. Del de Guzman of Marikina City, announced the passage on third and final reading of House Bill (HB) Number 6424 or the measure proposing to criminalize the incorrect rendition of the National Anthem. The bill imposes two-year imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.

Rep. Salvador Escudero III of Sorsogon said once the bill is enacted into law, deviating from the musical arrangement of composer Julian Felipe when played and singing the national anthem “Lupang Hinirang” will be considered a crime punishable under Republic Act No. 8491 or Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines signed on February 12, 1998.

“This measure proposes to prescribe standards with respect to the singing of the National Anthem, protocol and display of the flag,” Escudero said.

Rep. Rufus Rodriguez of Cagayan de Oro, co-author of the bill, said the National Anthem shall be within the range of 100 to 120 metronome, in 2/4 beat when played and in 4/4 beat when sung.

“The National Anthem is a marching-type tempo wherein the Filipino participants are obliged to sing,” de Guzman said.

The NHI, in coordination with the proper government agency, shall disseminate an official music score sheet that reflects the manner in which the national anthem should be played or sung.

When the national anthem is played, the public is required to sing and do so "with fervor."

They are expected to sing while the right hand is placed over the left chest. Uniformed personnel, meanwhile, are to salute the flag as prescribed by their respective regulations.

Individuals whose faith prohibit them from singing “Lupang Hinirang” must still show full respect.

The national anthem, however, would not be allowed to be played and sung preceding “events of recreation, amusement, or entertainment purposes."

But the anthem may be played during the following: international competitions where the Philippines is the host or has a representative; national and local sports competitions, during the “signing off” and “signing on” of radio broadcasting and television stations, before the initial and last screening of films and before the opening of theater performances; Provided, that the owners and management of the establishments shall be mandated to enforce proper decorum and implement the pertinent provisions of this act; and other occasions as may be allowed by the NHI.

The Oath of Patriotism (Panatang Makabayan) must be recited after the singing of the national anthem in basic educational institutions. The Pledge of Allegiance (Panunumpa ng Katapatan sa Watawat ng Pilipinas) may be recited as well, though the law did not specify who is required to do so.

In Section 20 of the bill states: “The observance of the flag ceremony in official or civic gatherings shall be simple and dignified and shall include the playing and mandatory singing of the national anthem in its original Filipino lyrics and march tempo.”

The bill also requires all government and private offices as well as Filipino residences to display the Philippine flag from National Flag Day (May 28) to Independence Day (June 12) of each year, declaring it the period as Flag Days.

Reacting to the style of singing of Martin Nievera during the Manny Pacquiao vs. Ricky Hatton fight on May 3, Rep. Teodoro Casiño of Bayan Muna said there was need to correct some misconception that anyone can sing the national anthem in his or her preferred style.

Casiño filed last month House Resolution 1137, calling for an inquiry into the correct manner of singing the National Anthem.

“The public should be enlightened that there is a law on how to show respect for the Philippine flag, the National Anthem, the great seal and other heraldic items because these are symbols of the Filipino spirit and national identity,” Casiño said.

The co-authors of the bill are Reps. Eduardo Nonato Joson (First District, Nueva Ecija), Carlos Padilla (Lone District, Nueva Viscaya) Jesi Lapus (Third District, Tarlac), Mariano Pia­monte (Party-List, A TEACHER), Candido Pancrudo Jr. (First District, Bukidnon) Maria Isabelle Climaco (First District, Zamboa­nga City), Roilo Golez (Second District, Parañaque City), Philip Pichay (First District, Surigao del Sur), Jaime Lopez (Second District, Manila), Ma. Victoria Sy-Alvarado (First District, Bulacan) and Isidro Ungab (Third District, Davao City).

The lawmaker noted that Nievera were not the first artist who has sung the national anthem in abbreviated and a different style and tempo. “There were other artists who were already criticized for singing “Lupang Hinirang” in their own preferred mood or tempo,” Casiño said.

Bill on RP flag OK’d

The House of Representatives has approved on third and final reading a bill that addresses controversies surrounding the wearing of fashion accessories containing items in the Philippine flag or seal and the propensity of Filipino artists to freely make their own interpretation of the National Anthem.

In a bid to make clear its stand against disrespect of the flag and other heraldic codes of the country, the chamber decided to hike the imposable fines up to five folds and doubled the prison term from one year to two years.

