The history of the Philippines is a story of resilience, resistance, and adaptation. For centuries, Filipinos faced colonial rule, first under Spain and then, starting in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, under the United States. The initial response to American presence was fierce armed resistance, marked by the Philippine-American War. However, as the conflict waned and American control solidified, Filipino leaders and the population at large began to explore and adopt new tactics to pursue the long-cherished goal of independence. This marked a significant shift: from revolutionary struggle to political engagement and negotiation.
This article will delve into this crucial transition period, examining the reasons behind the change in strategy, the key figures who led this shift, the political institutions that became the new battlegrounds, and the impact of these evolving Philippine tactics against American authority. Understanding this period is vital to appreciating the complex path the Philippines took towards achieving sovereignty and shaping its modern political landscape.
The End of Armed Conflict and the Dawn of a New Reality
The Philippine-American War (1899-1902, although resistance continued in some areas for years after) was a brutal and costly conflict. The First Philippine Republic, established by Filipino revolutionaries after defeating Spanish rule, found itself immediately fighting a new foreign power – the United States, which had acquired the Philippines from Spain under the Treaty of Paris (1898).
Led initially by figures like Emilio Aguinaldo, the Filipino forces fought bravely for their independence. However, the superior military might and resources of the United States gradually overwhelmed the revolutionary army. The capture of President Aguinaldo in 1901 was a major blow, though pockets of resistance persisted.
As American civil government was gradually established, replacing military rule in many areas, Filipino leaders faced a critical juncture. Continued armed struggle seemed increasingly futile against a powerful occupier committed to its presence under the banner of “benevolent assimilation.” This American policy, while claiming to prepare Filipinos for self-governance, was also aimed at pacifying the population and establishing US control. It involved building infrastructure, establishing schools, and introducing American institutions, but it also suppressed dissent and curtailed political freedoms in the early years.
The harsh realities of defeat, coupled with the American strategy that combined military suppression with offers of participation in a new civil government structure, began to influence Filipino thinking. It became clear to many that a direct military challenge was no longer viable. A different approach was needed – one that could navigate the new political landscape imposed by the Americans.
Suppressing Dissent and Forcing a Shift
The early American colonial administration took deliberate steps to prevent the resurgence of overt nationalism and revolutionary sentiments. Laws were enacted that directly targeted expressions of desire for independence:
- Sedition Law (1901): This law made it illegal to advocate for independence from the United States, whether through speech, writing, or illustration. Simply singing patriotic songs or displaying the Philippine flag could be considered sedition. This severely limited open calls for sovereignty.
- Brigandage Act (1902): While ostensibly aimed at banditry, this law was used to classify and prosecute remaining armed resistance fighters as mere criminals rather than political insurgents. This tactic aimed to delegitimize the continued armed struggle.
- Flag Law (1907): This law explicitly prohibited the public display of the Philippine flag, a powerful symbol of national identity and independence.
These repressive measures, enforced by the colonial government, made it exceedingly difficult and dangerous to continue the revolutionary struggle in its original form. They effectively closed the door on overt calls for independence and forced Filipino nationalists to consider alternative avenues for pursuing their goals. The field of battle shifted from the mountains and plains to the legislative halls and public forums allowed by the American regime, albeit under strict supervision.
The Birth of Political Parties: Navigating the System
Despite the restrictive laws, the desire for independence did not disappear. Instead, it was channeled into new forms of organization and action. Recognizing the reality of American control and the impossibility of immediate armed victory, a new generation of Filipino leaders began to form political parties. Their goal was to work within the American system to achieve greater autonomy and ultimately, independence.
The early years saw several political groups emerge, often with varying approaches but increasingly converging on the demand for independence, albeit through peaceful, legal means.
- Partido Federalista (Federalist Party): Initially, this party advocated for the Philippines to become a state of the United States. While this goal differed from full independence, their willingness to work with the Americans made them acceptable to the colonial authorities in the early years. They participated in the early municipal and provincial governments established by the Americans.
