Originally posted on FILIPINO eSCRIBBLES:
Have you ever wondered how the Misa de Gallo or Simbáng Gabí was celebrated during the Spanish times? Then come and visit the Holy Family Church in Roxas District, Cubáo, Quezon City from December 15 to 23 at 10:00 PM to witness this historic Filipino-Catholic ritual that is filled with so much “sense of the sacred“! And hey, don’t forget to bring your candles or lanterns (farol with light), OK? You’ll find out later on.
See you there!
«Evangelii Gaudium» is a pretty tough read but we (Catholics) must first understand that it is neither an encyclical nor an apostolic letter meaning Pope Francis is not defining an article of Faith here which binds us to obedience.
Honestly, it is too soon for anyone to come to a conclusion. Reading a papal letter, even just an «exhortation» has a number of layers which one must keep in mind when reading to understand. Right now, there are even questions about the accuracy of the English translation coming up. (The original was probably in Spanish.)
To my mind, Pope Francis’ assertions are correct in that he accurately describes a system which crushes people. However, identifying this flawed system as «capitalism» is what is making the Austrian economic community wince. True, it is the same (popular) definition that everybody accepts «capitalism» to be, but then I never expected Pope Francis to have the economic training to differentiate between capitalism, crony-capitalism (US definition), and mercantilism. (I don’t even expect this from professional economists who were trained in Keynesian orthodoxy.)
All this tells me is that we just have to step up usage of the term «Entrepreneurial System» rather than trying to explain to people why their definition of capitalism is just wrong and our definition of capitalism is just right..
Originally posted on Opus Publicum:
Evangelii Gaudium (EG) has struck a nerve among those sectors of the Catholic world which adhere to some form of free market/neoliberal ideology. For purposes of simplification, I am not going to get into the nitty-gritty of terminological distinctions, nor map out the differences which exist among those who take their economic bearings from neoclassical camps like the Chicago School or heterodox camps like the Austrian School. There is a time and a place for such burying oneself in such minutiae; this is not one of them. Instead I want to focus on some remarks made by Acton Institute President and co-founder Fr. Robert Sirico. You can find a video of Sirico’s remarks here (h/t WDTPRS). In the interest of full disclosure, I know Fr. Robert as a priest and I have nothing but the upmost respect for his role as pastor of my home parish. I do not, however, agree with many (if not most) of his economic and political views.
In the 10-minute video posted by Acton, Sirico asks a number of open questions concerning various economic-related statements made by Pope Francis in EG. That is a perfectly fair road for any committed Catholic to take, particularly when confronted by words or teachings which may not be entirely clear or complete. (Some may object here and say that Sirico is being disingenuous with respect to EG’s clarity, but charity dictates we should take his questions on good faith). That doesn’t mean you’ll receive an answer, however. When Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X submitted its dubia concerning Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty to then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, they received a blow-off response. (The Society’s submission has since been put into book form in Religious Liberty Questioned (Angelus Press 2001).) There’s always hope, of course, that some later papal document might answer the questions being asked, or clarify existing teachings to the point where the queries are no longer relevant. EG, which is concerned primarily with preaching the Gospel to the contemporary world, is neither an economic treatise nor a pure social encyclical in the tradition of Rerum Novarum, Quas Primas, and Caritas et Veritate. It does, arguably, restate extant teachings of the Church’s social magisterium, thus quelling questions concerning its doctrinal heft. Where Fr. Robert appears to struggle with EG is with respect to Francis’ reference to “ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the market.” Sirico doesn’t believe there are those who defend the purely autonomous market and, moreover, that there are no unhampered markets in existence. Sirico claims, quite rightly, that regulation of trade is ubiquitous and that no market (or economic system) exists without the rule of law. As such he struggles to understand what the Pope is talking about in EG on this point and therefore wants more clarification from Francis on the relationship of markets to the rule of law. That’s a fair request to make, but it may not be a necessary one since Fr. Robert’s first contention concerning the alleged nonexistence of pure free-marketeers is incorrect and his second point on the nonexistence of an unhampered market is beside the point. Let me take them in that order.
