I WAS once criticized for reporting on auctioned historical pieces in this column. They made it appear that I had become part of "commercializing" history. They said these items should be owned by the government. Of course, I believe that too, ideally, but these are private property, and government cannot just take them without just compensation.
Then, why doesn't the government just buy them? For many years, the hindrance was Commission on Audit (CoA) restrictions. It is simply not allowed for an agency to buy something that is not in its annual budget. I heard from the grapevine that Andres Bonifacio's last letters or even Juan Luna's "Parisian Life" had already been offered to some public and private galleries at prices that were way cheaper, but nobody cared. But when they are auctioned and fetch high prices that is when everybody regrets and protests. One official even got into legal battles for buying an important painting for a government-owned and -controlled corporation (he was acquitted only after more than a decade). This discourages others to do the same. There is also an assumption here that the government has the monopoly in taking care of all of these artifacts and has the best means to do so. But the private sector can do its share because conserving these are actually very costly.
Continue reading with one of these options:
Ad-free access
P 80 per month
(billed annually at P 960)
- Unlimited ad-free access to website articles
- Limited offer: Subscribe today and get digital edition access for free (accessible with up to 3 devices)