- Partido Nacionalista (Nationalist Party): Formed in 1907 through the merger of earlier nationalist groups like the Partido Unión Nacionalista and the Partido Popular Indepentista. Crucially, the Sedition Law was repealed in 1907, just before the election of the Philippine Assembly. This allowed the Nacionalistas to openly campaign on a platform of “immediate and complete independence.” This became the dominant political force representing the aspiration for sovereignty within the American system.
The rise of the Partido Nacionalista signaled a clear strategic shift. Instead of fighting the Americans militarily, Filipino leaders would now challenge them politically. They would contest elections, win seats in the new legislative bodies, and use these platforms to advocate for Filipino rights, greater self-governance, and ultimately, independence. This required a different set of skills: negotiation, persuasion, coalition-building, and navigating bureaucratic processes.
The Philippine Assembly (1907): A New Arena for Filipino Voices
A pivotal moment in this strategic shift was the inauguration of the Philippine Assembly in 1907. This was the first elected national legislature in the Philippines. While the Philippine Commission, appointed by the U.S. President, served as the upper house with significant power (especially over non-Christian areas and appropriations), the Assembly served as the lower house, elected by qualified Filipino voters.
The establishment of the Assembly was part of the American policy of gradually granting Filipinos more participation in government, which they believed was necessary for “benevolent assimilation.” However, Filipino leaders saw it as an opportunity – a legitimate platform from which to vocalize their demands and gain experience in self-governance.
The elections for the Assembly in 1907 were fiercely contested. The Partido Nacionalista, campaigning on independence, won a decisive majority. This demonstrated the strong public support for the nationalist cause, even under American rule. The leading figures of the Nacionalista Party, Sergio Osmeña of Cebu and Manuel L. Quezon of Tayabas (now Quezon Province), became the dominant figures in the Assembly, serving as Speaker and Majority Floor Leader, respectively.
The Assembly became the primary stage for the new political tactics. Filipino leaders used it to:
- Pass resolutions demanding independence.
- Scrutinize the actions and budgets proposed by the American-led Philippine Commission and the Governor-General.
- Introduce legislation aimed at benefiting Filipinos and expanding their autonomy.
- Gain valuable experience in legislative procedures, public debate, and the workings of a representative government.
- Serve as a training ground for future Filipino leaders.
While their power was limited by the oversight of the Philippine Commission and the American Governor-General, the Assembly provided a legitimate, recognized voice for Filipino aspirations. It was a crucial step away from clandestine revolutionary committees and towards open political representation.
Key Figures and Their Strategies: Osmeña, Quezon, and the Politics of Independence
The success of the political approach hinged on the skills and strategies of its leaders. Sergio Osmeña and Manuel L. Quezon were the most prominent. Both had participated in the earlier struggle in different capacities, but they fully embraced the new political path.
Sergio Osmeña (1878-1961): Osmeña was known for his strategic patience, pragmatism, and skill in building consensus. As the first Speaker of the Assembly, he focused on solidifying the Filipino political structure within the colonial framework. His approach, sometimes termed “cooperation,” involved working with American officials where possible to achieve incremental gains in autonomy and build Filipino capacity for self-governance. He believed that demonstrating the Filipino capacity to govern responsibly would be the most effective way to convince the United States to grant independence. He was the undisputed Filipino leader for many years, until Quezon’s rise challenged his position.
Manuel L. Quezon (1878-1944): Quezon, initially Osmeña’s lieutenant, was more dynamic, charismatic, and assertive. He was known for his fiery rhetoric and his direct approach in demanding independence, often employing tactics of agitation and confrontation within the bounds of legal politics. He served as Resident Commissioner to Washington D.C. from 1909 to 1916, where he tirelessly lobbied the US Congress and public for Philippine independence. This role in Washington was a critical component of the new strategy – taking the fight directly to the heart of American power through lobbying and diplomacy. Upon his return, he eventually eclipsed Osmeña as the dominant figure in the independence movement, becoming Senate President and later the first President of the Commonwealth.
While they later developed a famous political rivalry, the “Osmeña-Quezon tandem” in the early years of the Assembly and the Philippine Legislature (which replaced the Assembly and Commission in 1916) was a powerful force. Their combined skills – Osmeña’s steady hand and political organization, Quezon’s persuasive oratory and lobbying in Washington – were instrumental in advancing the Filipino cause through political means.