The libertarian universe may appear at first blush to be ideologically static, but there is considerable diversity in the details. In fact, there is considerable diversity at the galactic level when you consider that this camp has room for consequentialist/neoclassical types such as Richard Epstein and anarcho-capitalists like Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Walter Block. (An acrimonious, but amusing, exchange between Epstein and Block, “Debate on Eminent Domain,” 1 NYU Journal of Law & Liberty 1144 (2005), provides a good illustration of libertarian internecine strife.) Certainly the anarcho-capitalist wing of the libertarian camp, along with several borderland sympathizers, advocate an unhampered market with the barest features of what we commonly refer to as the rule of law. But even if you pull back a few steps, you will find plenty more libertarians who argue for an effectively autonomous market where the rule of law is limited to private law remedies for the purposes of enforcing contracts, protecting property rights, and redressing harms. (Epstein, in fact, argues for a simplified system along these lines in Simple Rules for a Complex World (Harvard Univ. Press 1997)). The market, however, is left free of now-commonplace public regulations covering areas such as antitrust, health and safety, and labor. I see no reason to believe that when Pope Francis is referring to those who defend “the absolute autonomy of the market” he intended to exclude those who defend an unhampered market packaged with a limited set of private-law remedies. Moreover, regardless of the rule of law, Francis’ remarks can be read coherently as covering not only the extreme anarcho-capitalists and the comparatively moderate libertarians who don’t wish to jettison private-law remedies, but also any group which desires to leave matters such as wages, labor standards, and wealth distribution to the market, regardless of whatever other regulatory artifices might exist in and around it. The United States, for instance, could maintain a thick system of airline safety regulatory oversight through the Federal Aviation Administration and yet leave pilots out in the cold by abolishing the Railway Labor Act (the statute which covers most airline organized labor matters). The “autonomy of the market” would certainly be operating then with respect to labor standards and wages even while the rule of law continues to tower over aviation safety. It’s not an all or nothing matter, and I suspect the Pope is intelligent enough to know that.
Originally posted on The Spin Busters:
SHE. IS. MADE.
Our very own Korina Sanchez has cemented her status as the best broadcast journalist to ever walk on Philippine soil after landing a once-in-a-lifetime spot on CNN.
We watched with immense pride and admiration as the Fighting Pride of Mother Ignacia took on CNN’s Anderson Cooper for criticizing the Philippine government’s highly organized and timely response to victims of Super-typhoon “Yolanda.”
“…parce que l’homme sensible, comme moi, tout entier à ce qu’on lui objecte, perd la tête et ne se retrouve qu’au bas de l’escalier.” (Diederot, 1830. p. 40).
I became acquainted with the untranslatable French expression “avoir l’esprit de l’escalier” in the pages of Neil Gaiman’s 1993 comic book miniseries “Death: The High Cost of Living”. In the first issue, Sexton Furnival, a teenager contemplating suicide is bewildered upon being confronted by Didi, a girl who confidently proclaims herself to be the personification of death itself.
In the face of such an obviously absurd assertion, Sexton is unable to reply satisfactorily and retreats hastily. Annoyed with his reaction, as he leaves, he contemplates the many responses he should have said. Thus, “avoir l’esprit de l’escalier” (to have the spirit of the staircase), refers to that infuriating situation in which one arrives at the perfect retort to an argument or statement well after the event.
I found myself in such an occurrence last Saturday evening, at a dinner I hosted commemorating 201 years of classical liberal ideas in the Philippines and the continuation of the Initiative for Filipino Liberty (IFL) into its 7th year of existence.
Towards the end of the dinner, Mr. Oplas, one of our older members, arrived late from Pampanga with a guest in tow. Mr. Oplas informed me that he had just recently came back from a conference in Hong Kong a few days ago and that he had made the acquaintance of several anti-taxation advocacies, both foreign and local, who if approached properly, might be willing to assist IFL development in the next year. This was welcome news!
Continuing a discussion he and I had several weeks prior, he asked how the process of IFL formalization was coming along and in which direction the organization was to proceed. As before, I spoke about my intention of organizing a populist tax protest. Mr. Oplas then asked if the rest of the organization agreed to such an undertaking. His concerns to our commitment were valid since, as is common to all committee-based organizations, a number of us have a tendency to dominate the group decision-making process whenever a pet topic comes up. As group coordinator, I then asked each member what objective they would like the group to focus on for the next year.