Congressmen also put in a new provision that would allow any person to conduct a citizen’s arrest while the law is being violated in his presence.

Before adjourning last week, lawmakers unanimously voted to pass House Bill 6424 which seeks to amend Republic Act 8491 or the Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines.

“The bill aims to update the law in the light of contemporary changes in attitudes and idioms among Filipinos. It also intends to instill love of country and underscore the importance of complying with standard expressions of respect for our national symbols,” said Marikina City Rep. Del de Guzman, chairman of the House committee on basic education and culture.

Approval of the measure came in the wake of the controversy surrounding the rendition of the national anthem by balladeer Martin Nievera during the celebrated boxing match between Filipino boxing legend Manny Pacquiao and British Ricky Hatton.

Also caught in the wake of the bill’s approval was the issue on the use of Philippine flag items such as the stars and the eight-ray sun in T-shirts and other fashion accessories.

Authored by Reps. Edno Joson (Independent, Nueva Ecija), Juan Edgardo Angara (LDP, Aurora); Rufus Rodriguez (PDP, Cagayan de Oro City) and Mark Leandro Mendoza (NPC, Batangas), HB 6424 prescribes the standard beat and tempo and requires mandatory singing of the National Anthem.

Under the bill the national anthem will be rendered in accordance with the musical arrangement and composition of Julian Felipe “in 2/4 beat when played” and in 4/4 beat when sung.”

It tasked the National Historical Institute to disseminate the official music score sheet for the anthem.

Persons with religious beliefs prohibiting them from making pledge to the flag will also no longer be exempted from showing full respect for the flag and will be asked to stand at attention.

The national anthem, however, would not be allowed to be played and sung preceding “events of recreation, amusement, or entertainment purposes."

But the anthem may be played during the following: international competitions where the Philippines is the host or has a representative; national and local sports competitions, during the “signing off” and “signing on” of radio broadcasting and television stations, before the initial and last screening of films and before the opening of theater performances; Provided, that the owners and management of the establishments shall be mandated to enforce proper decorum and implement the pertinent provisions of this act; and other occasions as may be allowed by the NHI.

The Oath of Patriotism must be recited after the singing of the national anthem in basic educational institutions. The Pledge of Allegiance may be recited as well, though the law did not specify who is required to do so.

In Section 20 of the bill states: “The observance of the flag ceremony in official or civic gatherings shall be simple and dignified and shall include the playing and mandatory singing of the national anthem in its original Filipino lyrics and march tempo.”

The proposal prohibits the wearing of the flag, seal or coat-of arms as part of a fashion accessory or merely as a design element.

It also bans the use or display of the flag as part of any advertisement or infomercial unless approved by the NHI.

To further instill national awareness for respect of the flag, education agencies of the government were tasked to ensure that students in all public and private institutions will “commit to memory” the national anthem.

Penalties imposed against violators include a fine ranging from P50,000 to P100,000 and imprisonment of up to two years.

Creation of 20 districts unconstitutional?

When Speaker Prospero Nograles recently asked the Supreme Court to clarify the number of members that the House of Representatives can have, he may have unwittingly raised questions on the legitimacy of 20 congressional districts created since the ratification of the 1987 Constitution.

Citing the “constitutionally mandated maximum of 250” seats for the lower chamber, Nograles filed on April 28 a petition asking the High Tribunal to clarify its new formula in computing the number of allocated seats for party-list representatives. A week before that, the SC allowed 32 additional party-list nominees to be proclaimed, bringing the total membership of the House to 263.

“Considering that this is the first time that the number of members will actually exceed the constitutionally mandated maximum of 250, clarification is sought whether a prior act of increasing the number of members of the House of Representatives is necessary in order that the 32 named party-list representatives may be accommodated or whether it should enrol only such number that will complete the 250 maximum membership prescribed by the 1987 Constitution,” the petition read.

Article VI, Section 5, of the Constitution states that the number of House members should not exceed 250, and that 20 percent of that—or 50—should be the party-list representatives. That leaves only 200 seats for district representatives, which was the number of districts when the 1987 Constitution was ratified.

Since 1987, however, several laws were passed that created 20 additional legislative districts. Nineteen have elected congressmen, while the newest district will elect its first representative in 2010.