Their strategy involved:
- Maximizing the use of available political platforms: The Assembly, the Philippine Legislature, provincial and municipal governments.
- Lobbying the U.S. Congress: Recognizing that the power to grant independence ultimately rested with the American government, Filipino leaders sent delegations (known as “Independence Missions”) to Washington D.C. to argue their case, meet with sympathetic politicians, and present petitions.
- Building a unified political front: The dominance of the Partido Nacionalista helped present a relatively united Filipino demand for independence to the American authorities, making it harder to dismiss.
- Demonstrating capacity for self-governance: Filipino leaders emphasized the progress being made in establishing stable political institutions, managing finances, and providing public services under Filipino leadership within the colonial structure.
These were sophisticated political strategies, a far cry from the bolo and rifle of the revolution. They required patience, diplomacy, strategic negotiation, and a deep understanding of the American political system.
The Evolution of US Policy and Strategic Filipino Responses
The American policy towards the Philippines evolved over time, partly in response to the persistent Filipino demand for independence and the effective political strategies employed by Filipino leaders.
Initially, US policy, guided by figures like William Howard Taft (the first Civil Governor), focused on “benevolent assimilation” and gradual preparation for self-governance at an unspecified future date. There was no initial commitment to full independence.
However, Filipino lobbying and changing political sentiments in the U.S. led to significant legislative milestones:
- Philippine Autonomy Act (Jones Law) of 1916: This act replaced the Philippine Commission with an elected Philippine Senate, creating a fully Filipino-elected bicameral legislature (the Philippine Legislature, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives, formerly the Assembly). Crucially, the preamble of the Jones Law stated that independence would be granted to the Philippines as soon as a stable government could be established. This was the first official promise of independence from the U.S. government. Filipino leaders, particularly Quezon who was instrumental in lobbying for this law in Washington, seized upon this promise and made it their mission to prove that a stable government existed.
- The Hare–Hawes–Cutting Act (1933) and the Tydings–McDuffie Act (1934): After intensive lobbying by multiple independence missions throughout the 1920s and early 1930s, the US Congress finally passed legislation setting a timetable for independence. The Hare–Hawes–Cutting Act was passed over President Hoover’s veto, but it was rejected by the Philippine Legislature (primarily due to Quezon’s opposition, partly rooted in his rivalry with Osmeña, who supported it). Quezon then went back to Washington and successfully lobbied for a very similar bill, the Tydings-McDuffie Act. This act provided for the establishment of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, a ten-year transition government that would lead to full independence on July 4, 1946.
The passage of these laws was a direct result of the sustained political campaign by Filipino leaders. They demonstrated the effectiveness of using democratic processes – lobbying, legislation, public appeal – to achieve nationalist goals, even against a colonial power. The Tydings-McDuffie Act, in particular, marked the culmination of decades of political maneuvering and negotiation.
Let’s compare the tactics:
| Feature | Revolutionary Period (approx. 1896-1902) | Political Period (approx. 1907-1935) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Objective | Immediate, forceful expulsion of colonial power | Achieve independence through legal and political means |
| Main Method | Armed combat, guerrilla warfare | Lobbying, legislation, political parties, elections |
| Key “Battleground” | Physical terrain (mountains, countryside) | Legislative halls (Assembly, Senate), Washington D.C. |
| Key Figures | Emilio Aguinaldo, Andres Bonifacio, Apolinario Mabini | Sergio Osmeña, Manuel L. Quezon, Claro M. Recto |
| Basis of Legitimacy | Sovereignty declared by revolution | Mandate from Filipino voters, U.S. legal framework |
| Relationship with American Authority | Open conflict, declared enemy | Adversarial within a framework of participation |
| Primary Tool | Military force | Political negotiation, rhetoric, legal action |
| Result (within period) | Military defeat, end of Republic’s overt rule | Increased autonomy, establishment of Commonwealth |
This table highlights the fundamental shift in strategy. While the ultimate goal remained the same – independence – the methods and the environment in which the struggle took place changed dramatically.
