The narrative of the Philippines’ journey towards self-governance is a complex tapestry woven with threads of struggle, negotiation, and evolving political landscapes. Among the most significant milestones in this path during the American colonial period was the establishment of the Philippine Assembly in 1907. This body marked a pivotal moment, introducing formal Filipino Representation at a national legislative level, laying crucial groundwork for future Philippine Autonomy and ultimately, independence. This article delves into the origins, functions, and profound significance of the Philippine Assembly, exploring how it served as a vital step toward autonomy and shaped the trajectory of the independence movement.
The period following the Spanish-American War and the subsequent Philippine-American War saw the transition of the Philippines from Spanish to American rule. While Filipino aspirations for independence, ignited by the Philippine Revolution and declared with the Early Philippine Republic under Emilio Aguinaldo, were forcefully suppressed, the American administration, under President William McKinley, articulated a policy of “benevolent assimilation.” This policy, controversial and often contradicted by military actions, ostensibly aimed to guide the Filipinos towards self-governance, rather than perpetual colonial subjection. The implementation of this policy, however, would be gradual and fraught with challenges, testing the resolve of both the colonizer and the colonized.
The American Occupation and the Promise of Self-Rule
The initial phase of American rule was largely military. Following the cessation of hostilities, the military government began implementing basic services and infrastructure projects. However, the promise of civilian rule and greater self-governance loomed as an eventual goal, partly to legitimize American presence and partly due to domestic political pressures in the United States.
Initial Policies and Military Rule
From 1898 to 1901, the Philippines was primarily under the control of the U.S. military government. Despite the conflict, efforts were made to establish a semblance of civil administration in pacified areas. Schools were opened, basic sanitation improved, and local governments were organized, often utilizing existing Filipino elites who were willing to cooperate. This period, however, lacked significant Filipino Representation in decision-making bodies at the national level.
The Transition to Civil Government
The shift towards civil administration began with the establishment of the Second Philippine Commission, often referred to as the Taft Commission, in 1900, headed by William H. Taft. This commission was tasked with establishing a civil government and preparing the islands for eventual self-rule. It gradually took over legislative authority from the military governor. The Taft Commission was composed entirely of Americans, although Filipinos were appointed to some local and provincial positions. While the Commission passed important laws establishing the civil service, the judiciary, and local government structures, the lack of Filipino input at the highest legislative level was a point of contention for nationalist leaders.
The Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Path to the Assembly
A crucial turning point came with the passage of the Philippine Bill of 1902, officially known as the Philippine Organic Act of 1902. This landmark U.S. federal law laid the constitutional foundation for American colonial government in the Philippines. Among its most significant provisions was the promise to establish a bicameral legislature composed of an upper house and a lower house. The upper house was to be the already existing Philippine Commission, which would continue to be appointed by the U.S. President. Crucially, the lower house was to be an elected body, the Philippine Assembly.
The establishment of the Assembly was contingent upon two conditions:
- The cessation of the Philippine-American War (which was largely achieved by this time, although pockets of resistance remained).
- The holding of a national census.
The census was completed in 1903. Following its certification by the Taft Commission (which had transitioned to the civil government’s executive and upper legislative body), the conditions for convening the Philippine Assembly were met. This act, the Philippine Bill of 1902, thus formally set the stage for the first instance of national Filipino Representation in a legislative body under American rule, a significant step toward autonomy.
Establishment and Structure of the Philippine Assembly (1907)
The Philippine Assembly was formally inaugurated on October 16, 1907, at the Grand Opera House in Manila. This was a momentous occasion, marking a significant shift in the colonial administration’s approach and providing a platform for Filipino voices on national policy.
The First National Election
The election for the 80 seats in the Philippine Assembly was held on July 30, 1907. This was the first national election in the Philippines under American rule and saw a relatively low voter turnout due to restrictive suffrage qualifications based on property ownership, tax payment, or literacy in Spanish or English. While it was a step towards democratic representation, the electorate primarily consisted of the educated and landed elite, known as the ilustrados.
