THE PILANDOK NARRATIVE IN

PHILIPPINE HISTORY
AND SOCIETY
by Lilia Quindoza Santiago
Lilia Quindoza Santiago
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Paper for ICOPHIL 9 – The Philippines and the World
9th International Conference on the Philippines
Michigan State University
October 28 – 30, 2012

ABSTRACT
PILANDOK in the literal sense is a Filipino term for mouse-deer, the tragunus nigricans which roam
the southwest regions of Palawan islands in the Philippines.

In folk literature, Pilandok is a prankster. In Maranao and Magindanao folktaless, he is portrayed as

the clever ordinary man of scanty material means but who plays tricks to get the better of others.
Pilandok chooses to challenge creatures who are greedy and filthy rich. People with enormous wealth
and power like Kings, Datus, and even animals like lions and crocodiles are subjected to embarrasing
situations concocted by him which lead these authoritarian figures to lose wealth, power and
authority. Because of his pranks those who lust for power and authority are maimed, embarrased and
punished miserably.

Could the Pilandok narrative essay the Filipino ordinary folks’ contempt for authority? But, could
Pilandok also be the ordinary folk’s everyman whose characteristic cleverness and wit could also be
the source of his own faults and weaknesses?

My paper explores answers to the intrigue created by the Pilandok narrative.

Introduction
Narrative, according to literary and anthropological theorists today is in everything and in the
everyday. The many structures of narratives go beyond literary forms and can now extend to social
organizations, religion and political life [1](Altman, 2008).
There are master narratives and other narratives that give clues to the character of communities.
Novels, essays, dramatic narratives can define communities, polities, nations. And there are many
other narratives that spell cultural attitudes and provide information on how to deal with and
interpret events, peoples, things. [2](Bal, 1997).
For peoples in the Philippines, there is perhaps no other narrative more compelling and effective than
the .master narrative of the formation of the Filipino nation. This narrative as Resil Mojares claims is
achieved in the master works of Jose Rizal, notably his novels, the Noli Me Tangere and El
Filibusterismo. [3] For Mojares, Rizal’s novels and the Filipino nation are “intimately connected that
to trace the history of the Filipino novel is to trace the imaginary body of the Filipino nation
itself. [4] (The novels “gave birth” to and laid down the foundations and trajectory of the modern
Philippine nation.[5]
There exists however up until today, myriad narratives of a pre-colonial past in the indigenous world
of inhabitants of the archipelago. These are narratives of people in the more than one hundred
ethnolinguistic groups in the country.. These narratives continue to excite the imagination, their
wonders have not been fully unraveled and continue to sail the seas, roam the hinterlands and
wander, as it were, like many of the indigenes. These stories are seldom reflected upon and subjected
to critical inquiry and analysis. My paper is centered on a discussion of one these other narratives or
“othered” narratives – that of Pilandok, the Maranao and Magindanao prankster in different tales and
how the thread of the narrative can be related to significant historical and political conjunctures in the
country.

There are three parts to this discussion, first, I will present some transcribed texts of the tale of
Pilandok, then I will analyze the story’s pattern, process or following, and in the third part I
will attempt to interface the Pilandok narrative with significant political events particularly in the
Philippine revolution of 1896 and in the people power revolutions of 1986 and 2001.

Pilandok, the trickster

In literal terms, Pilandok is a mouse deer known to be the protégé or the best friend of the cobra or
the python. As mouse deer, the pilandok cannot do much harm but with the giant snake, he can be
dreadful and dangerous.
The Maranaos have various stories about Pilandok. Here are some examples.

Story 1: Pilandok and the Falling Sky

(Summary)

In this story, Pilandok has a bitter enemy Bombola who goes looking for him and finds him tied to a
tree. Bombola then wonders why Pilandok has tied himself to a tree. Pilandok bluffs Bombola and
asks why he has not heard of the dreadful news about the sky falling. Bombola of course does not
believe him for who would believe that the sky would fall?. But Pilandok continues to convince
Bombola and even claims that should the sky fall, then he (Pilandok) would be safe because he will
not be running around in panic looking for a place or something to hold onto. Bombola is finally
convinced and asks Pilandok to save him too. So Pilandok asks Bombola to untie him so he could look
for a sturdy rattan fiber which he would use to tie Bombola to a tree. Bombola does as he is requested.
He unties Pilandok from the tree. Pilandok then goes to get the rattan and ties Bombola tightly to a
tree. He even asks Bombola to try and free himself and when Pilandok is sure that Bombola could not
free himself, he goes away.

Bombola stays tied to the tree, waiting for the sky to fall which never never happens and Bombola
dies of hunger. (See Eugenio, 2001: 381)

Story 2 Pilandok and the Sumusong sa Alongan

(Summary)

In this story, Pilandok goes is search for food, and left his parents one morning. He got tired of walking
without food, so he rested under a tree and in this tree there was a beehive hanging in its branch.

