The history of the Philippines since gaining full independence in 1946 is a story of a young nation finding its place on the world stage. Philippine foreign policy has evolved significantly over the decades, shaped by global events, regional dynamics, domestic politics, and the changing priorities of each administration. One pivotal moment in this evolution was the era of President Carlos P. Garcia (1957-1961), who championed the bold “Filipino First” policy. This approach marked a distinct phase focused heavily on economic nationalism and prioritizing national interests. Comparing Garcia’s ‘Filipino First’ policy with the foreign policy directions taken by later administrations reveals the enduring challenges and shifting strategies in asserting Philippine sovereignty and promoting national development in a complex world.
Understanding the ‘Filipino First’ policy requires looking back at the context of the late 1950s. The Philippines was still heavily reliant on the United States, its former colonial power. While politically independent, the economy remained closely tied to the US, and foreign businesses, particularly American, held significant sway. There was a growing sentiment among Filipino nationalists and intellectuals that true independence required economic control and prioritizing Filipino interests in commerce and industry. President Garcia, who took office after the death of President Ramon Magsaysay, tapped into this sentiment.
The Genesis of ‘Filipino First’: Context and Core Principles
The ‘Filipino First’ policy wasn’t born in a vacuum. It emerged from a period where the Philippines was grappling with the realities of post-war recovery, economic dependence, and the lingering effects of colonialism. Despite formal independence, many Filipinos felt that foreign influence, especially in the economic sector, limited the nation’s growth and opportunities for its own citizens. The policy was officially adopted by the National Economic Council (NEC) in August 1958 and strongly endorsed by President Garcia.
Core Principles of the ‘Filipino First’ Policy:
- Economic Nationalism: At its heart, ‘Filipino First’ was an economic policy. It aimed to give Filipinos priority in the acquisition of land, the development of natural resources, and participation in trade, commerce, and industry.
- Preference in Government Contracts: Filipino-owned businesses were to be given preferential treatment in bidding for government supply contracts and infrastructure projects.
- Control over Key Industries: The policy encouraged Filipino ownership and control over strategic industries and sectors of the economy.
- Patronage of Local Products: It promoted the consumption of locally produced goods and services to support domestic industries.
- Asserting National Interest: Beyond economics, it represented a broader push to prioritize Philippine interests in foreign relations, moving away from perceived subservience to foreign powers.
President Garcia himself articulated the spirit of the policy, emphasizing the need for Filipinos to take the reins of their own economy. It was seen as a necessary step to build a strong, independent nation. The policy resonated with many Filipinos who desired greater control over their economic destiny.
It is crucial to note that the ‘Filipino First’ policy was not necessarily anti-foreign business, but rather pro-Filipino empowerment within the economy. The idea was that foreign investment was welcome, but it should not come at the expense of stifling local enterprise or allowing key economic sectors to be dominated by outsiders.
This policy, however, faced significant challenges. Foreign business interests, particularly American, were naturally opposed to measures that curtailed their dominance or limited their opportunities. There were also domestic critics who argued that the policy could lead to protectionism, inefficiency, and potentially harm foreign relations and investment crucial for development. Implementing the policy also proved difficult, with issues of definition, enforcement, and potential corruption arising.
Implementing ‘Filipino First’: Policies and Impacts
The Garcia administration implemented ‘Filipino First’ through various measures. One notable example was the implementation of the Retail Trade Nationalization Act of 1954 (though enacted before Garcia, its enforcement was aligned with ‘Filipino First’ principles), which reserved retail business primarily for Filipinos. The NEC resolution provided the framework for government agencies to prioritize Filipino bids in procurement. Efforts were made to encourage Filipino entrepreneurship and provide access to credit.
Examples of ‘Filipino First’ Implementation:
- Preferential Awards: Government contracts for supplies, construction, and services were often awarded to Filipino bidders even if foreign bids were slightly lower, provided the Filipino bids were reasonable.
