The Bell Trade Act and the Parity Amendment: Controversial Agreements between the PH and the US

The mid-20th century marked a pivotal, yet complex, period in Philippine history. Emerging from the devastating crucible of World War II, the nation stood on the cusp of formal independence from the United States. However, this newfound sovereignty was immediately challenged and intertwined with a series of agreements that would profoundly shape the Philippines’ economic future, political landscape, and relationship with its former colonial master. Among the most significant and enduringly controversial of these were the Bell Trade Act and its accompanying requirement, the Parity Amendment. These agreements, ostensibly designed to aid in the post-war Philippine rehabilitation and establish a framework for future trade relations, became flashpoints for debates over political sovereignty, economic implications, and the very nature of Filipino nationalism.

This article delves deep into the historical context surrounding the Bell Trade Act and the Parity Amendment. We will examine the conditions under which they were proposed, the specific provisions that sparked widespread political debate and opposition, the roles played by key figures like Manuel Roxas and Claro M. Recto, and the lasting impact these controversial agreements PH US had on the nascent Philippine economy and its standing in the world. Understanding these agreements is crucial to grasping the challenges and complexities faced by the post-war Philippines as it navigated the difficult path from colony to independent nation.

The Aftermath of War: A Devastated Nation and the Dawn of Independence

World War II inflicted immense damage on the Philippines. As a primary battleground between Allied and Japanese forces, cities like Manila were reduced to rubble, infrastructure was destroyed, and the Philippine economy was in ruins. Agriculture, the backbone of the economy, was severely disrupted, and industrial capacity, limited as it was, was annihilated. Estimates placed the cost of war damage in the billions of dollars, a staggering sum for a nation with limited resources.

Simultaneously, the war had accelerated the timeline for Philippine independence. Promised for 1946 under the Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934, the Japanese occupation and subsequent liberation campaigns underscored the urgent need for the Philippines to govern itself and rebuild on its own terms. However, the scale of the destruction meant that rehabilitation would require significant external assistance. The United States, having played a central role in the liberation, was seen as the primary source for this aid.

It was within this context of devastation and anticipated independence that the discussions leading to the Bell Trade Act began. The US Congress recognized the need for aid but linked it directly to the terms of future US-Philippine relations, particularly concerning trade and investment.

Laying the Groundwork: The Philippine Rehabilitation Act

Before the Bell Trade Act, the US Congress passed the Philippine Rehabilitation Act of 1946. This act authorized financial aid for the repair and reconstruction of the Philippines. However, a critical and highly controversial provision within this act tied the release of war damage payments (specifically, payments exceeding $500) to the Philippines’ acceptance of the Bell Trade Act. This effectively held crucial rehabilitation funds hostage, pressuring the Philippine government to agree to the terms laid out in the subsequent trade legislation.

This linkage immediately raised concerns among Filipino nationalists and policymakers who viewed it as a form of coercion, undermining the spirit of genuine independence. The Philippines desperately needed the rehabilitation funds, but accepting them under such conditions meant potentially compromising its future economic autonomy. This sets the stage for the intense debates that would follow the introduction of the Bell Trade Act.

Decoding the Bell Trade Act: Provisions and Implications

The Bell Trade Act, formally known as the Philippine Trade Act of 1946, was sponsored by U.S. Congressman Jasper Bell. It outlined the economic relationship between the United States and the newly independent Philippines. Its key provisions were designed to maintain a preferential trade relationship but contained elements that were highly disadvantageous to the Philippines.

Here are the main provisions of the Bell Trade Act:

Eight Years of Free Trade: The Act provided for an initial eight-year period (from 1946 to 1954) where American goods could enter the Philippines free trade and Philippine goods could enter the US market also free of duties, subject to certain quotas.
Escalating Tariffs: After the initial eight years, tariffs would be progressively applied to goods from both countries, increasing by 5% annually until reaching 100% of the normal tariff rate in 1974. While seemingly reciprocal, the nature of Philippine exports (primarily raw materials and agricultural products) and US exports (manufactured goods) meant this provision favored US industries.
Absolute Quotas: The Act imposed absolute quotas on certain key Philippine exports to the United States, including sugar, coconut oil, cordage, and rice. While some quotas were set relatively high initially, they limited the growth potential of these crucial Philippine industries in their main market.
Currency Control: Perhaps one of the most contentious provisions was the requirement that the value of the Philippine peso be tied to the U.S. dollar. Any change in the par value of the peso would require the consent of the President of the United States. This effectively surrendered a significant aspect of the Philippines’ monetary political sovereignty, limiting its ability to manage its own currency and monetary policy independently.
The Parity Provision: Section 341 of the Bell Trade Act included the requirement that American citizens and corporations be granted equal rights with Filipino citizens and corporations in the exploitation of the Philippines’ natural resources and the operation of public utilities. This became the basis for the demand for the Parity Amendment to the Philippine Constitution.