It went as expected… with the militant faction expressing the desire to fully exploit the Napoles Scandal to push for tax reform in the minds of the public awareness (rather than merely gathering for ineffectual protest rallies which, in our post-EdSA society, do little more than to expend public outrage and return our restive populace back to docility and complacency) and the conservative faction maintained their abstention, maintaining that entering into politics offered too little reward to warrant the expense of labour and capital and that our best effort could be done elsewhere.
Finally, Mr. Oplas’ plus-one, Mr. Calagui had his say, that the IFL was limiting its potential by concentrating solely on offering economic solutions.
N.B.: This is somewhat true. The IFL has, for the longest time, fallen into a comfortable rut of regular dinners and discourses on politics and economy. Quite enjoyable for all, but it doesn’t particularly implement the practical goals we set for ourselves back in 2007.
Mr. Calagui’s solution was for our group to advocate social change, specifically: divorce. I honestly don’t remember the rest of his proposal as I promptly interrupted in order to blatantly torpedo a topic so near and dear to our enclosing socialist and statist enemies. Just like Sexton, this unexpected proposal blindsided me and I found my attempted rejoinder sounding rather feeble and rambling.
So, for the rest of the evening, I found myself wishing… avoir l’esprit de l’escalier.
201st Anniversary Dinner, After Dinner Scene, Take 2.
What I should have started off with, was to politely introduce Mr. Calagui to the nature of the Initiative for Filipino Liberty so as to explain why such a suggestion was completely unsuitable.
First, the IFL espouses a philosophy that focuses primarily on how the government ought to use the powers expressly granted to it by the Filipino people, the extent of those powers and particularly where those powers stop. It also focuses on how persons can lessen the effects of arbitrary interference in daily life, exercised by those possessing power and influence.
N.B.: To the casual observer, this brands us as “yet another libertarian group” though perhaps one at odds with orthodox libertarianism. Most of us would certainly agree with the label.
However, unlike the many social-change advocacy groups to be found on the Internet these days, the IFL decided at the start of 2007 to limit ourselves to offering lectures on classical liberal theory and providing concrete proofs by promoting existing private solutions to problems res publica rather than demanding loudly that the government or religious institution or some other “class enemy” implement all sorts of social changes and then label the entire mess as “freedom”.
For the IFL to advocate for the dissolution of the matrimonial status, would not only be a betrayal of the cause of liberty by granting the Filipino State more power in the form of new burdensome implementing regulations and a further enlarged bureaucracy, but would open the IFL to accusations of violating the principles established in the existing Constitution of 1987, which clearly states that:
“The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.” (1987 Constitution. Art II, Sec. 6.)
Matrimony, as an institution, clearly exists outside the purview of the Filipino State. It existed well before the establishment of the national government on 24 June 1571, therefore the national government has no authority to interfere in defining, regulating, or implementing what it never created nor owned… despite the agonized howling and increasingly strident demands for the national government to do so, coming from over-privileged and politically immature armchair activists with access to a network connection.
As a principle, the IFL too, by virtue of being civic organization, has neither the right to demand that the religious sphere of society conform to the vagaries of the mob, nor the lawful authority to order our public servants and representatives to do so on our behalf.
The second point I should have made to Mr. Calagui is that ordinarily the individual person has about as much chance of withstanding state power as the Armed Forces of the Philippines has, of conquering, occupying, and implementing regime change in the People’s Republic of China.
However, the Initiative for Filipino Liberty has determined that there currently exists in our society, two social institutions that collectively have both the power and the influence to standoff total domination by the Filipino State:
- the religious sphere (of special mention: the Roman, apostolic, and Catholic religion) which is already well-known for its resistance to State authority; and
- the “political household”, as recognized in the 1987 Constitution:
“The State [...] shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution.” (1987 Constitution. Art II, Sec. 12.);
“The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation.” (1987 Constitution. Art XV, Sec. 1.).
Once again, for the IFL to advocate for the dissolution of the matrimonial status, would not only betray the cause of liberty by granting the Filipino State a political power vacuum to exploit and further expand unchallenged, but would make IFL party to both denying the individual person his natural right to exercise his sovereignty and destroying a social institution which we have tasked ourselves with safeguarding and empowering for the purpose of stalemating the Filipino State.
Sadly, both points require a much more in-depth clarification than what the average after-dinner conversation allows for!
From Family to Political Household
Calls to “support the family” have, over the years, become increasingly sentimental, increasingly socialistic, and increasingly abandoned to religious institutions and thus negating much of its potential to challenge the Filipino State. A situation that the Initiative for Filipino Liberty hopes to rectify in the near future.