Court Interpretation

If the this formula for the allocation of seats would be followed, the 20 “extra” districts would be unconstitutional, and their representatives illegitimate. (See Representatives of Legislative Districts Created After 1987)

Before the Supreme Court decision, this going beyond the 200-district allocation went unnoticed because the 50 seats meant for the party-list representatives were never filled (made impossible by the 2-percent cap and the 3-seat limit that the SC is now trying to correct). The total number of House members never exceeded 250.

However, the charter’s section on the House of Represenatives also says that the maximum of 250 will be observed “unless otherwise fixed by law.”

In the latest SC decision on the party list, penned by Justice Antonion Carpio, the phrase “unless otherwise fixed by law” is interpreted thus, “The Constitution allows the legislature to modify the number of the members of the House of Representatives.”

This recognition by the Court of the power of Congress to change the maximum House membership could very well cover the laws that created those district in excess of 200. The Court interpretation, in effect, is saying that Congress can create as many districts beyond 200, and with the additional district seats also create additional party-list seats, as long as the total is split 80-20.

Party List Overlooked

The House petition before the Court, however, clearly leans toward observing the maximum 250 seats. It even suggests the idea of proclaiming only the additional party-list representatives that would bring the total House membership to 250, overlooking the constitutional provision on party-list representatives having to compose 20 percent of the total membership.

Nograles has said that he filed the latest petition to get a "definitive" ruling on the composition of the House, so as to avoid confusion in succeeding elections.

The clarification would have been unnecessary. Aside from Carpio's decision on the party-list, which clearly stated that Congress can break that initial ceiling of 250, the Court had advised the legislature about this matter in an earlier case. Last year, in the Bai Sema case where the Supreme Court ordered the province of Shariff Kabunsuan dissolved, the Court already advised Congress of the need to increase the maximum number of House seats.

Most of the congressional districts established after the 1987 Constitution are created as a result of creation of new provinces, conversion of municipalities to highly-urbanized cities (HUC), and conversion of former sub-provinces to provinces, Newsbreak research showed.

Eight of these congressional districts are in the National Capital Region, while four are from the rest of Luzon. Six are from Mindanao and two are from the Visayas. (See Number of Additional Districts Per Region)

The 20 congressional districts created after 1987 are as follow: the lone congressional districts of Biliran in Eastern Visayas, Dinagat Islands in Caraga Region, Guimaras in Western Visayas, Mandaluyong City, Navotas City and Muntinlupa City in Metro Manila, Apayao in Cordillera region,  San Jose del Monte City in Bulacan; the two congressional districts of Antipolo City;  the second legislative districts of the cities of Makati, Valenzuela, Taguig, Paranaque, Marikina, Zamboanga, Cagayan de Oro and the second legislative districts of the provinces of Zamboanga Sibugay, Compostela Valley, and  Sultan Kudarat in Mindanao.

Pending Bills Affected, Too

Section 5, Article 3 of the Constitution mandates that that a city with a population of 250,000 or each province shall have at least one representative.

The 1987 Constitution’s Ordinance, which apportions the seats of the House of Representatives to 200 legislative districts, also said that provinces or cities that have more than 250,000 inhabitants shall be entitled in the immediately following election to at least one or more representatives depending on its population.

“Any province that may hereafter be created, or any city whose population may hereafter increase to more than two hundred fifty thousand shall be entitled in the immediately following election to at least one Member or such number of Members as it may be entitled to on the basis of the number of its inhabitants and according to the standards set forth in paragraph (3), Section 5 of Article VI [the provision on the legislative department] of the Constitution,” Section 3 of the Ordinance reads.

The petition’s argument may also mean that the approval of the pending bills seeking re-apportionment and creation of new districts are unconstitutional. In the 14th Congress, bills have been filed seeking the creation of 17 more legislative districts.

The proposed new districts include: four new districts in Cavite, a district for Puerto Princesa City (which was converted into an HUC in 2007), and additional districts for Pangasinan, Cagayan, Camarines Norte,  Aklan, Cebu, Surigao del Sur, North Cotabato, Malolos City, Iligan City, Pasig City, Iloilo City, and Angeles City.

Local Gov’t Code Started It

The creation of the 20 new legislative districts started with the implementation of Republic Act 7160 or 1991 Local Government Code, which mandates the conversion of the existing sub-provinces into provinces.

