By Herman M. Lagon
The recent rueful scandal involving double-gold-medalist Olympian Carlos Yulo and his mother has sparked a long-standing Filipino debate about “utang na loob” (debt of gratitude). In our culture, “utang na loob” has formed a bond and a burden, especially between parents and children. When taken to extremes, this obligation can trap individuals in a cycle where they feel compelled to repay their parents’ sacrifices by sacrificing their dreams and autonomy. It is a cycle that needs to be broken, not out of disrespect for tradition but to foster healthier family dynamics.
Let us start with an honest question: Why do so many Filipino parents expect their children to care for them, especially in old age like a debt? The likely answer is a deeply ingrained cultural mindset that views children as investments. Parents sacrifice financially, emotionally, and physically from birth. The child is expected to “pay back” those sacrifices by caring for them. Here, “utang na loob” becomes a moral obligation for the younger generation as well as a cultural norm.
This perspective reduces children to financial and emotional investments, which is inherently contentious. Their entire existence hinges on the idea that children will become caretakers, custodians, or payment (pambayad), often at the expense of their own goals or passion. The weight of this expectation can stifle young Filipinos’ ability to pursue their career paths, trapping them in a cycle of obligation that limits their personal growth and freedom.
This cycle is evident in Yulo’s situation. His mother’s actions, whether motivated by concern or control, reflect a larger issue that many Filipino families face: children being gaslighted into thinking they owe their lives entirely to their parents. The idea that a child must sacrifice their health, finances, or future to care for their parents is unfair and outdated. This emotional maneuvering makes children feel guilty for living their own lives instead of following their parents’ rules or expectations.
Do not get me wrong. Caring for parents is dignified and endearing. But it should be discretionary, not obligatory. A child should care for their parents out of love and respect, not guilt or social pressure. Caring for one’s parents brings immense joy and fulfillment, but “utang na loob” duty should not overshadow it. Parenting must be empowering, not gaslighting.
This does not minimize parental sacrifices. Childrearing is one of the most complex and most selfless tasks. However, unconditional parental love does not require repayment or control. When parents free their children from obligation, they help them reach new heights.
As a parent of two and son of an 80-year-old mom, I have seen both sides. I love and respect my dotting, retired professor Mama Diana, and voluntarily care for and be with her to the extent I can. However, I have told my children they are not required to do the same for me when I am old. I advised them to pursue their passions and missions with tenacity, drive, and social justice. Although it seems counterintuitive for my daughters, who are now kicking off their own careers, they should never feel obligated to tend and die for me. This evolution of our cultural values, I hope and pray, will give the next generation in our family the freedom to choose how they live.
Our view of parenthood must be re-examined to break the misplaced “utang na loob” cycle. Parents are invited to purposively nurture and guide their children to independence, success, and happiness. Hence, we are to prepare our children for life by giving them the skills and confidence to succeed independently. How well our children live their lives should determine their success, not how well they care for us, especially in old age.
This does not mean we abandon our parents. Instead, we should support them in ways that benefit everyone. We may find a safe, sustainable place where they can be better cared for, and we can visit and spend time with them. This may involve providing financial assistance without compromising our own finances. The key is to make these decisions with love and respect, not guilt or blind obligation.
Most Filipino parents often sacrifice their passion and dreams for their children; in this context, it is just sensible that they expect their children to do the same. But this cycle must end gradually, if not instantly. We must make sure that our future is secure, especially financially, so that we would be able to empower our children to live fully without the baggage of “utang na loob” hanging over them. In the process, we could teach them that their first responsibility is to be happy, successful, fulfilled, secure, and, most significantly, socially responsive in their chosen path.
Ending “utang na loob” is not about being ungrateful or heartless but about being fair, free, and forward-thinking. It means acknowledging that we owe our parents gratitude for raising us, not our entire lives. We should allow our children to choose, live, and love us without obligation.
Clearly, the invitation is for us to redefine what it means to be a Filipino parent and child. The call is for us to create a culture where children can pursue their dreams without “utang na loob” holding them back. Let us teach the next generation that caring for parents is an esteemed honor and privilege, not a hard-and-fast duty or obligation. It is a choice based on love and free will, not guilt or fate.
The Filipino cycle of misplaced “utang na loob” has persisted for centuries. Perhaps it is time for us to stop expecting children to throw out their passion or sacrifice their entire future for their parents. Instead, let us foster a culture of mutual respect and love where children are free to live their lives and parents are secure and cared for out of love, not obligation. In other words, from the lesson of the story of Carlos Yulo, let us break this vicious cycle to create a future wherein children are free to vault into their unique journey, and parents are fulfilled in watching them earn their medals in life.
***
Doc H fondly describes himself as a “student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with.