Grassroots Engagement and Other Forms of Nationalism
While the focus shifted to the political arena led by the educated elite, it’s important to remember that nationalism and the desire for independence were also present at the grassroots level. Various forms of non-violent resistance and cultural nationalism continued throughout the American period.
- Labor Movements: Early labor unions, like the Unión Obrera Democrática led by Isabelo de los Reyes, often combined workers’ rights advocacy with nationalist sentiments. Strikes and protests, though sometimes suppressed, were another way Filipinos asserted their will and challenged the colonial system.
- Religious Movements: Messianic or nativist religious movements sometimes provided a spiritual or cultural challenge to foreign rule, occasionally leading to localized uprisings, though these were often quickly put down and viewed by the authorities as fanatical rather than purely political.
- Cultural Expression: Despite laws like the Flag Law, Filipino identity and aspirations found expression in literature, drama (like the seditious plays that led to arrests), music, and art. These cultural forms helped keep the flame of nationalism alive and fostered a sense of shared identity and purpose.
These various forms of resistance and expression, while perhaps not as directly impactful on U.S. policy as the political lobbying efforts, were crucial in maintaining the popular desire for independence that underpinned the political movement. They demonstrated that the aspiration for sovereignty was widespread and deeply rooted, providing legitimacy and popular support for the politicians working in the legislature and in Washington.
The Commonwealth Period: The Culmination of Political Strategy
The establishment of the Commonwealth of the Philippines in 1935 was the direct result of the successful political campaign led by figures like Quezon and Osmeña. The Tydings-McDuffie Act provided for a ten-year transition period during which the Philippines would have its own constitution, elected Filipino officials (including a President), and control over internal affairs, while the U.S. retained control over defense, foreign affairs, and ultimate sovereignty.
The Commonwealth government, headed by President Manuel L. Quezon, was the realization of the political strategy. It allowed Filipinos to gain extensive experience in running their own nation, managing government departments, developing national policies, and navigating complex international relations (albeit under U.S. oversight). It was a period of significant institutional development and preparation for full statehood.
This era solidified the strategic shift that began decades earlier. The leaders of the Commonwealth were the same politicians who had honed their skills in the Philippine Assembly and Legislature, and in the halls of the U.S. Congress. They had successfully transitioned from being revolutionaries fighting an external enemy to statesmen building a nation-state within the framework provided by that same power, demonstrating remarkable adaptability and political skill.
The transition was not without its critics. Some felt that the political leaders had compromised too much, that accepting the Commonwealth meant acquiescing to continued American control for a decade, and that the distribution of political power benefited the elite who had dominated the legislative politics. However, given the realities of American power and the failure of the armed struggle, the political path offered a viable, and ultimately successful, route to independence.
Comparing Revolutionary vs. Political Strategies: A Deeper Look
Let’s delve a bit deeper into the comparison between the two main strategies employed against American authority:
- Effectiveness: The revolutionary strategy, while heroic and embodying the Filipinos’ fierce desire for freedom, ultimately failed to militarily defeat the United States. The political strategy, on the other hand, did succeed in securing a commitment to independence (Jones Law) and a concrete timeline and framework for achieving it (Tydings-McDuffie Act and the Commonwealth). From the perspective of achieving the stated goal of independence from the U.S., the political strategy was demonstrably more effective.
- Risks: The revolutionary strategy involved immense personal risk, injury, and death for combatants and civilians caught in the conflict. It led to widespread destruction and loss of life. The political strategy, while also involving risks (political defeat, marginalization, potential imprisonment if they crossed lines), was primarily fought in legislative chambers, courtrooms, and diplomatic offices. The risks were primarily political and social, not existential in the same way as armed conflict.
- Inclusivity: The revolutionary movement, particularly in its later guerrilla phases, involved widespread popular participation, though leadership was often hierarchical. The political movement, especially in its early stages, was largely dominated by the educated Filipino elite (the Ilustrados and principalia) who had the resources and knowledge to navigate the American political system. While the vote was gradually expanded, political power remained concentrated among a relatively small group for much of the American period.
- Resource Requirements: Armed revolution requires weapons, supplies, manpower, and popular mobilization for direct conflict. Political struggle requires organization, funding for campaigns and lobbying, access to information, legal expertise, and skills in rhetoric and negotiation. The resources needed and utilized differed significantly.