N.B.: The mental image most people get when the word “family” is mentioned the nuclear family. This is why the IFL deliberately uses the term “political household” to differentiate the common idea of the family from what the 1987 Constitution describes as an “autonomous social institution”.
A political household encompasses more than just the nuclear family. It is the entire familial association one has with his extended clan and their entire combined personal, social, economic, and political network under what is known as either the compadrazgo, kumpadre, or padrino system of reciprocal duties and obligations.
The average Filipino has come to view the padrino system as the source of all political evils and responsible for leading Filipino governance astray. This assumption is half-true at best.
Yes, most of us are powerless against established political households (the oligarchies) which possess an extra-legal stranglehold on the political system in the Philippines, if not outright own most of the national economy.
However, this personal powerlessness is not because the padrino system, which we have inherited from both the Malay and the Roman systems of governmental organization, is somehow evil in itself (malum in se), but that it has been destabilized through monopolization by those established political households currently in power.
N.B.: See [McCoy, A. (1993). An anarchy of families: State and family in the Philippines. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Center for Southeast Asian Studies. ISBN: 978-0299229849.] for a scholarly overview on the who’s-who of Filipino political power.
Furthermore, the average Filipino has conditioned himself to view the Filipino State as his only recourse to end the undue influence of these established political households; the very same Filipino State controlled by them! Anyone expecting this stacked deck to produce anything but disillusionment and broken political promises is insane.
This ingrained cognitive dissonance in the collective Filipino psyche is precisely what prevents the average Filipino from taking advantage of what the IFL has known for quite some time now: that given the right focus, every Filipino, no matter what his current economic or social status is at the moment, has the potential to turn his family into a powerful political household, challenge the established supremacies, and restore the padrino system to its natural balance.
(To be continued.)
Next: Taking On the Oligarchs: A practical plan for action.
The following article is an attempt to fulfill this blog’s purpose at providing news analysis. However, news must be transmitted in a timely and expedient fashion, something that is beyond this writer’s capacity at the moment. Therefore, this is being published before interest on the issue wanes.
Toe the Mainstream Media Party Line
If you follow the mainstream media (MSM), you will already be familiar with scandal that occurred this week, when the Philippine Daily Inquirer published the following controversial comic strip (PDI filename “pug130406.jpg”) by veteran cartoonist Apolonio “Pol” Medina, Jr.
At first glance, the matter seems cut and dried:
- On Tuesday, 4 June 2013, Mr. Medina authors a tasteless comic storyline in which “Bop”, a generic gay character accuses Christians of being hypocrites in their dealing with homosexuals.
- The punch line actually names St. Scholastica’s College as a haven for lesbian activity and accuses the staff, the Missionary Benedictine Sisters of Tutzing of deliberately encouraging such activities.
- In essence, impugning the reputation of a century-plus-old academic institution as well as slander against the parents, currently enrolled students, and about eight generations of very wealthy and politically powerful alumni.
- Naturally, there is considerable anger as the extended St. Scholastica family spreads the news of this “singular” insult throughout the social media.
- In response, the Board of Trustees of St. Scholastica’s College threatens legal action against the Philippine Daily Inquirer “unless an inquiry is launched”.
- On Wednesday, 5 June 2013, the Philippine Daily Inquirer suspends Mr. Medina who then chooses to fall on his sword when he realizes the shame and loss of political capital he has his patron, Mrs. Letty Magsanoc.
- On Friday, 7 June 2013, the Philippine Daily Inquirer tearfully, but reluctantly accepts Mr. Medina’s letter of resignation .
Having arrived at the “facts” presented, the reading public is now encouraged by the MSM to express outrage against in order to perhaps defend freedom of speech, or freedom of the press or simply “show support” of the artwork of Mr. Medina which has garnered a quarter century of fans across the Philippines, now portrayed as yet another plucky journalist who has been silenced by powerful interests.
Already, a number of communities on the Internet are using the controversy to further their own political agendas.
However, upon closer inspection, a number of details seem to have been lost in the MSM whitewash, causing the Filipino libertarian community to express reasonable doubt on the entire chain of events presented.
Questions We are Not Supposed to Ask:
- Why was Mr. Medina the only person to be suspended by the Philippine Daily Inquirer?