The election was a contest primarily between two emerging political parties:
- Nacionalista Party: Advocated for immediate and complete independence.
- Progresista Party: Favored eventual independence after a period of tutelage and cooperation with the American government. (This party was formerly known as the Partido Federal, which initially advocated for statehood within the U.S.).
The Nacionalista Party, capitalizing on the strong desire for independence among the populace (despite limited suffrage), won a landslide victory, securing the majority of seats. This immediately signaled the Assembly’s primary agenda: the pursuit of independence.
Composition and Membership
The Assembly initially had 80 elected members representing districts across the Christian parts of the Philippines. Areas inhabited by non-Christian tribes (like parts of Mindanao and the Mountain Province) were not included in this elective process; their representatives in the legislature were appointed by the Governor-General. This highlighted the limitations and selective nature of this early form of Filipino Representation.
Key positions within the Assembly were quickly filled by the dominant Nacionalista Party. Sergio Osmeña from Cebu was elected Speaker, becoming the highest-ranking Filipino official in the insular government. Manuel L. Quezon from Tayabas was elected Majority Floor Leader. Their leadership would prove instrumental in steering the Assembly’s legislative agenda and its push for greater autonomy.
In addition to the elected members, the Philippine Bill of 1902 also provided for the election of two Resident Commissioners to the U.S. House of Representatives. These commissioners, while not having voting power in the U.S. Congress, could speak on behalf of the Philippines and lobby for its interests. The first Resident Commissioners elected by the Assembly were Pablo Ocampo and Benito Legarda. Later, Manuel L. Quezon would also serve in this crucial role, directly advocating for Philippine independence in Washington D.C.
Role and Powers
The Philippine Assembly shared legislative power with the Philippine Commission. The Commission acted as the upper house, while the Assembly was the lower house. Legislation required approval from both bodies to become law. However, the Assembly had exclusive power over the appropriation of funds. This budgetary control gave the Filipino representatives significant leverage in influencing government operations and priorities.
The division of powers looked something like this:
| Feature | Philippine Commission (Upper House) | Philippine Assembly (Lower House) |
|---|---|---|
| Composition | Appointed by the U.S. President (initially all American) | Elected by qualified Filipino voters |
| Number | Varied, typically 5-9 members | 80 elected members initially |
| Presiding Officer | Governor-General (initially) | Speaker (elected by the Assembly) – Sergio Osmeña |
| Legislative Power | Shared with the Assembly | Shared with the Commission |
| Exclusive Power | Governed non-Christian areas by legislation | Power of Appropriation (control over the budget) |
Export to Sheets
This shared legislative power meant that while Filipino Representation was now present, it was not absolute. The American-controlled Commission could block legislation passed by the Assembly, and the Governor-General, appointed by the U.S. President, held significant executive authority, including the power to veto legislation.
Filipino Political Parties and Early Representation
The period leading up to and immediately following the establishment of the Philippine Assembly saw the formalization of political parties, providing the organizational framework for Filipino Representation. The primary political contest was defined by the approach to independence.
The Rise of the Nacionalista Party
As mentioned, the Nacionalista Party emerged as the dominant political force. Founded in 1907 through the merger of several nationalist groups, its platform was unequivocally focused on achieving immediate independence. Led by figures like Sergio Osmeña and Manuel L. Quezon, the party successfully mobilized the limited electorate based on this strong independence platform. Their victory in the 1907 elections provided a clear mandate for the Assembly to pursue this goal relentlessly.
The Nacionalista Party effectively used the Assembly as a platform to articulate Filipino aspirations, criticize American policies, and propose legislation aimed at increasing Filipino control over domestic affairs. Their unity and discipline under the leadership of Osmeña (often referred to as the “Grand Old Man”) allowed them to effectively wield their budgetary power and push their agenda, despite the constraints imposed by the Philippine Commission and the Governor-General.
