Misplaced invocation of Cebuano-Bisayan identity

Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa apologized on Sunday for his insult regarding the physical appearance of Akbayan Partlist Representative Perci Cendaña. This came after his insensitive remarks about Cendaña’s uneven face --an effect of a stroke-- sparked backlash from several sectors.

An “I’m sorry for my offensive comments” would have sufficed, but one thing caught my attention in his apology, which, as expected, came with an implied excuse. The excuse was that his remarks against his fellow lawmaker stemmed from the “anger of Mindanaoans and Cebuano-speaking people,” with whom he claimed to empathize.

This kind of misrepresentation has often been used by pro-Duterte partisans to defend or promote their stance. They flaunt Bisaya pride as if their programs and principles have anything to do with Cebuano-Bisayan identity. Such opportunism, which began during the 2016 presidential campaign of then-Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte, must be called out. It is a blatant misrepresentation that distorts the legitimate grievances of Cebuano-Bisayans for personal and political gain rather than for genuine social, economic, or cultural advocacy.

Since when have Cebuano-speaking politicians like Senator Dela Rosa concretely advanced progressive ethnic sentiment, other than using it as an excuse every time his fellow Mindanaoan politicians make a bad joke, behave rudely, or insult others? Crude language and insults are never hallmarks of the Cebuano-Bisayan identity.

Senator Dela Rosa may argue that his constituents in Mindanao are angry about the impeachment of the vice president, who also hails from Mindanao; perhaps there is some basis for that. After all, the Social Weather Stations survey released last month showed that while 41% of Filipinos favored impeachment (35% opposed, 19% were undecided), only 22% of Mindanaoans supported it. However, he should not drag the rest of us Cebuano-speaking people into his excuses, as the same survey shows that in the Visayas, 40% backed impeachment, 33% opposed it, and 24% were undecided.

We Cebuano-Bisayans have a long history of asserting our identity in the face of Manila-centric policies. However, this assertion has always focused on political and economic marginalization, not on ethnolinguistic chauvinism.

The countryside development campaign of the late Cebu Governor Emilio “Lito” Osmeña may have been underscored by Cebuano-Bisayan regional pride, but its focus was on opposing the centralization of political power, economic resources, and cultural dominance in Manila. Those are genuine grievances, not opportunistic ones, unlike the “Bisaya Na Pud” campaign that claimed to help propel politicians like Duterte and Dela Rosa to the national stage.

Lito Osmeña’s campaign challenged systemic inequalities among regions, while “Bisaya Na Pud” promotes exclusionary and supremacist views.

As Yoshihiro Kobari’s study (2006) on Cebuano-Bisayan ethnic identity suggests, regional identity in the Philippines is often framed within a “we”-“others” dichotomy, with Cebuanos and other non-Tagalog groups asserting their place in a nation where political and economic power is centralized in Manila.

However, what has been considered legitimate Cebuano resistance has been characterized by linguistic advocacy, local autonomy, and economic independence, rather than by divisive ethnolinguistic superiority. After all, ethnic identity in the Philippines is fluid, diverse, and shaped by historical migrations and interactions rather than being fixed or exclusive to a particular group. Every Filipino has an ancestry shaped by multiple migrations, conquests, and cultural exchanges.

Senator Dela Rosa’s claim that his offensive remarks were driven by Cebuano or Bisayan anger distorts this historical dynamic, reducing it to a mere excuse for his offensive remarks and making it seem as though Cebuano-Bisayans are defined by resentment toward an imagined dominant group.