- Impact on Nation-Building: The revolution forged a sense of national identity through shared sacrifice and resistance. The political struggle, by creating institutions like the Assembly and the Commonwealth government, provided practical experience in running a modern state, drafting laws, managing a bureaucracy, and conducting national affairs. Both contributed to the process of nation-building, but in different ways.
Blockquote Example:
“I would rather have a government run like hell by Filipinos than a government run like heaven by Americans.” – Manuel L. Quezon
This famous quote, often attributed to Quezon, vividly illustrates the nationalist sentiment that drove the political strategy. It shows that even within the framework of cooperation or engagement, the ultimate goal was Filipino self-rule, even if imperfectly executed, over efficient foreign administration.
Challenges and Criticisms of the Political Path
The shift to a political strategy was not universally accepted, and the leaders who pursued it faced challenges and criticisms.
- Accusations of Collaboration: Some Filipinos who remained committed to armed resistance or who felt excluded from the political process viewed the politicians working with the Americans as collaborators or compromisers who had abandoned the revolutionary ideals.
- The “Politics of Compromise”: Pursuing independence through political means often required negotiation and compromise with the American authorities. This meant accepting delays, making concessions on certain issues, and working within a system where ultimate power still rested with the U.S. This was frustrating for those who demanded immediate and unconditional independence.
- Elite Dominance: As mentioned, the political system established by the Americans initially favored the educated and propertied elite. This led to concerns that the independence movement, led by this group, might not fully represent the interests of the broader population, such as peasants and workers.
- Internal Rivalries: The intense political rivalries among Filipino leaders, most famously between Osmeña and Quezon, sometimes complicated and occasionally hampered the independence movement. While rivalry can spur effort, it also led to divisions and tactical disagreements, such as the debate over accepting the Hare-Hawes-Cutting Act.
Despite these challenges and criticisms, the political strategy proved effective in achieving the goal of independence within the historical context. The leaders navigated a complex environment, balancing the need to work within the American system with the imperative to constantly push for greater autonomy and ultimate sovereignty.
The Legacy of Shifting Tactics
The period of American colonial rule and the shift in Philippine tactics against American authority had a profound and lasting impact on the nation.
- Shaping the Political System: The institutions established during this era – the legislature, the executive branch structure under the Commonwealth, the party system – became the foundation of the modern Philippine political system. Filipino leaders gained invaluable experience that served them well after 1946.
- Establishing Democratic Norms (within limits): Although subject to American oversight and limitations on suffrage, the period introduced formal democratic processes like elections, legislative debate, and party competition on a national scale. These norms, however imperfectly implemented, became part of the Philippine political culture.
- Diplomatic Tradition: The focus on lobbying and sending independence missions established a tradition of active engagement with foreign powers, particularly the United States, through diplomatic and political channels.
- Pragmatism and Adaptability: The successful shift from revolution to politics highlighted the pragmatism and adaptability of Filipino leaders in pursuing their objectives under changing circumstances. This ability to adjust strategy is a recurring theme in Philippine history.
The legacy of this period is complex. It is a story of a nationalist movement that, when faced with insurmountable military odds, shrewdly adopted political tools to achieve its aims. It demonstrates that resistance can take many forms, and that strategic engagement within an imposed system can, under certain conditions, be a powerful path towards liberation. The politicians who emerged from this era were not simply collaborators; they were nationalist leaders who chose a different, ultimately successful, battlefield for the fight for Filipino freedom.
Key Takeaways:
- The initial Filipino response to American rule was armed revolution, as seen in the Philippine-American War.
- Military defeat and restrictive American laws (like the Sedition Law and Flag Law) made continued armed struggle impractical and dangerous.
- Filipino leaders strategically shifted tactics from military confrontation to political participation and negotiation within the American colonial system.
- The establishment of the Philippine Assembly in 1907 provided a key platform for Filipino politicians to voice demands for independence and gain legislative experience.
- Leaders like Sergio Osmeña and Manuel L. Quezon skillfully used political parties (especially the Partido Nacionalista), legislative bodies, and lobbying efforts in Washington D.C. to push for greater autonomy and independence.