The Bell Trade Act, despite its stated goal of aiding Philippine recovery, was widely criticized for being primarily beneficial to American economic interests. The free trade arrangement, while seemingly fair, allowed American manufactured goods to compete directly and often overwhelm nascent Philippine industries that were just beginning to develop. The currency control provision was a clear infringement on Philippine sovereignty, and the quotas limited the potential of key export sectors. However, it was the parity provision that ignited the fiercest opposition and became the focus of the political debate.

The Parity Amendment: A Challenge to Sovereignty

The Parity Amendment refers to the required amendment to the Philippine Constitution to grant U.S. citizens and businesses the same rights as Filipinos in the utilization of lands, timber, or mineral lands of the public domain, and in the operation of public utilities. This demand stemmed directly from Section 341 of the Bell Trade Act.

The Philippine Constitution, ratified in 1935, contained provisions reserving the exploitation of natural resources and the operation of public utilities primarily for Filipino citizens or corporations with a certain percentage of Filipino ownership (typically 60%). This was a cornerstone of Filipino nationalism and economic self-determination, designed to prevent foreign control over key sectors of the Philippine economy.

The demand for parity rights was seen by many Filipinos as a direct assault on this constitutional principle and a continuation of American colonial rule in economic form. Granting American citizens and corporations equal access to vital national assets was perceived as sacrificing national patrimony and hindering the development of Filipino-owned enterprises.

Proponents of the Parity Amendment, led by President Manuel Roxas, argued that it was a necessary evil, the price that had to be paid to secure the vital rehabilitation aid and attract American foreign investment needed to rebuild the devastated country. They argued that without parity, the Philippines would struggle to recover economically.

Opponents, spearheaded by prominent nationalists like Senator Claro M. Recto, argued vehemently against it. They saw it as a betrayal of national sovereignty and a mechanism for the continued economic exploitation of the Philippines by the United States. They warned that granting parity rights would lead to American dominance over the Philippine economy, stifling local entrepreneurship and perpetuating a dependency relationship. The political debate was intense, dividing the nation.

The Political Battleground: Debates and Opposition

The proposed Parity Amendment sparked heated debates in the Philippine Congress, in the media, and among the general public. The arguments for and against were deeply rooted in competing visions for the future of the Philippines.

Arguments in favor (Proponents like Manuel Roxas):

Necessity for Rehabilitation: The primary argument was that accepting the Bell Trade Act and the Parity Amendment was essential to secure the much-needed war damage payments and rehabilitation funds. Without this aid, the country’s recovery would be severely hampered.
Attracting Investment: Granting parity rights was presented as a way to attract American foreign investment, which was seen as crucial for jumpstarting the economy, creating jobs, and developing industries.
Maintaining US Goodwill: Proponents argued that accepting the terms would ensure continued friendly US-Philippine relations and American support, which was vital for the young nation’s security and economic stability in the uncertain post-war Philippines.
Reciprocity (though limited): While the reciprocity in parity rights was heavily skewed, proponents sometimes pointed to the theoretical possibility of Filipinos gaining similar rights in the US (though the reality of this was limited).

Arguments against (Opponents like Claro M. Recto):

Violation of Sovereignty: The most powerful argument was that the Parity Amendment was a direct infringement on political sovereignty. Requiring a constitutional change dictated by a foreign power was seen as unacceptable for an independent nation.
Economic Exploitation: Opponents argued that parity rights would allow American corporations to control key sectors of the Philippine economy, particularly natural resources and public utilities, leading to the exploitation of Philippine wealth for foreign benefit.
Hindrance to Filipino Entrepreneurship: Allowing American businesses equal footing was seen as detrimental to the growth of Filipino-owned businesses, which would struggle to compete with larger, better-capitalized American firms.
Perpetuation of Colonial Mentality: Critics saw the agreements as a reflection of a continued colonial mentality, where the Philippines was still viewed as economically dependent on the United States.
Unfair Terms: The linkage of aid to acceptance of the terms, the currency control, and the quotas were all cited as evidence that the Bell Trade Act was designed primarily for American benefit, not equitable partnership.