Section 462 of the Code states that, “Existing sub-provinces are hereby converted into regular provinces upon approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite to be held in the said sub-provinces and the original provinces directly affected.”

Among sub-provinces affected by the Code provision were Biliran and Guimaras, which were sub-provinces of Leyte and Iloilo, respectively. Their conversion into provinces resulted in the creation of their legislative districts.

The division of Kalinga-Apayao into two separate provinces and the creation of Compostela Valley, Zamboanga Sibugay, and Dinagat Islands also resulted in additional districts.

In 1995, Kalinga-Apayao was divided into two distinct provinces by virtue of Republic Act 7878. The division results in the creation of the lone congressional district of Apayao. The same thing happened when Dinagat Islands was carved out of Surigao del Norte in 2006.

Compostela Valley is composed of 11 towns, which used to be part of Davao del Norte. Its creation in 1998 through Republic Act 8470 reduced the number of legislative districts in its mother province from three to two. Meanwhile, additional congressional districts were created in the provinces of Sultan Kudarat in 2006 and Zamboanga Sibugay, which is composed of the municipalities of the former third district of Zamboanga del Sur, in 2007.

New cities, More Districts

The conversion into cities of San Jose del Monte, Antipolo, Muntinlupa, Mandaluyong, and Navotas also resulted into creation of new districts. Muntinlupa used to be part of the lone district of Las Pinas-Muntinlupa, while Mandaluyong used to be part of the lone district of San Juan-Mandaluyong. Navotas, which became a city in 2007, used to be part of lone district of Malabon-Navotas; election for its first district representative will be held in 2010.

Antipolo, which used to be part of the Rizal’s first district, had its own first district in 1998 after it attained cityhood. Its second district was created in 2003, the same year when the lone district of San Jose del Monte City in Bulacan was created.

Parañaque’s and Marikina’s second districts were created in 2003 and 2006, respectively. Additional districts were also created in Makati in 1994, in Valenzuela in 1998, and in Taguig in 1998, after they became a highly-urbanized city. In Mindanao, the lone districts of the cities of Zamboanga and Cagayan de Oro in Mindanao were divided into two in 2004 and 2007, respectively. (Newsbreak)

https://news.abs-cbn.com/nation/05/06/09/creation-20-districts-unconstitutional

Martin faces House probe over anthem

For his “incorrect” rendition of the national anthem at the start of the Pacquiao vs. Hatton fight, singer Martin Nievera may have to be called to an investigation to be conducted by the House of Representatives.

In Resolution 1137, Bayan Muna Rep. Teodoro Casiño complained that Nievera sang the Lupang Hinirang “in a manner not in keeping with the original arrangement of its composer Julian Felipe.”

He said the singer sang the anthem as if it were a ballad.

“Mr. Nievera is not the first artist who has sang the national anthem in a different style and tempo. As in the past, such non-traditional renditions elicit much debate among policymakers and the public at large as to the proper way of singing the Lupang Hinirang and whether artists have the license to deviate from tradition,” he said.

Casiño noted that the artists who have deviated from the traditional rendition of the anthem on different occasions include Charice Pempengco and Jennifer Bautista, as against Karylle, Kyla and Ciara Sotto who had traditional interpretations.

Casiño said officials of the National Historical Institute have accused Nievera and his arranger of violating Section 37, Chapter II of Republic Act 8491, or the Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines.

The section provides: “The rendition of the national anthem, whether played or sung, shall be in accordance with the musical arrangement and composition of Julian Felipe.”

But the anthem may be played during the following: international competitions where the Philippines is the host or has a representative; local competitions; during the “signing off” and “signing on” of radio broadcasting and television stations; before the initial and last screening of films and before the opening of theater performances; and other occasions as may be allowed by the Institute.

The Oath of Patriotism (Panatang Makabayan) must be recited after the singing of the national anthem in basic education institutions. The Pledge of Allegiance (Panunumpa ng Katapatan sa Watawat ng Pilipinas) may be recited as well, though the law did not specify who is required to do so.

Section 20 of the law also states: “The rendition of the flag ceremony in official or civic gatherings shall be simple and dignified and shall include the playing or singing of the anthem in its original Filipino lyrics and march tempo.”

The law imposes a fine of P5,000 to P20,000 or imprisonment of not more than one year, or both, upon the discretion of the court.