- Support for Filipino Entrepreneurs: Government financial institutions were encouraged to lend more favorably to Filipino-owned businesses.
- Regulation of Foreign Exchange: Policies were sometimes adjusted to favor Filipino importers or limit foreign firms’ access to dollars for certain goods.
The impact of ‘Filipino First’ during Garcia’s short term was mixed. Proponents argued that it spurred Filipino participation in the economy and instilled a sense of national pride and confidence. It undoubtedly raised awareness about the need for economic sovereignty. However, critics pointed to potential negative consequences such as:
- Retaliation: Concerns that it could provoke retaliatory measures from trading partners.
- Reduced Foreign Investment: Fears that it discouraged much-needed foreign capital and expertise.
- Inefficiency and Cronyism: Risks that preferential treatment could lead to inefficiencies among protected industries or be exploited for personal gain.
- Inflation: Some argued that limiting competition could contribute to higher prices for consumers.
Despite the debates and challenges, the ‘Filipino First’ policy under President Garcia represented a significant attempt to define Philippine foreign policy from a distinctly nationalistic economic perspective. It asserted the idea that the nation’s economic interests must be paramount in its dealings with the rest of the world.
Foreign Policy Shifts After Garcia: From Macapagal to Marcos
Following Garcia’s presidency, subsequent administrations navigated the complexities of international relations with different priorities and approaches. The stark, economically focused nationalism of ‘Filipino First’ evolved, giving way to more nuanced strategies that balanced nationalism with the demands of globalization, regional cooperation, and shifting geopolitical landscapes.
President Diosdado Macapagal (1961-1965): Macapagal introduced a degree of pragmatism. While still nationalist in outlook (e.g., moving the Philippine Independence Day from July 4 to June 12), his administration focused on economic liberalization and attracting foreign investment, seeing it as essential for growth. This marked a subtle but significant departure from the strict prioritization of Filipino capital under Garcia. Macapagal also diversified foreign relations, notably forging closer ties with Asian neighbors and initiating the concept of MAPHILINDO (Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia), a precursor to ASEAN. This showed a move towards regionalism as a component of foreign policy.
President Ferdinand E. Marcos (1965-1986): Marcos’s foreign policy was characterized by pragmatism, flexibility, and a drive to project the Philippines as a significant actor in Southeast Asia. While initially maintaining strong ties with the US, he gradually pursued an “independent foreign policy,” normalizing relations with socialist and communist states like the Soviet Union and China in the early 1970s. This was a major shift driven by geopolitical realities and the need for new markets and diplomatic leverage.
Under Martial Law, Marcos emphasized national security and development, often linking foreign policy to these goals. Economic diplomacy became crucial, seeking loans and investments from various sources. While Marcos sometimes used nationalist rhetoric, his policies often favored large-scale foreign investments and export-oriented industrialization, which could be seen as less strictly ‘Filipino First’ than Garcia’s approach. He also played a key role in the formation of ASEAN in 1967, demonstrating a commitment to regional cooperation as a cornerstone of Philippine foreign policy.
Blockquote:
The Marcos era marked a significant departure from the more ideological stance of ‘Filipino First’. While nationalism remained a theme, the focus shifted towards pragmatic engagement with a changing global order, prioritizing national security and economic development through a broader range of international partnerships.
Comparing Garcia and Marcos on foreign policy:
| Feature | Garcia’s ‘Filipino First’ Era (1957-1961) | Marcos Era (1965-1986) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Focus | Economic Nationalism, Prioritizing Filipino Capital & Business | Pragmatism, National Security, Economic Development, Diversification of Relations |
| Approach to US | Close but with emphasis on asserting Filipino economic rights | Strategic alliance, but with increasing moves towards an “independent foreign policy” |
| Approach to Socialist/Communist States | Limited/Cold War stance | Normalized relations with USSR, China, Vietnam (especially from early 1970s) |
| Regionalism | Initial exploration (MAPHILINDO concept) | Key role in founding and developing ASEAN |
| Economic Policy Link | Prioritize Filipino ownership/control (Retail Trade Law enforcement) | Attract foreign investment, export-oriented industrialization, economic diplomacy |
| Guiding Principle | ‘Filipino First’: Economic sovereignty is key to independence | “Independent Foreign Policy”: Balancing interests, projecting regional influence |
This table highlights the evolution from a policy primarily focused on internal economic control driven by nationalism (Garcia) to a more external-facing, geostrategic, and economically pragmatic approach (Marcos), even while using the language of independence.