- Mr. Medina is no stranger to editorial censorship and has had his work refused by the PDI before, (See Medina, A. Ink & Politics 1.) so why is there no mention of any disciplinary action against the editor of the Entertainment section who had the editorial authority to allow or disallow the printing of “pug130406.jpg”?
- Was Tuesday, 4 June 2013, the first time “pug130406.jpg” was published in the PDI?
- What was the Pugad Baboy story arc that began on Monday, 3 June 2013 and how did “pug130406.jpg” fit into it?
- Finally, who benefits from the controversy?
Analysis of PDI Internal File Numbering
On Monday, 3 June 2013, the Philippine Daily Inquirer published the first of the week’s series of Pugad Baboy comic strips featuring commentary by Adagulfo “Mang Dagul” Sungcal Jr. on the seeming resurgence of Kilusang Bagong Lipunan loyalists on the Internet. It is marked in the PDI Archive as “pug130603.jpg”.
The Philippine Daily Inquirer serializes filenames in it’s directory using a simple “pugYYMMDD” format, where “pug” represents “Pugad Baboy” accompanied by a six figure numbered date. YY = year, MM = month, and DD = day. This is to represent the date of publication. The other two remaining comics strips sharing the same storyline are, as expected, also internally serialized in the same manner.
However, the comic strip identified as “pug130604.png” and originally intended for Tuesday, 4 June 2013 is mysteriously delayed until Thursday, 6 June 2013 and replaced by the now-infamous “pug130406.jpg”.
When one reads the story arc in its intended order, (“pug130603.jpg” followed by ”pug130604.png”), you can get a sense of continuity of the narrative.
In “pug130603.jpg”, Mang Dugal is at his laptop, commenting on a number of pro-KBL posts on Facebook. Next to him is Polgas on a second laptop. The scene in “pug130604.png” remains the same. Two characters sitting side-by-side with laptops, talking about pro-KBL posts on Facebook. Even the clothing of the characters is the same, which gives one the idea that these two comic strips were drawn one after the other in rapid succession. In “pug130603.jpg”, Mang Dugal mentions posts, which could anywhere on the Internet, however, in in “pug130604.png”, Facebook is mentioned telling the reader that the previously mentioned posts were actually Facebook status updates. Again, a sense of continuity in the narrative.
Thus, “pug130605.jpg” also gives a sense of time, with Mang Dagul and Polgas conversing later in the day, but continuing the same narrative.
If we were to follow the PDI’s actual publication order, Mang Dagul begins a rant about pro-KBL in ”pug130603.jpg” then the anti-Marcos story-arc suddenly shifts perspective to “pug130406.jpg”, after which the anti-Marcos arc returns with Mang Dagul in the kitchen, and finishes up with “pug130604.png” showing Mang Dagul having changed back into the same shirt as in “pug130603.jpg”.
The following chart shows this story arc discrepancy quite clearly.
Intended Publication Order
Actual Date of Publication
|pug130603.jpg||Monday, 3 June 2013||Monday, 3 June 2013|
|pug130406.jpg||Saturday, 6 April 2013||Tuesday, 4 June 2013|
|pug130605.jpg||Wednesday, 5 June 2013||Wednesday, 5 June 2013|
|pug130604.png||Tuesday, 4 June 2013||Thursday, 6 June 2013|
|(missing)||Friday, 7 June 2013||-|
|(missing)||Saturday, 8 June 2013||-|
A glance at the Philippine Daily Inquirer’s Pugad Baboy Archive confirms the anomalous placement of ”pug130406.jpg” in the publication order.
What can be concluded from the evidence is that publication of “pug130406.jpg” required editorial authority, which Mr. Medina, as a contributor did not. A quick glance at the Management Team page of the PDI shows a certain Emy Velarde as the Editor for the Entertainment section.
As of this writing, there has been no mention of any censure or disciplinary action against her.
Origins of “pug130406.jpg”
On Thursday, 6 June 2013 at 9:32 am, Mr. Medina posted his version of events on his Facebook page:
“if you zoom in on that particular strip that got me fired, you’ll see that the strip first appeared in MARCH. no reaction then. it was reissued after i made a series of anti-marcos strips, then BOOM! nag-trending sa twitter. interesting. i smell a consPIGracy….”