The Progresista Party and Other Groups
The Progresista Party, the main opposition, advocated for a more gradual approach to independence, believing a period of cooperation with the U.S. was necessary for the Philippines to develop its institutions and economy. While they had prominent leaders, their platform was less popular than the Nacionalistas’ call for immediate independence, leading to their defeat in 1907. They continued to participate in the Assembly, offering alternative viewpoints and sometimes cooperating with the Nacionalistas on specific issues.
Other smaller political factions and independent candidates also participated, reflecting diverse local interests and political philosophies, though none achieved the national dominance of the Nacionalistas. The political landscape within the Assembly, while dominated by the Nacionalistas, was dynamic, featuring debates, alliances, and personal rivalries, notably the evolving relationship and eventual rivalry between Osmeña and Quezon.
Election Dynamics and Campaign Issues
The elections for the Philippine Assembly were highly contested, particularly in the early years. Campaign issues revolved primarily around the question of independence, the pace of Filipinization (replacing American officials with Filipinos in the civil service), economic development (trade policies like the Ley Payne–Aldrich which impacted Philippine exports), and infrastructure.
Despite the limited suffrage, campaigns were often lively, involving public rallies, speeches, and the nascent Philippine press. The Nacionalista Party successfully framed the election as a plebiscite on independence, making it the central issue and securing popular support among those who could vote.
Key Figures in the Philippine Assembly
The success and influence of the Philippine Assembly were inextricably linked to the caliber and dedication of its leaders. These individuals navigated the complex political landscape, balancing cooperation with obstruction, and using the platform to advance the cause of Philippine Autonomy.
Sergio Osmeña: The Speaker
Sergio Osmeña (1878-1961) was arguably the most influential figure in the early years of the Assembly. As the first Speaker, he presided over the body and held significant political power. His leadership style was characterized by prudence, consensus-building, and strategic negotiation. Osmeña believed in utilizing the opportunities provided by the American system to gradually increase Filipino control and capacity for self-governance. His tenure as Speaker solidified his position as a national leader and the undisputed head of the Nacionalista Party for many years.
Manuel L. Quezon: The Majority Floor Leader
Manuel L. Quezon (1878-1944), the Majority Floor Leader, was the dynamic counterpart to Osmeña. Charismatic and eloquent, Quezon was a more confrontational figure, often pushing harder and more publicly for independence. While initially working closely with Osmeña, their differing styles and ambitions would eventually lead to a rivalry for leadership within the Nacionalista Party. Quezon also served as one of the Resident Commissioners to Washington D.C., where he became a highly effective lobbyist for Philippine interests and independence, playing a crucial role in the passage of the Jones Law.
Other Prominent Legislators
The Assembly was also home to other significant figures who would play vital roles in Philippine politics. These included Rafael Palma, who served in the Assembly and later as a Resident Commissioner and President of the University of the Philippines; Jaime C. de Veyra, another Resident Commissioner; and numerous provincial leaders who gained national prominence through their participation in the legislature. These individuals contributed to debates, drafted legislation, and built the foundations of a modern Philippine political system.
The Philippine Assembly in Action: Legislation and Advocacy
The Philippine Assembly, despite its limitations, was a functioning legislative body that actively engaged in crafting laws and advocating for Filipino interests.
Legislative Agenda and Priorities
The Assembly’s legislative priorities reflected the pressing needs of the time and the nationalist aspirations of its members. Key areas of focus included:
- Education: Recognizing the importance of education for national progress and the development of a self-governing populace, the Assembly championed the expansion of the public school system established by the Americans.
- Infrastructure: Legislation was passed to fund roads, bridges, ports, and other infrastructure projects deemed essential for economic development and national integration.
- Economy: The Assembly debated and passed laws related to agriculture, land policy, and trade, seeking to protect Filipino economic interests within the framework of the colonial economy dominated by the U.S. and foreign capital.