- Key U.S. laws like the Jones Law (1916) and the Tydings-McDuffie Act (1934) were partly the result of persistent Filipino political pressure and lobbying.
- The Commonwealth of the Philippines (1935-1946) represented the culmination of the political strategy, providing a transition period of extensive self-governance before full independence.
- While the political path was criticized by some as being too compromising or elite-driven, it proved to be an effective strategy for achieving independence in the face of overwhelming American military power.
- This period shaped the foundations of the modern Philippine political system and demonstrated the adaptability of Filipino nationalism.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ):
Q: What was the main difference between the revolutionary approach and the political approach? A: The revolutionary approach relied on armed conflict and military force to expel the Americans and gain immediate independence. The political approach focused on working within the American-established political system, using elections, legislative bodies, lobbying, and negotiation to gradually gain autonomy and ultimately achieve independence through legal means.
Q: Who were the key figures in the shift to political tactics? A: Manuel L. Quezon and Sergio Osmeña were the most prominent figures. They led the dominant Partido Nacionalista and were instrumental in utilizing the Philippine Assembly, the Legislature, and lobbying in the United States to advance the cause of independence.
Q: What was “benevolent assimilation”? A: “Benevolent assimilation” was the term used by the United States to describe its policy in the Philippines. It presented the American occupation as a mission to “uplift, civilize, and Christianize” the Filipinos (even though most Filipinos were already Christian) and gradually prepare them for self-governance through education, infrastructure development, and participation in civil government. However, it was also used to justify suppressing dissent and establishing American control.
Q: How did the Philippine Assembly contribute to the independence movement? A: The Philippine Assembly, established in 1907, was the first elected national legislature. It provided a legitimate platform for Filipino nationalist leaders to organize, debate issues, pass resolutions demanding independence, gain experience in governance, and demonstrate their capacity for self-rule to both the Filipino people and the American authorities.
Q: What was the significance of the Jones Law and the Tydings-McDuffie Act? A: The Jones Law (1916) was significant because it was the first official promise from the U.S. government to grant independence to the Philippines once a stable government was established. The Tydings-McDuffie Act (1934) built on this by setting a definite ten-year timeline and framework for independence, establishing the Commonwealth as a transition government. These laws were major victories for the Filipino political strategy.
Q: Did armed resistance stop completely when the political strategy began? A: No, while the large-scale revolutionary war ended by 1902, sporadic armed resistance from various groups (sometimes called “insurgents” or “bandits” by the Americans) continued in some parts of the archipelago for several years after. However, it no longer represented a unified national challenge to American sovereignty in the way the First Republic’s army had. The focus of the national independence movement clearly shifted to the political arena.
Q: Were there criticisms of the Filipino politicians who worked with the Americans? A: Yes, there were criticisms. Some individuals and groups felt that working within the American system constituted collaboration or that the politicians compromised too much on the demand for immediate, unconditional independence. There were also concerns that the political process favored the elite.
Conclusion
The period of American rule in the Philippines saw a remarkable transformation in the methods employed by Filipinos to achieve national independence. From the bloody battlefields of the Philippine-American War, the struggle shifted to the political arena. Facing the reality of American military superiority and restrictive laws, Filipino leaders, most notably Sergio Osmeña and Manuel L. Quezon, adopted new tactics centered on political organization, participation in American-created institutions like the Philippine Assembly and Legislature, and extensive lobbying efforts in the United States.
This strategic shift was pragmatic and ultimately successful. By working within the system, Filipino politicians gained valuable experience in self-governance, built strong political institutions, and, most importantly, secured legislative commitments from the U.S. Congress that paved the way for the Commonwealth and eventual full independence in 1946.
While the path was marked by compromises, internal rivalries, and criticisms, the ability of the Filipino independence movement to adapt its strategies demonstrates remarkable resilience and political skill. The transition from revolutionary to politician was not a surrender of the goal of freedom, but a strategic reassessment of how best to achieve it in a changed world. This period remains a crucial chapter in the narrative of Philippine nationhood, highlighting the diverse forms that resistance and the pursuit of sovereignty can take.