Post-Marcos Foreign Policy: Democracy, Development, and Delimitation
The post-Marcos era, beginning with the democratic transition in 1986, brought new priorities and challenges to Philippine foreign policy. While the spirit of ‘Filipino First’ nationalism never completely disappeared, the focus often shifted to promoting democracy, human rights, sustainable development, and navigating complex regional security issues, including territorial disputes.
President Corazon C. Aquino (1986-1992): Foreign policy under Aquino was initially focused on restoring democratic credentials and securing international support for the new government. The relationship with the United States remained crucial, although it underwent significant re-evaluation, culminating in the Philippine Senate’s rejection of a new bases treaty in 1991, leading to the closure of major US military facilities. This was a watershed moment demonstrating a strong assertion of sovereignty, echoing nationalist sentiments found in ‘Filipino First’, but driven by different factors (post-dictatorship democracy, national dignity). The Aquino administration also strengthened ties with ASEAN and sought diversified economic partnerships.
President Fidel V. Ramos (1992-1998): Ramos emphasized economic diplomacy and global competitiveness. His foreign policy was geared towards attracting foreign investment, promoting trade, and integrating the Philippines into the global economy. This was a period of significant economic liberalization. While still safeguarding national interests, the approach was less about prioritizing Filipino ownership over foreign involvement (as in ‘Filipino First’) and more about creating a level playing field and leveraging international engagement for development. Ramos actively participated in APEC and other regional and global forums, positioning the Philippines as a reliable partner.
Presidents Joseph Estrada (1998-2001) and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (2001-2010): Foreign policy during these administrations continued the focus on economic diplomacy, national security (especially counter-terrorism in the wake of 9/11), and protecting the welfare of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs), who became a significant factor in foreign relations. Arroyo, in particular, sought closer strategic ties with the United States while also engaging actively with China and other Asian powers. The emphasis remained on leveraging foreign relations for economic benefit and national security, a pragmatic approach distinct from the strong economic nationalism of ‘Filipino First’.
President Benigno S. Aquino III (2010-2016): Aquino III’s foreign policy was notably defined by the assertion of the Philippines’ sovereign rights in the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea). His administration elevated the territorial dispute with China to international prominence, pursuing arbitration under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This approach prioritized international law and multilateralism as tools for asserting national interest and sovereignty against a powerful neighbor. While not explicitly an economic nationalism policy like ‘Filipino First’, it represented a strong assertion of national rights on a different front – territorial integrity and maritime entitlements. Relations with the US were significantly strengthened under a renewed pivot to Asia by the Obama administration.
President Rodrigo Duterte (2016-2022): Duterte declared an “independent foreign policy” early in his term, which involved recalibrating traditional alliances and seeking closer ties with non-traditional partners like China and Russia, while often expressing skepticism or hostility towards traditional Western allies like the US and European Union, particularly regarding human rights criticisms. This was a disruptive shift, prioritizing what Duterte perceived as immediate national interests (e.g., infrastructure funding from China) over traditional alliance structures or human rights advocacy in foreign relations. While he used the language of independence, distinct from being “subservient,” his policy had complex and sometimes contradictory impacts on the Philippines’ regional standing and alliances. The focus shifted away from the multilateral legal approach of his predecessor on the West Philippine Sea, favoring bilateral engagement with China, though tensions persisted.