- Filipinization: A consistent legislative effort was aimed at increasing the number of Filipinos in the civil service, particularly in higher positions, gradually replacing American officials. This policy, known as Filipinization, was seen as essential training for future self-governance.
The Assembly also played a crucial role in scrutinizing the budget proposed by the Governor-General and the Philippine Commission. Their power of appropriation allowed them to influence which programs received funding, effectively steering government resources towards areas they deemed important, such as education and health.
Pushing for Greater Autonomy and Independence
Beyond specific legislation, the primary mission of the Nacionalista Party majority in the Assembly was to continuously push for greater Philippine Autonomy and ultimate independence. This was done through:
- Resolutions: Passing resolutions formally requesting the U.S. Congress and President to grant independence.
- Speeches and Debates: Using the Assembly floor as a platform to articulate the Filipino people’s desire for self-determination, often citing American principles of liberty and democracy.
- Sending Delegations: Supporting and funding delegations (like those led by the Resident Commissioners) to the United States to lobby politicians and inform the American public about the Philippine situation and the readiness for independence.
- Cooperation and Strategic Negotiation: While advocating for independence, leaders like Osmeña also engaged in strategic cooperation with the American administration when it served the purpose of gaining more control or developmental benefits for the Philippines. This delicate balance was a hallmark of their approach to steps toward autonomy.
Interactions with the Taft Commission and the Governor-General
The relationship between the Philippine Assembly, the Philippine Commission, and the Governor-General was a constant negotiation and sometimes one of tension. The American officials often viewed the Assembly as needing guidance and sometimes saw their nationalist aspirations as premature or disruptive. The Assembly, on the other hand, saw the Commission as an unelected body representing colonial power and the Governor-General as the ultimate symbol of American authority.
Despite these inherent tensions, there were instances of cooperation on specific legislative matters. However, disagreements, particularly over the budget and the pace of Filipinization, were frequent. The power of the Governor-General to veto legislation and the Commission’s ability to block Assembly bills meant that the Assembly’s influence, while significant, was not absolute. This dynamic highlighted the still limited nature of Filipino Representation and the ongoing struggle for genuine Philippine Autonomy.
Challenges and Limitations of Representation
While the Philippine Assembly represented a major step forward, it was not without its challenges and inherent limitations, reflecting the realities of the colonial context.
Limited Suffrage and Elite Representation
As noted earlier, the right to vote in the Assembly elections was restricted to a small percentage of the male population who met property, tax, or literacy requirements. This meant that the Assembly primarily represented the interests of the educated and wealthy elite (ilustrados) and landholders, rather than the broader masses of Filipino farmers and laborers. Critics argued that this limited suffrage perpetuated the existing social hierarchy and that the Assembly did not fully represent the will of the entire Filipino people. This is a crucial point when evaluating the extent of genuine Filipino Representation in this period.
Power Sharing with the Philippine Commission
The bicameral structure, where the appointed Philippine Commission served as the upper house with equal legislative power (except for appropriations), acted as a significant check on the Assembly’s power. The Commission could block bills passed by the Assembly, effectively slowing down or preventing the enactment of legislation favored by the Filipino representatives. This arrangement underscored that ultimate legislative authority was still shared and not fully in Filipino hands.
Influence of the American Governor-General
The Governor-General, as the chief executive appointed by the U.S. President, held considerable power. This included the power to appoint members of the Philippine Commission, veto legislation passed by both houses, and control the executive branches of government. The presence of a powerful American executive meant that even with elected Filipino Representation in the Assembly, the administration’s policies and priorities could still be heavily influenced, if not dictated, by the colonial power. The various American Governors-General, including Luke Edward Wright, Henry Clay Ide, James Francis Smith, and W. Cameron Forbes, each had their own approaches, but all ultimately represented U.S. authority.