A close-up on panel 2 of “pug130406.jpg” shows Mr. Medina’s own production code, “PMJR-MM-YY”, where “PMJR” are his initials accompanied by a four figure numbered date. MM = month and YY = year. This is to represent the date the comic strip was created.
This more or less gives credence to the theory that publication of ”pug130406.jpg” on Tuesday, 4 June 2013 was an approved editorial decision, out of the hands of Mr. Medina.
However, a close-up on panel 1 of “pug130406.jpg” shows a second production code, marked as “PMJR0413″.
N.B.: As of this writing, this comic strip has been removed from the PDI Archive and Mr. Medina has not yet shown the original.
This second production code “PMJR0413″ tallies somewhat with the PDI’s archive code ”pug130406″. Comic strips “pug130603.jpg”, “pug130605.jpg” and “pug130604.png” all bear the production code “PMJR0613″.
N.B.: Without further information available, we speculate that Mr. Medina’s code not only acts as a batch production date, but also as an “editorial check” granting the PDI Entertainment Editor, Emy Velarde, express permission to reprint an old comic strip.
Another look at the Philippine Daily Inquirer’s Pugad Baboy Archive shows that the comic slated for Saturday, 6 April 2013 is actually missing. Further evidence of editorial involvement.
There seems to be some discrepancy towards the employment status of Mr. Medina’s employment with the PDI as of Wednesday, 5 June 2013.
Diola, C. (2013, 6 June). Pugad Baboy creator claims ‘conPIGracy’ over suspended strip. Philippine Star. Retrieved from http://www.philstar.com/news-feature/2013/06/06/950848/pugad-baboy-creator-claims-conpigracy-over-suspended-strip
At this point in time, the official statement of the PDI says that Mr. Medina is “under suspension” but Mr. Medina claims to have been fired. He does retract his comments lightly later on.
“What? wait … Hindi pa pala ako fired. suspended lang hanggang magkaroon ng consensus na sipain ako. pero. Doon din siguro ang punta no’n. Sigh,”
This attitude is susprisingly in contrast to Mr. Medina’s resignation letter on Friday, 7 June 2013.
Questions We are Not Supposed to Ask:
- If what Mr. Medina says is accurate and that this code does in fact denote production date, (and what we speculate to be author consent), then why does “pug130406.jpg” not show a third production code “PMJR0613″?
- Is it possible that Mr. Medina did not choose to resign over the furor caused by “pug130406.jpg”, but was asked to quietly resign (was fired) over his Facebook postings?
[To be continued]
The following lesson on the use of punctuation marks when writing Tagálog is taken from:
Lesson 43 of the «Sálitikán ng̃ wikag̃ pag̃bansâ», authored in 1940 by José N. Sevilla y Tolentino, Rosa L. Sevilla de Alvero, and Aurelio Alvero y Sevilla; and printed by Imprenta Sevilla in Manila.
Please note that the original text makes use of the Tagálog letter ( g̃ ) which was expunged from the alphabet in 1940 by Lope Santos y Canseco. He found its similarity to the Spanish letter ( ñ ) to be uncomfortably reminiscent of foreign cultural influence and thus, unworthy for patriotic Filipinos to use.
For the sake of the modern reader unused to reading pure Tagálog, this has been transcribed as ( ng̃ ).
IKAAPAT NÁ PU’T TATLÓNG̃ PAGAARAL
UKOL SA DATIK (karugtóng̃).
May mg̃a ibá pang̃ datik ná katulong̃ ang̃ Palásulután at itó ay ang̃ mg̃a sumúsunód: Ang̃ kalwit ( ’ ), ang̃ gitlíng̃ ( ‐ ), ang̃ sagnáy ( ― ), ang̃ lutang̃ ( “ ” ), at ang̃ bang̃gít ( « » ), ang̃ kulóng̃ ( ), ang̃ pang̃sambitlâ ( ¡ ! ), ang̃ pang̃tanong̃ ( ¿ ? ), ang̃ talakdâ ( * ), at ang̃ talung̃kô ( ⁂ ).