Even moviegoers who do not stand up when the National Anthem is being played in cinemas will be sanctioned if the measure subsequently, as it empowers the security personnel and ushers in movie houses to arrest a violator and summon law enforcement officers to assist in conducting citizens' arrest.

“The law notwithstanding, society also recognizes the artists’ right to free expression and to interpret the national anthem or depict the Philippine flag as they see fit, provided that such national symbols are revered and not desecrated,” Casiño said.

Casiño urged a review of the law in the light of Nievera’s interpretation of the national anthem.

Casiño said a review of RA 8491 is “appropriate, whether they should be relaxed or strengthened given the realities on the ground.”

Nievera, however, found an ally in Malacañang and a fellow artist.

Cabinet Secretary Silvestre Bello III said Nievera sang “in good faith.”

“He is an artist and so we should not be rash in our judgments,” Bello said. “In the first place, he sang the best way he could and we requested him to sing and he sang in good faith.”

Bello said 50 singers could render different versions of a song.

“Unless the NHI fells strongly about it, maybe we should accept Martin Nievera as the lucky charm of Manny Pacquiao, that’s why he won in two rounds instead of 12,” he said.

Bello said the public must be “more progressive in our considerations.”

Singer-activist Leah Navarro also agreed with Nievera’s rendition of the country’s anthem.

“I do not care how people sing it, whether it’s rap or out of tune for as long as they know how to sing it. That is, has sense of self,” she said.

What is important, Navarro stressed, are the lyrics of the song which was “sung from the heart, how the singer conveys the message to the audience.”

“What is important is upholding the value of the Filipino citizen,” she said.

Navarro said critics are making a big issue of Nievera’s rendition of the national anthem.

She said gospel music could also be sung in different ways. - With Delon Porcalla, Paolo Romero, Evelyn Macairan

HISTORIAN SAYS Martin Nievera sang ‘Lupang Hinirang’ wrong

The National Historical Institute (NHI) criticized on Sunday singer Martin Nievara's rendition of the Philippine National Anthem at the beginning of the Manny Pacquiao-Ricky Hatton bout in Las Vegas earlier Sunday.

In a text message, NHI chairman Ambeth Ocampo expressed dissatisfaction with the latest rendition and added that the flashing of the agency's seal was "without our permission."

Ocampo, who was on a provincial trip on Sunday, said he did not see Nievera's rendition. But he learned from those who watched the bout that the anthem, officially titled “Lupang Hinirang,” was sung with a martial tone but had a slow opening and closing.

Nievera sang the first stanza softly and slowly; he sang the last line with prolonged, high notes.

“Despite repeated reminders, some artists continue to make adjustments to the anthem, which is not an ordinary piece of music open to free interpretation,” Ocampo said.

Section 37 of the Republic Act No. 8491, also known as the 1998 Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines, provides that "the rendition of the National Anthem, whether played or sung, shall be in accordance with the musical arrangement and composition of Julian Felipe."

Felipe composed in 1898 the anthem's music, which has the tune of a march. It was played during the proclamation of the country's independence from Spain at Kawit, Cavite on June 12, 1898.

The current Tagalog lyrics were adapted from the Spanish poem "Filipinas" written by Jose Palma in 1899.

In a May 2005 column at the Philippine Daily Inquirer (http://web.archive.org/web/20050526123412/http://news.inq7.net/opinion/index.php?index=2&story;_id=38046&col;=80) , Ocampo said that if the law were taken literally, then the song should be sung with a solo piano or a brass band. He added, "If we follow the 1898 Felipe original, either the lyrics will slow down the music or we will be unable to sing and keep up with the music."

Republic Act 8341 punishes failure or refusal to observe the provisions of the code with public censure, which shall be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation. The guilty person may be fined up to P5,000 or imprisoned not more than a year, or be meted with both penalties, at the discretion of the court.

Even moviegoers who do not stand up when the National Anthem is being played in cinemas will be sanctioned, as it empowers the security personnel and ushers in movie houses to arrest a violator and summon law enforcement officers to assist in conducting citizens' arrest.

In the past, the NHI criticized the incorrect singing of the anthem during international events such as sporting events that were aired over television and radio. The agency also criticized the renditions of singers Sarah Geronimo, Kyla, Lani Misalucha and Bituin Escalante during previous Pacquiao bouts.