The Jones Law of 1916 and the Philippine Legislature
The political experience gained through the Philippine Assembly, combined with sustained lobbying by Filipino leaders in the U.S. (particularly by Manuel L. Quezon as a Resident Commissioner), paved the way for the next major legislative step: the passage of the Jones Law in 1916. Officially known as the Philippine Autonomy Act, this act significantly altered the structure of the colonial government and increased Filipino control.
Evolution from Assembly to Bicameral Legislature
The Jones Law abolished the Philippine Commission and replaced it with a new, elective upper house: the Philippine Senate. The Philippine Assembly was retained as the lower house, but the new structure was a fully elective bicameral Philippine Legislature. This was a major victory for Filipino nationalists, as it removed the American-controlled upper house and placed both legislative bodies under Filipino electoral control (subject, of course, to the limitations of suffrage which remained, though slightly expanded).
Increased Filipino Control
With both houses of the legislature elected by Filipinos, the Jones Law dramatically increased the level of Filipino Representation in the legislative branch. While the American Governor-General still held significant executive and veto powers, the Filipino-controlled Philippine Legislature had much greater autonomy in crafting laws and shaping policy, particularly regarding domestic affairs and appropriations.
The Jones Law also formally stated the U.S. commitment to grant the Philippines independence as soon as a stable government could be established. This explicitly linked the increase in Philippine Autonomy to the eventual goal of complete independence.
Continued Steps Towards Independence
The Jones Law marked a significant acceleration in the steps toward autonomy. The Philippine Legislature became the primary vehicle for the independence movement within the political system. Filipino leaders used this platform to demonstrate their capacity for self-governance and to continue advocating for the fulfillment of the American promise of independence. The period under the Jones Law saw further Filipinization of the bureaucracy and increased experience in democratic governance, paving the way for the Commonwealth period and eventually, the Early Philippine Republic as a fully independent nation.
Legacy and Significance of the Philippine Assembly
Despite its relatively short lifespan (1907-1916), the Philippine Assembly holds immense significance in the history of the Philippines’ struggle for independence.
Training Ground for Filipino Statesmen
The Assembly provided invaluable experience in legislative procedures, debate, and the complexities of national politics for a generation of Filipino leaders. Figures like Sergio Osmeña and Manuel L. Quezon, along with many others, honed their skills as legislators, administrators, and national figures within its halls. This experience was crucial in preparing them to lead the country during the later Commonwealth period and the Early Philippine Republic. The Assembly effectively served as a training ground for democratic leadership.
Solidifying the Independence Movement
The Philippine Assembly provided a legitimate, national platform for the independence movement. The Nacionalista Party’s dominance and their consistent advocacy for independence within the framework of the American system kept the issue at the forefront of political discourse. The Assembly’s resolutions and the efforts of the Resident Commissioners in Washington D.C. helped maintain international attention on the Philippine cause and pressured the U.S. government to fulfill its promise of eventual independence.
A Crucial Step in the Path to the Early Philippine Republic
The establishment and functioning of the Philippine Assembly were undeniably crucial steps toward autonomy. It introduced national Filipino Representation in the legislative branch, granting Filipino leaders a voice and leverage in the colonial government for the first time. While limited, this power was strategically used to advance the cause of self-governance. The Assembly’s existence and the political forces it empowered directly led to the more autonomous Philippine Legislature under the Jones Law, which in turn paved the way for the Commonwealth and the eventual establishment of the independent Early Philippine Republic on July 4, 1946.
Different Perspectives on the Assembly’s Role
Historical interpretations of the Philippine Assembly vary, reflecting different perspectives on the nature of American colonialism and the independence movement.
Nationalist Views vs. American Colonial Intentions
From a Filipino nationalist perspective, the Assembly is viewed as a hard-won concession, a limited but essential tool used effectively by Filipino leaders to push back against colonial rule and advance the cause of independence. It demonstrated Filipino capacity for self-governance and served as a focal point for national aspirations.