The debate was intense and often acrimonious. Nationalist sentiments ran high, with many viewing the US demands as an attempt to maintain economic control even after granting political independence.

The Path to Passage: Political Maneuvering and Controversy

Despite strong opposition, the Bell Trade Act was passed by the U.S. Congress in April 1946. The focus then shifted to the Philippines, where the Parity Amendment needed to be approved by the Philippine Congress and subsequently ratified in a nationwide plebiscite to become part of the Philippine Constitution.

President Manuel Roxas, who had just won the presidential election, strongly advocated for the acceptance of both the Bell Trade Act and the Parity Amendment. His administration argued that the economic benefits, particularly the rehabilitation aid, outweighed the concessions on sovereignty.

However, securing the necessary three-fourths vote in the Philippine Congress to propose the constitutional amendment proved challenging. Many legislators, including a significant bloc led by Senator Sergio Osmeña (the former president who lost to Roxas) and Senator Claro M. Recto, were staunchly opposed to the Parity Amendment.

In a controversial move, President Roxas and his allies in Congress took steps to ensure the amendment’s passage. Eight senators and representatives from the Nacionalista Party (mostly anti-parity) were unseated on questionable grounds, effectively weakening the opposition’s numbers and paving the way for the resolution proposing the Parity Amendment to pass the required congressional vote. This act was widely criticized as undemocratic and a blatant manipulation of the political process to force through the controversial measure.

With the resolution passed by Congress, a national plebiscite was held on March 11, 1947, to ratify the Parity Amendment. The campaign leading up to the plebiscite was marked by intense propaganda from both sides. Proponents emphasized the promise of economic recovery and aid, while opponents highlighted the threat to national sovereignty and economic independence. Despite significant nationalist opposition and concerns about the fairness of the political process that led to the plebiscite, the Parity Amendment was ultimately ratified by the Filipino voters.

The ratification of the Parity Amendment solidified the economic ties between the Philippines and the United States under the terms of the Bell Trade Act. This moment is often seen as a critical juncture where the pressures of post-war recovery led the Philippines to make significant concessions on its newly gained political sovereignty.

Implementing the Agreements: Economic and Political Effects

The implementation of the Bell Trade Act and the Parity Amendment had immediate and long-term consequences for the Philippine economy and its political sovereignty.

Economic Effects:

Increased US Investment: The granting of parity rights did lead to an increase in American foreign investment, particularly in areas related to the exploitation of natural resources and the operation of public utilities. American capital flowed into mining, plantations, and power generation.
Continued Dependence on US Market: The free trade provisions, even with eventual escalating tariffs, reinforced the Philippines’ reliance on the US market for its exports. While beneficial in the short term for traditional exports like sugar and coconut oil, it discouraged diversification and the development of new export industries.
Competition for Local Industries: Filipino manufacturers struggled to compete with the influx of American manufactured goods that entered the Philippines duty-free. This hindered the growth of local industries and made the Philippine economy vulnerable to external competition.
Monetary Policy Constraints: The requirement for US presidential consent to change the peso’s par value severely limited the Philippines’ ability to use monetary policy as a tool for economic management. This constraint could affect the country’s balance of payments and control inflation.
Unequal Trade Balance: Over time, the trade balance often favored the United States, as American manufactured goods flowed freely into the Philippines, while Philippine exports faced quotas and eventually escalating tariffs.

Political Effects:

Compromised Sovereignty: The most significant political effect was the perceived compromise of national political sovereignty, particularly with the Parity Amendment and the currency control provision. This fueled nationalist sentiments and created a sense of unequal partnership with the United States.
Internal Political Divisions: The debates surrounding the agreements exacerbated existing political divisions within the Philippines, particularly between those who prioritized immediate economic recovery through close ties with the US and those who championed economic nationalism and greater independence.
Basis for Future Negotiations: The Bell Trade Act and Parity Amendment became the foundation for future US-Philippine agreements, setting the stage for subsequent negotiations aimed at revising the terms of the economic relationship.

The period following the ratification of the Parity Amendment saw the Philippines grappling with the realities of these agreements. While some economic growth occurred due to investment and trade, the structure of the relationship often reinforced existing patterns of dependence and limited the scope for independent economic development. The controversial agreements PH US left a lasting mark on the national psyche and political discourse.

Modifying the Relationship: The Laurel-Langley Agreement

The inherent inequalities and perceived disadvantages of the Bell Trade Act led to persistent calls for its revision. By the early 1950s, recognizing the growing discontent and the changing global economic landscape, both the Philippines and the United States were open to renegotiating the terms of their trade relationship.

This led to the negotiation of the Laurel-Langley Agreement, which took effect in 1956, effectively modifying and replacing the Bell Trade Act. Named after Senator José P. Laurel of the Philippines and Congressman James P. Langley of the United States, this new agreement introduced several key changes:

Reciprocal Quotas: While quotas on certain Philippine exports to the US remained, the Laurel-Langley Agreement also introduced quotas on certain US exports to the Philippines, although these were generally less restrictive.
Revised Tariff Escalation: The agreement revised the schedule for tariff escalation, allowing for a more gradual increase in tariffs on goods traded between the two countries. This aimed to provide a smoother transition for both economies.
Removal of Currency Control: A significant change was the removal of the requirement for the US President’s consent to change the par value of the Philippine peso. This restored a crucial aspect of the Philippines’ monetary political sovereignty.
Reciprocal Parity Rights (Limited Impact): The Laurel-Langley Agreement extended parity rights to Filipino citizens and corporations in the United States, theoretically mirroring the rights granted to Americans in the Philippines. However, the practical impact of this reciprocity was limited due to differences in the scale and nature of investments and opportunities in both countries.
Greater Flexibility: The agreement provided the Philippines with greater flexibility in implementing import and exchange controls, allowing the government more tools to manage its economy.

The Laurel-Langley Agreement was generally viewed as an improvement over the Bell Trade Act, addressing some of its most contentious provisions, particularly the currency control. It represented a step towards a more balanced, albeit still preferential, trade relationship. However, the parity rights for Americans in the Philippines remained, continuing to be a point of contention until the agreement expired in 1974.

Legacy and Long-Term Impact

The Bell Trade Act and the Parity Amendment left an indelible mark on Philippine history and the trajectory of its development. Their legacy is complex and continues to be debated by historians and economists.

Economic Development: While the agreements facilitated post-war reconstruction through aid and investment, critics argue they also contributed to a pattern of economic dependence on the United States and hindered the development of a more diversified and independent Philippine economy. The reliance on exporting raw materials and agricultural products, coupled with the influx of competing US manufactured goods, posed significant challenges for industrialization.
US-Philippine Relations: The controversial agreements PH US defined the early years of the relationship between the two nations as sovereign entities. While the US provided crucial aid, the perceived unfairness of the terms fostered a sense of resentment and highlighted the power imbalance between the former colonizer and the newly independent nation.
Filipino Nationalism: The intense political debate and opposition to the Parity Amendment fueled Filipino nationalism. It galvanized intellectuals, politicians, and the public to question the terms of the relationship with the United States and advocate for greater economic and political independence. Figures like Claro M. Recto became enduring symbols of this nationalist resistance.
Constitutional Scrutiny: The circumstances surrounding the passage and ratification of the Parity Amendment, including the expulsion of anti-parity congressmen, raised serious questions about the integrity of the political process and the vulnerability of the constitution to external pressure.
Foundation for Future Policies: The experiences with the Bell Trade Act and Parity Amendment informed subsequent Philippine economic policies and approaches to foreign investment and trade agreements. The drive for national industrialization and greater economic self-reliance became stronger in the years that followed.

The period dominated by the Bell Trade Act and the Parity Amendment was a critical learning experience for the Philippines. It underscored the challenges of asserting full political sovereignty and economic independence in a world still shaped by colonial legacies and superpower influence.

Historical Perspectives and Interpretations

Historians offer varying interpretations of the Bell Trade Act and the Parity Amendment.

Some historians argue that, despite their flaws, the agreements were a pragmatic necessity for the Philippines to secure essential rehabilitation aid and avoid complete economic collapse in the immediate post-war Philippines. They emphasize the dire conditions facing the country and the limited options available.
Others view the agreements more critically, seeing them as a calculated move by the United States to protect its economic interests and maintain a degree of control over the Philippines even after granting independence. They highlight the unequal terms and the coercive linkage of aid to acceptance.
A third perspective acknowledges the difficult circumstances but criticizes the Filipino leadership at the time for not negotiating more favorable terms or resisting the pressures from the United States more effectively. They argue that greater foresight and a stronger stance on political sovereignty could have yielded a better outcome for the Philippine economy.