A wealthy prince Sumusong sa Alongan came by and saw Pilandok. The prince asks what Pilandok
was doing under the tree and Pilandok cleverly says he has been instructed by the powerful Sultan to
guard the royal gong – that which is hanging in the tree. Pilandok says, no one should beat the gong
as it belongs only to royalty.
Sumusong sa Alongan then volumteers to beat the gong and introduces himself as a Sultan too with
gold and other riches in tow. He says he will give Pilandok a bag of gold if he is allowed to beat the
royal gong.

But Pilandok warns him that his master sultan will be mad if Pilandok allows any other man to beat
the royal gong.

Sumusong sa Alongan insists and so, Pilandok agrees and makes the bluff. The royal gong should
only be beaten by Sumusong sa Alongan once Pilandok is gone – with the bag of gold. The former
agrees. So Pilandok runs away with the bag of gold. When Sumusong sa Alongan beats the so called
“royal gong”, the bees come out and swarm all over his body. And the story goes that were it not for
a troop of soldies passing by, Sumusong sa Alongan would have died from beehive bites.
(http://folklore.philsites.net/stories/laughter1.html)
Story 3: Pilandok in the Kingdom of the Maranaw Sea
(Summary)

Datu Usman who is known to be a most selfish, greedy and cruel ruler grows weary of Pilandok’s
antics and cleverness in his kingdom so he orders his men to capture Pilandok, imprison him in a cage
and drop him into the ocean.

His men obey his orders. They are able to get Pilandok and put him inside a cage. While bringing him
to the ocean however, Dau Usman’s men get tired, they rest under a coconut tree and fall asleep. A
merchant passes by and hears Pilandok crying. The merchant asks why he is crying and Pilandok
bluffs that he does not want to marry the princess which is the reason why he is in a cage. The Datu’s
men, Pilandok claims are about to take him to the palace to marry the princess

The merchant believes Pilandok, takes pity on him and offers to exchange places with him. They
exchange attires, the merchant wears Pilandok’s clothes and gets inside the cage while Pilandok gets
away with the merchant’s clothes and his goods. Pilandok even instructs the merchant to shout, “I
agree to marry the princess!”

The King is shocked when he sees Pilandok again roaming in his kingdom. So, he asks, “why are you
still alive? I thought you had drowned.” And Pilandok makes another bluff – he says the King in the
Maranao sea was his cousin so, when this cousin King saw him, he set him free. And Pilandok even
invites Datu Usman, on behalf of his cousin, the King of the Maranao sea, to visit the Kingdom in the
Maranao sea.

Datu Usman agrees and he has himself placed in a cage for the visit. When they reached the seashore,
Datu Usman got scared and doubted if Pilandok’s claims are true. Pilandok then dives into the water
and comes up with a beautiful giant pearl. Datu Usman finally believes and so he goes down into the
sea with a cage with an instruction to his soldiers to pull the rope tied to the cage when it moved. But
Pilandok again bluffed the guards saying the movement just indicated that his cousin, the King of the
Maranao sea was playing with Datu Usman.

Finally, when the guards felt no movement, the soldiers pull the cage up and out came Datu Usman,
almost drowned his stomach huge and full of water.

And Pilandok again, was nowhere to be found.

Narrative pattern

The Pilandok tale often begins with a quandary or a problem which Pilandok needs to solve. Evidently
Pilandok at the beginning of every story is a poor and powerless man and he goes in search for ways
to end his misery, poverty and his powerlessness. If he is very hungry, he has to find food and goes
in search of food to eat. If he is in grave danger, he has to save himself. If he has an important errand
to do, he goes and fulfills this errand. In order to get food to eat, save himself or fulfill an errand, he
plays pranks on people. He does seem to select those he fools. They are often the most hated or the
most callous and uncaring people. Pilandok’s enemies are often the greedy type, like Datu Usman.

These are the more significant parts to the Pilandok tale. One, Pilandok has a problem – He is hungry,
he is enslaved, is the victim of injustice. Two, he goes in search of a solution to his problem. Three,
he gets weary or tired or faces imminent failure in his quest for solutions so he makes a shortcut to a
solution. Four, the shortcut he utilizes is his own cleverness and presence of mind. Perhaps, his own
analysis of his unjust condition. He then stages a prank or a trick against someone else in order to
solve his problem. Five, the people (his enemies fall prey to his trick and are rendered stupid. Six, the
tale ends with a reversal of forutnes. Pilandok comes out triumphant in having utilized a trick to solve
his misery or his problems.
Elite misery or mockery often results from the tricks or pranks of Pilandok. Those who used to be
vested with power and wealth are rendered stupid and become laughing stocks of the community.
Pilandok succeeds in reversing fortunes so that those who are powerful, endowed or rich in life
become miserable and unfortunate in the end

How do we reckon with the Pilandok narrative? How do we use these stories to illuminate some of
the characteristic predispositions we have as a people? It is so tempting to make of Pilandok, the
symbol of the ordinary folk, poor, unschooled, destitute but is able to find means to remedy his
situation. He could be the image of the ordinary poor, yet wise and clever and because of his wit, is
able to put one over others. In ordinary Filipino parlance, we have this belief about being “naisahan”
or “nalamangan” and Pilandok does just that – nang-iisa at nanlalamang.

But I believe we have to further reflect on the Pilandok tale because these stories persists to this day
with some of them being unloaded on the internet and a number of writers have even formed a sort
of organization called “Pilandokan” Pilandok seems to be interpreted as one folk hero whose deeds
need to be emulated as they reflect on the perpetual class struggle between rich and poor, powerful
and powerless.

So, I need to forward this analysis as a cautionary tale as it were to clarify and dissuade the
encouragement of the use of Pilandok as symbol of the Filipino folksy, wise and clever man.

While it is true that Pilandok battles the high and mighty and powerful, he is at the same time not
equipped with a conviction that what he is doing is just the right thing. He seems to just enjoy playing
the prank and has no idea what the consequences of his actions are. His sheer contempt for authority
is remarkable but the contempt remains as just that, contempt. He is unable to translate that contempt
into something more productive and socially useful. Nowhere in these stories are we given any clues
as to what he does when he succeeds, he just runs away with success, laughing.

In other words, Pilandok is a folk icon with the ability to dismantle power structures but is unable to
figure out what to do after these power structures are dismantled. Is this troublesome? Does it disturb
our peace of mind? What or where does the Pilandok tale leave us?

Let me just ask some very troubling if not terrifying questions.

First Question: Was Bonifacio a victim of Pilandok?

Santiago V. Alvarez, in writing his memoirs about his experiences in the Katipunan recalls very
disturbing stories in the days preceding the arrest, imprisonment and incarceration of Andres
Bonifacio. Here are some excerpts from his book, The Katipunan and the Revolution (Alvarez, 1992:
98):

The open break came when Pres. Emilio Aguinaldo issued on 27 April 1897 a stern order for the arrest
of the Supremo Andres Bonifacio and his men. He assigned the task to head soldiers, Col. Agapito
Bonzon (alias Intong), Felipe Topacio, and Jose Pawa (alias Intsik Pawa) and instructed them to bring
the prisoners dead or alive before him at the headquarters of the “Philippine Republic.”

The arresting officers, together with some soldiers left Naic for Indang in the afternoon of the same
day. From Indang, they went to Limbon where the Supremo was then staying. On their arrival, they
were greeted cordially by the Supremo.

“Where are you going my brethren? “ the Supremo inquired. Do you want to see me?

“No, we are only looking for trails the enemy might use,” one of the party answered Then they
proceeded to walk up the village of Banay-banay in the municipality of Amadeo but later returned
stealthily to Indang. The fact that they did not arrest the Supremo at once indicated that they wanted
first to survey the premises of the armed strength of the Supremo’s forces, without appearing
belligerent and giving away their intention….

Very early in the morning of the next day, 28 April, the Supremo’s troops assigned to guard the fort
of Limbom were surprised by the sudden assault of the detachment under Colonel Bonzon and Insik
Pawa….

This is clear evidence of deception and chicanery here. The arresting officers and the people of Cavite
had grown suspicious of Bonifacio, even accusing him of stealing money from the revolution and of
ordering the burning of houses in the village of Indang. (Ibid.) In the perception of the people under
Aguinaldo, Bonifacio had abused his powers, so he must be stopped. Alvarez discusses in detail the
events during the trial of Bonifacio and his subsequent execution and death. The question of whether
Emilio Aguinaldo was right in ordering the arrest and execution of Bonifactio has not been fully
resolved in Philippine history, with some historians insisting it was the right move at the moment and
justifying that Aguinaldo succeeded in proclaiming Philippine independence anyway.
So, was this a Pilandok moment for Bonifacio, the Supremo?

Second Question: Was this Marcos’ Pilandok moment?

Let us flash forward to the people power revolution of 1986. In the aftermath of the fall of Marcos in
February 1986, there was a story that went around which was believed by many ordinary folks
especially by Filipinos in Hawaii. It is said that when Marcos asked where the plane that took him
from Malacanang was headed, the people who were with him said to Paoay, and Paoay is a
municipality of Ilocos Norte which is the seat of Malacanang ti Amianan or the Malacanang in the
North. Marcos, they believed agreed to such an arrangement and then slept and it was not only after
the plane landed in Honolulu, Hawaii that Marcos knew he was in Hawaii, not Paoay.

There is of course a need to check the veracity of this story, but at any rate, this shows how vulnerable
rulers are at the time when they are about to lose power. But whether in Hawaii or Paoay, was this a
Pilandok moment for Marcos? Has he grown so inept that he would not mind being flown away from
Malacanang where he had just taken his oath of office the day before? It is to be remembered that just
when Marcos was about to take his oath of office as President, all the television stations were cut off
the air and suddenly it was the oathtaking of Corason Cojuangco Aquino that was put on air. This
sudden turn of events, we are told was the handiwork of those deeply involved in the people power
revolution of 1986.

But Marcos remains unburied to this day and his family has returned to the corridors of power. Imelda
Marcos is governor of Ilocos Norte, Imee Marcos is representative of the Ilocos region and Bongbong
Marcos is Senator of the Republic.

Third Question: Was Estrada a victim of Pilandok too?

At the height of his impeachment trial in 2001, Estrada agreed to meet the press hosted by the Manila
Overseas Press Club. It was one question from a journalist that gave him away. He was then being
accused of pocketing collections from illegal jueteng and he had answered that indeed, some
200million of the collections from the illegal jueteng game had gone to Muslim foundation that
sponsored scholarships for deserving Muslim students. What was wrong with that? He thought he
was being candid and honest at that moment but continuous grilling by the media persons gave him
away and even as majority of the Senators then doing his impeachment trial voted not to impeach
him, the people had rushed to the streets to call for his ouster.
That was probably Estrada’s Pilandok moment. He simply had to be stripped of his power because of
his stupid answer to the press.. But in the past presidential elections of 2010, Joseph Estrada came in
second to Noynoy Aquino in the number of popular votes cast. Were those votes, and his pardon by
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo proof of his claim of innocence in the corruption charge against him?

Estrada is alive and staged a comeback in his political career. In the elections of 2010, he came in a
surprising second to Benigno Aquino Jr., the current Philippine president. In the local

I have called these, my questions terrifying questions only because I am myself terrified of the
implications of having to put Bonifacio, Marcos, and Estrada in one league under the Pilandok
narrative. But as I keep on reading the Pilandok tale and this is what I have come up with.

If narratives and a people’s narratology were to be taken as perspectives on the cultural predisposition
of a people, then the Pilandok narrative is quite telling. It tells us that we, as a people do have fun
unseating people in power but then are faced with the dilemma of what to do next. It would be easy
to just say, we have survived to this day, after all those revolutions.

But I believe survival is not the best answer. We have to endure with a conviction. And here is one
telling tale, from General Apoy (Mariano Alvarez) himself as he reflected on the dilemma of the first
“Philippine Republic. He himself had dissuaded a clash of arms between the Magdalo (Aguinaldo)
and the Magdiwang (Bonifacio) factions but says:

The enemy is now overwhelming us; we are weak and without defenses we can be proud of. We shall
be forced to form small bands roving mountains and plains, each one looking out for itself. If we are
not united, there cannot be a single government from which will emanate our common decisions. The
resulting chaos will make for disparate policies and responsibilities. If this happens, what nation will
take us seriously if we are to carry on the Revolution but our laws are for the benefit of selfish interests,
and not of the people? We cannot have freedom under such conditions.

CONCLUSION
There are to be sure, counter readings to the Pilandok narrative and the interface I have done with
significant events in Philippine history and society. But as I had claimed earlier, I would like us to
look at all my conjectures as a precautionary tale. There is a need to look closer into the stories we
narrate because, as Mieke Bal asserts, “ narrative is a cultural attitude, hence narratology is a
perspective on culture… and implicates text and reading, subject and object, production and analysis.
What I have done here is to implicate all – we are what we convey, listen to, produce and analyze. We
are responsible for the results not only of our decisive actions but also for what we choose to re-tell in
the aftermath of our actions, collective or otherwise.

REFERENCES
Altman, Rick. A Theory of Narrative. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008.

Alvarez, Santiago V. The Katipunan and the Revolution. (trans by Paula Carolina S. Malay). Quezon
City: Ateneo de Manila University Press 1992/

Bal, Mieke. Narratology. Introduction to the theory of Narrative. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1997.

Eugenio, Damiana (ed). Philippine Folk Literature: The Folktales. Quezon City: University of the
Philippines Press, 2001

Mojares, Resil. “The Imaginary Body of the Nation,” in Memories, Visions and Scholarship. Quezon
City: University of the Philippines Center for Integrative and Development Studies (CIDS), 2001.

[1] Altman,
[2] Bal
[3] Resil Mojares, ‘The Imaginary Body of the Nation’, in Memories, Visions and Scholarship.
Centennial Lecture Series. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Center for Integrative Studies
(CIDS), 2001. 205-22
[4] Mojares, P. 205
[5] Ibid.