President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. (2022-Present): The current administration appears to be pursuing a foreign policy of balancing and strategic hedging. While seeking to mend and strengthen traditional alliances, particularly with the United States and its allies (like Japan and Australia), in response to regional security dynamics, the administration also aims to maintain economic engagement with China. There’s a renewed emphasis on international law and multilateral cooperation, especially concerning the West Philippine Sea, aligning more with the approach of Aquino III than Duterte. The focus is on promoting national interest through diversified partnerships and leveraging the Philippines’ strategic location.
Comparing ‘Filipino First’ with Later Approaches: Continuities and Contrasts
Comparing Garcia’s ‘Filipino First’ with the policies of later administrations reveals significant shifts in focus, strategy, and the definition of “national interest.”
Key Differences:
- Scope of Nationalism: ‘Filipino First’ was primarily focused on economic nationalism – ensuring Filipino control and priority in the domestic economy. Later administrations have displayed nationalism in different forms, such as asserting territorial sovereignty (Aquino III, BBM Marcos Jr.), pursuing independent political alignment (Marcos Sr., Duterte), or prioritizing OFW welfare, but rarely with the same singular focus on economic protectionism for domestic capital in the way Garcia did.
- Approach to Globalization and Foreign Investment: While ‘Filipino First’ viewed foreign economic dominance with suspicion and sought to limit it in certain sectors, later administrations generally embraced foreign investment and integration into the global economy as crucial for development, albeit with varying degrees of regulation and conditionality. The emphasis shifted from limiting foreign economic presence to leveraging it for national benefit.
- Tooling of Foreign Policy: Garcia’s tool was largely domestic policy geared towards economic control. Later administrations have used a wider range of tools:
- Diplomatic Engagement: Active participation in regional blocs (ASEAN, APEC) and international organizations (UN).
- Legal and Multilateral Approaches: Using international law (UNCLOS arbitration).
- Security Alliances: Strengthening traditional defense pacts.
- Economic Diplomacy: Trade agreements, investment promotion missions.
- Definition of National Interest: For Garcia, national interest was strongly tied to economic sovereignty and Filipino ownership. For later leaders, it expanded to include national security (internal and external threats), territorial integrity, OFW protection, regional stability, attracting investment, and promoting democracy or human rights, depending on the era and leader.
Continuities:
Despite the differences, some underlying themes persist in Philippine foreign policy, connecting different eras, including Garcia’s:
- Assertion of Sovereignty: Every administration, in its own way, has sought to assert Philippine sovereignty and reduce external dependence, whether economic (Garcia), political/military (Aquino C., Marcos Sr., Duterte, BBM Marcos Jr.), or territorial (Aquino III, BBM Marcos Jr.). The method and focus of this assertion change, but the underlying goal of being a truly independent nation remains.
- Balancing Act: Philippine foreign policy constantly involves balancing relationships with major powers (especially the US and China), regional neighbors (ASEAN), and domestic priorities. Garcia’s balancing act was between Filipino economic aspirations and existing foreign (primarily American) economic interests. Later leaders balance security alliances, economic opportunities, and sovereign rights in a more complex multipolar world.
- Development as a Goal: Promoting national development, broadly defined (economic growth, poverty reduction, infrastructure), has been a consistent foreign policy objective, though the strategy to achieve it (protectionism vs. liberalization, relying on aid/loans vs. attracting FDI) has varied.
- Importance of OFWs: Protecting and promoting the welfare of Overseas Filipino Workers became a significant and lasting component of Philippine foreign policy starting in the later part of the Marcos era and continuing strongly to the present day. This reflects both a practical need and a recognition of the economic and social contribution of OFWs.
The Enduring Legacy of ‘Filipino First’
While no subsequent administration has adopted the ‘Filipino First’ policy in the strict, Garcia-era definition focused on prioritizing Filipino capital through protectionist measures, the spirit of ‘Filipino First’ – the idea that Philippine national interests, particularly economic, should guide foreign policy – remains relevant.
Elements of economic nationalism resurface periodically in debates about foreign ownership, protection of local industries (like agriculture), and the terms of trade agreements. The principle that Filipinos should benefit first from the nation’s resources and economic activities is a powerful, recurring theme in national discourse.