These different perspectives reflect the complex interplay of historical forces, economic realities, and political choices that shaped this critical period. Analyzing the Bell Trade Act and Parity Amendment requires considering the context of devastation, the dynamics of US-Philippine relations, and the evolving aspirations of Filipino nationalism.

Key Events Timeline: Bell Trade Act and Parity Amendment

Here is a brief timeline of key events related to the Bell Trade Act and Parity Amendment:

Date	Event	Significance
April 30, 1946	US Congress passes the Philippine Trade Act of 1946 (Bell Trade Act)	Legally establishes the terms of future US-Philippine trade and economic relations.
June 4, 1946	Philippine Congress convenes	Begins debates on accepting the Bell Trade Act and proposing the Parity Amendment.
July 4, 1946	Philippines gains formal independence from the United States	Becomes a sovereign nation, making the terms of the Bell Act and Parity even more crucial.
September 18, 1946	Philippine Congress approves resolution for Parity Amendment Plebiscite	Following controversial unseating of opposition members, Congress votes to propose the constitutional amendment.
March 11, 1947	National Plebiscite on the Parity Amendment held in the Philippines	Filipino voters decide whether to approve the constitutional amendment granting parity rights to Americans.
March 11, 1947	Parity Amendment is ratified	The constitutional amendment is approved by the Filipino electorate.
1954	Negotiations begin for revision of the Bell Trade Act	Growing discontent with the Bell Act leads to calls for renegotiation.
1955	Laurel-Langley Agreement is signed	A new trade agreement is reached to modify the terms of the Bell Trade Act.
1956	Laurel-Langley Agreement takes effect	Replaces the Bell Trade Act and governs US-Philippine trade relations until 1974.
July 3, 1974	Expiration of the Laurel-Langley Agreement	Ends the era of preferential trade agreements and parity rights for Americans.

Export to Sheets

This timeline highlights the rapid sequence of events that tied the Philippines to these agreements immediately following its independence.

Conclusion

The Bell Trade Act and the Parity Amendment stand as deeply controversial agreements PH US in the annals of Philippine history. Negotiated in the challenging aftermath of World War II, they represented a critical juncture where the imperatives of post-war recovery intersected with the assertion of national sovereignty. While proponents argued for their necessity to secure vital aid and attract foreign investment, opponents fiercely criticized them as infringements on political sovereignty and mechanisms for continued economic control by the United States.

The debates surrounding these agreements galvanized Filipino nationalism and brought to the forefront fundamental questions about the nature of independence and the path to economic development. The passage of the Parity Amendment, achieved through controversial political maneuvers, underscored the pressures faced by the nascent Philippine government.

Although the Laurel-Langley Agreement later modified some of the more egregious provisions of the Bell Trade Act, the legacy of parity rights and preferential trade continued to shape the US-Philippine relations and the Philippine economy for nearly three decades. Understanding these controversial agreements PH US is essential for appreciating the historical context of the post-war Philippines, the ongoing quest for genuine economic independence, and the complex dynamics that have defined the relationship between the Philippines and the United States since 1946. The political debate and economic implications of these agreements continue to resonate in contemporary discussions about national development and foreign policy.

Key Takeaways:

The Bell Trade Act and Parity Amendment were enacted shortly after Philippine independence in 1946, linking US aid to economic concessions.
The Bell Trade Act included provisions for free trade (initially), escalating tariffs, quotas on Philippine goods, and US control over the peso’s value.
The Parity Amendment required the Philippines to grant US citizens and corporations equal rights with Filipinos in exploiting natural resources and operating public utilities, challenging political sovereignty and Filipino nationalism.
Key figures like Manuel Roxas supported the agreements for economic recovery, while Claro M. Recto led the opposition based on concerns for sovereignty and economic independence.
The agreements were ratified amidst intense political debate and controversial political maneuvers in the Philippine Congress.
Implementation led to increased US foreign investment but also reinforced economic dependence and hindered the growth of certain local industries.
The Laurel-Langley Agreement (1955) later modified the terms, removing currency control and introducing limited reciprocal parity rights, but the core issue of parity in the Philippines remained until its expiration in 1974.
The Bell Trade Act and Parity Amendment significantly shaped US-Philippine relations, the Philippine economy, and fueled nationalist sentiment in the post-war Philippines.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ):

Q1: What was the main purpose of the Bell Trade Act? A1: The stated purpose of the Bell Trade Act was to define the future trade and economic relationship between the newly independent Philippines and the United States, ostensibly to aid in Philippine post-war rehabilitation and reconstruction. However, critics argued its primary purpose was to protect and advance American economic interests.