That strange logo after Martin Nievera's version of the Philippine national anthem

Those of us who sat glued to the edge of our seats awaiting the Pacquiao-Hatton match on TV might have been caught off-guard by the logo that appeared after Martin Nievera sang his rendition of the Philippine national anthem at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas last May 2 (May 3, Philippine time).

Pictured above, the logo belongs to the National Historical Institute (NHI), an arm in the culture and development agenda of the government, whose mission includes promoting Philippine history and cultural heritage through research, dissemination, conservation, sites management and heraldry works. It is responsible for the conservation and preservation of the country's historical legacies, and includes among its tasks ensuring the proper use of the national anthem in accordance with Republic Act 8491 (Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines). I guess the logo simply indicates that Nievera's version is acceptable, unlike others including those sung in previous Pacquiao fights.

It will be recalled that Councilors in Davao raised their eyebrows after Sarah Geronimo sang the Lupang Hinirang before the November 2006 battle between Pacquiao and Erik Morales. The slow and kundiman-like rendition was seen as a bastardization of the national anthem, prompting Councilor Nilo Abellera to file a resolution reminding Davaoenos on the proper way of singing the song.

But Geronimo is not the only one to put her spin on the anthem. In the first Pacquiao-Morales fight (March 2005), and in the Pacquiao-Larios match (July 2006), Lani Misalucha and Bituin Escalante, respectively, also took liberties with the song.

Meanwhile, in the January 2006 re-match between Pacquiao and Morales, Jennifer Bautista fell awkwardly off-key in the anthem's last lyric.

And who could forget Christian Bautista's abbreviated version during the Gerry Penalosa vs. Bernabe Concepcion event in 2007?

The string of events prodded NHI's Teodoro Atienza to remind Kyla (whom Pacquiao handpicked to interpret the Lupang Hinirang during the October 2007 rematch between Pacquiao and Marco Antonio Barrera) about the mandatories of singing the national song.

But what are these mandatories? R.A. 8491 specifies that the national anthem "shall be in accordance with the musical arrangement and composition of Julian Felipe."

This means the anthem should carry a brisk and martial mood and tempo; after all, the original music was intended to be a march in duple time (2/4 meter)--and thus the emotional kundiman approaches are deemed unfaithful to the original spirit of the song.

If properly rendered, the anthem should sit comfortably between 53 to 60 seconds. It should also be sung in the national language regardless of where it is played.

The NHI, in coordination with the proper government agency, shall disseminate an official music score sheet that reflects the manner in which the national anthem should be played or sung.

When the national anthem is played, the public is required to sing and do so "with fervor."

They are expected to sing while the right hand is placed over the left chest. Uniformed personnel, meanwhile, are to salute the flag as prescribed by their respective regulations.

Individuals whose faith prohibit them from singing Lupang Hinirang must still show full respect.

Apart from these, R.A. 8491 prohibits the performing of the anthem for mere recreation, amusement, or entertainment except for the following occasions: International competitions where the Philippines is the host or has a representative; local competitions; during the "signing on" and "signing off" of radio broadcasting and television stations; and before the initial and last screening of films and before the opening of theater performances; Provided, that the owners and management of the establishments shall be mandated to enforce proper decorum and implement the pertinent provisions of this act; and other occasions as may be allowed by the NHI.

The Oath of Patriotism (Panatang Makabayan) must be recited after the singing of the national anthem in basic education institutions. The Pledge of Allegiance (Panunumpa ng Katapatan sa Watawat ng Pilipinas) may be recited as well, though the law did not specify who is required to do so.

In Section 20 of the law also states: “The observance of the flag ceremony in official or civic gatherings shall be simple and dignified and shall include the playing or singing of the anthem in its original Filipino lyrics and march tempo.”

So apparently the NHI prescreened and approved Nievera's rendition of the national anthem. Good for the artist as singers who do not follow the guidelines set for the use of the song can be fined P5,000 up to P20,000 or be imprisoned for 1 year, or both. If the Congress raises the penalty and make P100,000 or be imprisoned for 2 years.

Even moviegoers who do not stand up when the National Anthem is being played in moviehouses will be sanctioned, as it empowers the security personnel and ushers in movie houses to arrest a violator and summon law enforcement officers to assist in conducting citizens' arrest.

But whether I liked the version or not is a different story. For now, you be the judge: