Résumé en anglais
The sad reality in the Philippines is that it has, in the past few decades, earned the notoriety for not protecting its important historic structures. Several scholars and leading figures in the local art and culture scene have both postulated and lamented that this could have been no more than a function of the Filipinos’ general lack of appreciation of their history. This sweeping statement, though tragic in so many ways, has been embraced by several sectors in the population and became an oft-quoted reason for thecontinued destruction of several historically and culturally significant buildings. But what if this is not exactly true?This paper argues that the reason Filipinos inadvertently “allow” the demise of their manifested patrimony is that they have yet to figure out their role in the preservation of these sites. It is likely that regular citizens have to be engaged by formal state institutions and allow them to participate in the preparation of conservation policies. This argument adheres to a movement that has begun a few years back when the world witnessed an explosion of scholarship around cultural heritage being considered as a “common property” or a “commons”. The late Elinor Ostrom, following and widening the footsteps of Garrett Hardin before her, wrote several books on how different entities interact to determine how their “commons” would be governed. This research, by looking at several local case studies, endeavours to appropriate Ostrom’s framework in the Philippine context and would study its viability.