- Key Takeaways:
- President Carlos P. Garcia’s ‘Filipino First’ policy was a landmark in Philippine foreign policy, strongly emphasizing economic nationalism and prioritizing Filipino interests in the domestic economy.
- The policy aimed to reduce foreign economic dominance and foster Filipino entrepreneurship through preferential treatment in government contracts and control over key sectors.
- Later administrations shifted towards more pragmatic, diversified, and external-facing foreign policies, balancing nationalism with globalization, regional cooperation, and strategic alliances.
- Key shifts included normalizing relations with socialist states (Marcos Sr.), prioritizing democracy and human rights (Aquino C.), focusing on economic diplomacy (Ramos, Arroyo), asserting territorial rights through international law (Aquino III, BBM Marcos Jr.), and pursuing an independent alignment (Duterte, BBM Marcos Jr.).
- While the methods and specific priorities have changed, the core idea of asserting Philippine sovereignty and promoting national interest remains a continuous thread, linking Garcia’s era to the present day.
- The protection and welfare of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) emerged as a significant and lasting component of foreign policy from the late 20th century onwards.
The evolution from ‘Filipino First’ to the diverse approaches of later administrations reflects the Philippines’ journey from a newly independent nation grappling with economic sovereignty to an active participant in a complex and interconnected globalized world. Each era has added layers to the definition of Philippine national interest and the strategies employed to pursue it on the international stage.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ):
Q: What was the main goal of President Garcia’s ‘Filipino First’ policy? A: The main goal was to prioritize Filipino citizens and businesses in controlling the Philippine economy, reducing reliance on foreign entities, and promoting economic nationalism.
Q: How did later administrations differ from Garcia’s approach? A: Later administrations tended to adopt more pragmatic approaches, balancing nationalism with the need to attract foreign investment, engage in regional cooperation (like ASEAN), diversify diplomatic ties, and address issues like national security and territorial disputes, rather than solely focusing on economic protectionism.
Q: Did any later policy completely abandon the ‘Filipino First’ idea? A: While the strict protectionist policies of ‘Filipino First’ were not fully replicated, the spirit of prioritizing national interest and asserting sovereignty remains a recurring theme in various forms throughout Philippine foreign policy history, though the focus shifted from economic control to other areas like territorial integrity or political independence.
Q: How did foreign policy change after the Martial Law era? A: After the Martial Law era, under President Corazon Aquino, Philippine foreign policy initially focused on restoring democratic relationships and reassessing alliances, particularly with the United States, leading to the closure of US bases. Subsequent administrations prioritized economic diplomacy, global integration, and addressing new challenges like protecting OFWs and asserting maritime rights.
Q: Is the ‘Filipino First’ concept still relevant today? A: While not official policy in its original form, the underlying idea of ensuring Filipinos benefit first from the national economy and resources remains relevant in national debates about economic policy, foreign investment, and trade agreements, reflecting a persistent desire for economic sovereignty.
Conclusion
The journey of Philippine foreign policy from the assertion of economic nationalism under President Carlos P. Garcia’s ‘Filipino First’ to the varied and complex strategies of subsequent administrations offers a fascinating case study in a nation’s quest for independence, development, and relevance in a changing world. Garcia’s policy, born from the desire for economic sovereignty in the wake of colonialism, laid down a marker for prioritizing national interests. While later leaders adopted different tools and focused on broader aspects of national interest – from security and territorial integrity to economic liberalization and OFW welfare – the fundamental challenge of balancing domestic aspirations with international realities has remained constant.
The comparison highlights that while the methods of pursuing national interest evolve with global dynamics and domestic priorities, the core imperative to assert sovereignty and promote the well-being of the Filipino nation endures. The legacy of ‘Filipino First’ serves as a reminder that at the heart of Philippine foreign policy lies the enduring goal of building a strong, independent, and prosperous nation for its people.