Q2: Why was the Parity Amendment so controversial? A2: The Parity Amendment was controversial because it required a change to the Philippine Constitution to grant US citizens and corporations the same rights as Filipinos in the exploitation of natural resources and operation of public utilities. Many saw this as a violation of national political sovereignty, a surrender of national patrimony, and a continuation of economic control by the former colonial power.

Q3: How did the Bell Trade Act affect the Philippine economy? A3: The Bell Trade Act had mixed effects. It facilitated the flow of US aid and investment, which helped with initial reconstruction. However, the free trade provisions and quotas hindered the development of local industries and reinforced the Philippines’ dependence on exporting raw materials to the US market, limiting industrialization.

Q4: Who were the key figures involved in the debate over the Bell Trade Act and Parity Amendment? A4: Prominent figures included Philippine President Manuel Roxas, who strongly supported the agreements, arguing they were necessary for economic survival. Leading the opposition was Senator Claro M. Recto, a staunch nationalist who vehemently argued against the provisions on grounds of sovereignty and economic independence. Former President Sergio Osmeña also opposed the Parity Amendment.

Q5: How was the Parity Amendment ratified in the Philippines? A5: After passing the Philippine Congress (amidst controversy regarding the unseating of opposition members), the Parity Amendment was put to a national plebiscite on March 11, 1947, and was ratified by Filipino voters.

Q6: What was the Laurel-Langley Agreement and how did it differ from the Bell Trade Act? A6: The Laurel-Langley Agreement (effective 1956) was a revision of the Bell Trade Act. It introduced more balanced quotas, revised tariff schedules, removed the US control over the peso’s currency, and introduced a form of reciprocal parity rights (though with limited practical effect for Filipinos in the US). It was seen as an improvement but still maintained preferential ties.

Q7: What is the lasting legacy of the Bell Trade Act and Parity Amendment? A7: The lasting legacy includes shaping US-Philippine relations for decades, influencing the trajectory of the Philippine economy towards dependence, and significantly fueling Filipino nationalism and the call for greater economic and political sovereignty. They remain subjects of historical analysis and debate regarding their impact on the post-war Philippines.

Sources:

Constantino, Renato. The Philippines: A Past Revisited. Tala Publishing Services, 1975. (A foundational nationalist critique of Philippine history, heavily discussing the Bell Act and Parity)
Corpuz, O. D. The Roots of the Filipino Nation. 2 vols. AKLAHI Foundation, Inc., 1989. (Provides detailed historical context of the American period and post-war transition)
Doeppers, Daniel F., and Peter Xenos, eds. Population and History: The Demographic Origins of the Modern Philippines. Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1998. (Offers demographic and economic context of the post-war period)
Golay, Frank Hindman. Face of Empire: United States-Philippine Relations, 1898-1946. Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1997. (Detailed analysis of the US colonial period leading up to independence and the Bell Act)
May, Glenn Anthony. Battle for Batangas: A Philippine Province at War. Yale University Press, 1991. (Provides ground-level perspective of war’s impact and post-war conditions)
Schirmer, Daniel B., and Stephen Rosskamm Shalom, eds. The Philippines Reader: A History of Colonialism, Neocolonialism, Dictatorship, and Resistance. South End Press, 1987. (Includes primary source excerpts and analysis of the Bell Act debate)
Shalom, Stephen Rosskamm. The United States and the Philippines: A Study of Neocolonialism. University of Pennsylvania Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1981. (Focuses on the concept of neocolonialism in the US-Philippine relationship, with significant discussion of the economic agreements)
The Philippine Trade Act of 1946 (Bell Act). Public Law 370, 79th Congress. (Primary source document detailing the provisions of the Act). Available in US legislative archives.
Recto, Claro M. Nationalism: Passages from the Speeches of Claro M. Recto. Edited by Renato Constantino. Regal Printing, 1965. (Contains Recto’s arguments against the Parity Amendment and his nationalist stance)
National Historical Commission of the Philippines. Official Gazette. (Contains official government records and historical documents related to the period). https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/ (Check their archives for relevant presidential issuances, legislative records)

Category: Third Republic (1946-1972)