From the perspective of the American colonial administration, the Assembly was often seen as part of the “benevolent assimilation” policy, a controlled experiment in self-governance designed to gradually prepare Filipinos for eventual autonomy. American officials often emphasized the need for guidance and tutelage, sometimes viewing the Assembly’s push for immediate independence as irresponsible or premature. The restrictive suffrage can also be seen through this lens, ensuring that power initially rested with a more “responsible” (i.e., pro-American or conservative) elite, although the election results contradicted this expectation.
Impact on Different Social Classes
As discussed, the limited suffrage meant that the benefits and representation offered by the Assembly were not equally distributed across Filipino society. The ilustrados and landed elite held political power, while the vast majority of the population – farmers, laborers, and indigenous groups – had little direct voice in the legislature. This raises questions about the extent to which the Assembly truly represented the diverse interests of the Filipino people and highlights the social inequalities that persisted during the colonial period.
The creation of the Gabinete Filipino (Filipino Cabinet) in 1907, initially conceived as an advisory body to the Governor-General composed of prominent Filipinos, can also be seen in relation to the Assembly. While separate, it represented another avenue, albeit limited, for Filipino participation in the executive sphere, complementing the legislative Filipino Representation provided by the Assembly.
The economic context, including the impact of U.S. tariff policies like the Ley Payne–Aldrich (Payne–Aldrich Tariff Act of 1909), was a significant issue debated within the Assembly. Filipino representatives sought to protect local industries and ensure fair trade terms, demonstrating the practical concerns addressed by the legislature beyond the sole focus on independence.
Key Takeaways:
- The Philippine Assembly (1907-1916) was the first national legislative body with elected Filipino Representation under American colonial rule.
- Its establishment was a key provision of the Philippine Bill of 1902, marking a significant step toward autonomy.
- The Nacionalista Party, led by figures like Sergio Osmeña and Manuel L. Quezon, dominated the Assembly and used it as a platform to advocate for immediate independence.
- The Assembly shared legislative power with the appointed Philippine Commission but held exclusive control over appropriations, providing leverage.
- Limitations included restricted suffrage (favoring the elite) and the significant powers of the American Governor-General.
- The Assembly served as a crucial training ground for Filipino political leaders.
- Its advocacy and the efforts of Resident Commissioners like Manuel L. Quezon directly contributed to the passage of the Jones Law in 1916, which established a fully elective Philippine Legislature and increased Philippine Autonomy.
- The Philippine Assembly was a vital stage in the independence movement, paving the way for greater self-governance and eventually the Early Philippine Republic.
Conclusion
The establishment of the Philippine Assembly in 1907 marked a watershed moment in the history of the Philippines. For the first time under American rule, Filipinos had a national elected body where their voices could be heard and where they could directly participate in the legislative process. While limited by shared power with the American-controlled Philippine Commission, restricted suffrage, and the authority of the Governor-General, the Assembly provided a crucial platform for Filipino Representation and became the primary vehicle for the independence movement within the political system.
Under the leadership of figures like Sergio Osmeña and Manuel L. Quezon, the Philippine Assembly effectively utilized its powers, particularly control over appropriations, to influence policy, promote Filipinization, and consistently advocate for greater Philippine Autonomy and ultimate independence. The experience gained within the Assembly was invaluable for the Filipino political elite, preparing them for the responsibilities of self-governance.
The legacy of the Philippine Assembly is undeniable. It demonstrated the capacity of Filipinos for democratic participation and solidified the national aspiration for independence. It was a vital precursor to the Philippine Legislature created by the Jones Law of 1916, which granted even greater autonomy, bringing the Philippines closer to its goal of becoming the independent Early Philippine Republic. The Assembly’s existence underscores that the path to independence was not solely one of armed struggle, but also involved strategic political engagement, negotiation, and the persistent assertion of the Filipino people’s right to self-governance. The Philippine Assembly stands as a testament to the enduring Filipino quest for freedom and control over their own destiny, a crucial set of steps toward autonomy on a long and challenging journey. The political maneuvers and legislative battles that took place within its walls were integral to shaping the modern Philippine state and its relationship with the United States.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ):
Q1: What was the main purpose of the Philippine Assembly? A1: The main purpose was to provide Filipino Representation in the national legislative process under American colonial rule. While it shared power with the American-appointed Philippine Commission, it was intended as a step towards self-governance and eventual Philippine Autonomy, as outlined in the Philippine Bill of 1902.