Ang̃ gitlíng̃ ( ‐ ) ay isáng̃ datik ná ginágamit sa mg̃a hulí ng̃ talatà kung̃ ang̃ katagâ ay hindî nagkasya sa talatà at ang̃ gitlíng̃ ay hudyát ná nagbabalità ná ang̃ karugtóng̃ ay ná sa sumúsunód na talatà. Ginágamit din pasakásakâ sa loób ng̃ salitâ kung̃ ang̃ salitáng̃ pinagkang̃káp ay magbábago ng̃ kahulugan sakaling̃ waláng̃gitlíng̃ na magpapanatili ng̃ pagkakabahagi ng̃ pantíg sang̃ayon sa diwang̃ nasang̃ ibanság.
Tagusugat. (¿ tagus-ugat o tag-sugat ?)
Ang̃ kalwit ( ’ ) ay isáng̃ datik ná naghuhudyát ng̃ pagtakas doón ng̃ titik.
Itó’y mainam. (ito ay mainam)
Bata’t matandâ. (batà at matandâ)
Ang̃ sagnáy ( ― ) ay isáng̃ datik ná naghuhudyát na ang̃ mg̃a pang̃ung̃usap na kanyáng̃ datikan ay nagbabalitang̃ ukol sa isa’t isang̃ naagsasagnayan.
― “Kay gandá ng̃ lilok na iyaón, nákita mo ba?
― Talagáng̃ magandá, paano’y yari ni Tolentino.
Ang̃ lutang̃ ( “ ” ) ay isáng̃ datik ná kambál na ginágamit upáng̃ palutang̃in ang̃ salitâ o pang̃ung̃usap na nasang̃ papamukurín sa loób ng̃ salaysáy.
Ang̃ “kuwán” ay isáng̃ pang̃halip na waláng̃ pinipilí.
Ang̃ bang̃gít ( « » ) ay isáng̃ datik ná kambál na ginágamit upáng̃ ihudyát ang̃ salitâ o pang̃ung̃usap na sanhî ng̃ bang̃gít. Idinádatik itó sa simulâ at sa wakás.
Wikà ng̃a ni Kayurò:
«Magasawa ay dî birò
Dî kaning̃ isúsubò
Ilúluwâ kung̃ mapasò.»
Ang̃ kulóng̃ ( ) ay isáng̃ datik na kambál na ikinúkulóng̃ sa mg̃a salitâ o pang̃ung̃usap na dî man basahin ay dî sísirà sa diwà ng̃ salaysáy, ginágamit itó sa mg̃a salitáng̃ nasang̃ liwanagin.
Ang̃ pang̃sambitlâ ( ¡ ! ) ay isáng̃ datik na kambál na ginágamit doón sa mg̃a pang̃ung̃usap na biníbigyán ng̃ gayóng̃ urì, kinúkulóng̃ ng̃ datik na itó ang̃ mg̃a pang̃ung̃usap na bigláng̃ sambit.
¡Nakú! ¿Bakit mo akó ginitlá?
¡Hoy! Hindî gágawin iyón ni Binay.
¡Sé! Kung̃ anóano ang̃ pinagsásabí mo.
¡Oh, kay inam!
Ang̃ pang̃tanong̃ ( ¿ ? ) ay isáng̃ datik na kambál na ihinúhudyát sa sa mg̃a pang̃ung̃usap na may uring̃ paguusisa.
― ¿Dumaló ka ba sa pulong̃?
― ¿Akó? Hindî akó magkukulang̃.
Ang̃ talakdâ ( * ) ay isáng̃ datik na ihinúhudyát na katagâ na nasang̃ bigyán ng̃ paliwanag sa ibaba ng̃ salaysáy.
Ang̃ talung̃kô ( ⁂ ) ay isáng̃ datik na naghuhudyát na ang̃ salaysáy ay lumilipat sa ibáng̃ bugsô ng̃ isinásalaysáy.
- Pardo de Tavera, T. (1884). Contribucion para el estudio de los antiguos alfabetos Filipinos. Losana, Spain: Imprenta de Jaunin Hermanos.
- Signey, R. (2005). The evolution and disappearance of the “G̃” in Tagálog orthography since the 1593 Doctrina Cristiana. Philippine journal of linguistics, 36(1-2), 1-10.
- Sevilla, J., Sevilla, R., & Alvero, A. (1940). Sálitikán ng̃ wikag̃ pag̃bansâ. Manila, Philippine Islands: Imprenta Sevilla.
- Wolfenden, E. (1961). A re-statement of Tagalog grammar: Appended with José Rizal’s Nueva ortografía del lenguaje Tagálog. Manila: Summer Institute of Linguistics and Institute of National Language.