Q2: When was the Philippine Assembly established and how long did it last? A2: The Philippine Assembly was established and inaugurated on October 16, 1907. It existed until the passage of the Jones Law in 1916, which reorganized the government and replaced it with the fully elective Philippine Legislature.
Q3: Who were the key leaders of the Philippine Assembly? A3: The most prominent leaders were Sergio Osmeña of the Nacionalista Party, who served as the Speaker, and Manuel L. Quezon, who served as the Majority Floor Leader and later as a Resident Commissioner to the U.S. House of Representatives.
Q4: What were the limitations of the Philippine Assembly’s power? A4: The Assembly’s power was limited in several ways: it shared legislative authority with the American-appointed Philippine Commission, suffrage for elections was restricted to a small elite, and the American Governor-General held significant executive and veto powers.
Q5: How did the Philippine Assembly contribute to the independence movement? A5: The Assembly served as a national platform for the independence movement. The Nacionalista Party majority used it to pass resolutions advocating for independence, debate American policies, promote Filipinization, and fund delegations (Resident Commissioners) to lobby in the United States, significantly advancing the cause of Philippine Autonomy.
Q6: What was the significance of the power of appropriation held by the Assembly? A6: The Assembly’s exclusive power over the appropriation of funds gave Filipino representatives crucial leverage. It allowed them to influence government spending, prioritize programs like education and infrastructure, and exert pressure on the American administration by controlling the budget.
Q7: How did the Jones Law change the legislative structure from the Philippine Assembly era? A7: The Jones Law of 1916 abolished the Philippine Commission (the upper house) and created an elective Philippine Senate in its place. The Philippine Assembly became the lower house. This resulted in a fully elective, bicameral Philippine Legislature, significantly increasing Filipino Representation and moving the Philippines closer to complete Philippine Autonomy.
Q8: Who were the Resident Commissioners and what did they do? A8: Resident Commissioners were representatives elected by the Philippine Assembly (and later the Philippine Legislature) to the U.S. House of Representatives. They could speak and participate in debates but did not have voting power. They played a vital role in lobbying the U.S. Congress and informing the American public about the Philippines and the independence movement. Manuel L. Quezon was a notable Resident Commissioner.
Q9: How did the Philippine Assembly relate to the concept of Filipinization? A9: Filipinization, the policy of gradually replacing American officials with qualified Filipinos in the civil service, was a major goal championed by the Philippine Assembly. The Assembly supported legislation and used its budgetary power to promote this policy, seeing it as essential for building Filipino capacity for self-governance.
Sources:
- Agoncillo, Teodoro A. History of the Filipino People. 8th ed. Garotech Publishing, 1990.
- Constantino, Renato. The Philippines: A Past Revisited. Tala Publishing Services, 1975.
- Stanley, Peter W. A Nation in the Making: The Philippines and the United States, 1899-1921. Harvard University Press, 1974.
- Salamanca, Bonifacio S. The Filipino Reaction to American Rule, 1901-1913. New Day Publishers, 1984.
- Golay, Frank Hindman. Face of Empire: United States-Philippine Relations, 1898-1946. Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1997.
- The Philippine Bill of 1902 (Philippine Organic Act of 1902) – Text available through various historical archives and legal databases.
- The Jones Law of 1916 (Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916) – Text available through various historical archives and legal databases.
- Zaide, Gregorio F. and Sonia M. Zaide. Philippine History and Government. All-Nations Publishing Co., 2004.