The Philippine Nationalism and Identity in the Post-War Era (1946-1972)

Forging a Nation Amidst Ruins and Shadows

The period from 1946 to 1972 stands as a defining chapter in the narrative of the Philippines, a time marked by the euphoria of regained independence and the daunting task of nation-building amidst the literal and figurative ruins of World War II. Emerging from decades of American colonial rule and the brutal Japanese occupation, the fledgling Third Republic faced the immense challenge of not only reconstructing a devastated archipelago but also forging a cohesive Philippine Identity and navigating the complex currents of Philippine Nationalism. This Post-War Era was far from simple; it was a crucible where aspirations for genuine sovereignty clashed with the persistent realities of US influence and economic dependency, where cultural expressions sought to define “Filipino-ness,” and where deep-seated social inequalities fueled growing social unrest.

This article delves into the multifaceted evolution of Philippine Nationalism and Identity during these critical 26 years. We will explore the initial hopes and inherent contradictions surrounding the July 4, 1946, declaration of independence under President Manuel Roxas, examining the impact of economic agreements like the Bell Trade Act and the subsequent struggle for economic nationalism. We will trace the political landscape through the presidencies of Roxas, Elpidio Quirino, Ramon Magsaysay, Carlos P. Garcia, Diosdado Macapagal, and the early years of Ferdinand Marcos, analyzing how each administration shaped and responded to nationalist sentiments. Furthermore, we will investigate the vibrant, often contentious, search for a distinct cultural identity, including the National Language debates (Tagalog/Pilipino vs. English and regional languages) and the flourishing of arts and literature, sometimes termed a Cultural Renaissance. Finally, we will analyze the growing disillusionment and radicalization that culminated in widespread student activism, the First Quarter Storm, and the resurgence of armed movements like the NPA, setting the stage for the dramatic end of this era with the declaration of Martial Law. Understanding this period is crucial to comprehending the trajectory of the modern Philippines, its enduring challenges, and the persistent quest for self-determination.  

H2: The Dawn of the Third Republic (1946-1953): Independence Under Shadow

The formal granting of independence by the United States on July 4, 1946, was a moment Filipinos had long fought for. However, the context was far from ideal. Manila lay in ruins, second only to Warsaw in terms of wartime devastation, and the national economy was shattered. The transition to self-governance was heavily conditioned by the enduring power of the former colonizer.  

H3: A Flag Raised, Questions Lingering: The Roxas Administration

Manuel Roxas, the last president of the Commonwealth, became the first president of the Third Republic. His administration faced the immediate, overwhelming task of reconstruction. While independence was celebrated, the terms under which it was granted immediately sparked debates about sovereignty and Philippine Nationalism. The deep ties forged during the colonial period, particularly the shared experience against Japan, intertwined with the geopolitical realities of the emerging Cold War, ensuring continued American involvement. Roxas, seen by many as pro-American, set a course that prioritized reconstruction aid and close alignment with the United States, a stance that would define the early years of the republic and attract criticism from nationalist circles who perceived it as a continuation of dependency, a form of neocolonialism.

H3: Economic Realities: The Bell Trade Act and Parity Rights

Central to the controversy was the Philippine Trade Act of 1946, commonly known as the Bell Trade Act. Pushed by the US Congress, this act governed the post-independence economic relationship. While it provided for free trade quotas, it crucially included the infamous Parity Rights amendment to the Philippine Constitution. This provision granted American citizens and corporations the same rights as Filipinos in exploiting the Philippines’ natural resources and operating public utilities.  

Passage required amending the Philippine Constitution, a contentious process that fueled nationalist opposition. Critics argued that Parity Rights undermined Philippine sovereignty and ensured continued American economic dominance, hindering the development of genuine economic nationalism. Proponents, including Roxas, argued it was a necessary compromise to secure vital rehabilitation funds ($800 million) promised under the Philippine Rehabilitation Act, also contingent on accepting the Bell Trade Act. This economic arrangement deeply shaped the post-war era, embedding American economic interests within the newly independent nation and becoming a major point of contention for nationalist movements for decades.

H3: Internal Strife: The Hukbalahap Rebellion

Compounding the challenges of reconstruction and economic dependency was internal conflict. The Hukbalahap Rebellion (Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa Hapon – People’s Anti-Japanese Army), which had fiercely resisted the Japanese, did not simply disband after the war. Rooted in long-standing agrarian grievances in Central Luzon, particularly issues of land reform and tenant exploitation, the Huks transformed into a post-war insurgency (rebranding partially as the Hukbong Magpapalaya ng Bayan – People’s Liberation Army).  

The Roxas and subsequent Quirino administrations adopted primarily military solutions, often exacerbating the conflict. The rebellion highlighted the deep social fissures within the nation and the failure of the new government to address fundamental issues of inequality. It represented a different kind of nationalism – one rooted in peasant demands and socialist ideals, challenging the elite-led governance in Manila. The Huk problem underscored the fragility of the new republic and the urgent need for social and economic reforms to achieve national unity, a task that would later be taken up more effectively, albeit temporarily, by Ramon Magsaysay.

H2: The Magsaysay Era (1953-1957): Populism, Reform, and the “Common Man”

The election of Ramon Magsaysay in 1953 marked a significant shift in Philippine politics and national sentiment. A former guerrilla fighter and defense secretary under Quirino, Magsaysay had gained immense popularity for his perceived integrity and success in weakening the Hukbalahap Rebellion through a combination of military pressure and socio-economic reforms aimed at addressing the Huks’ popular base.  

H3: “Mambo Magsaysay”: Charisma and Connection

Magsaysay cultivated an image as a “man of the masses,” opening the presidential palace (Malacañang) to the public and focusing on rural development and anti-corruption measures. His charisma and populist appeal resonated deeply with ordinary Filipinos, fostering a sense of optimism and national pride largely absent in the preceding years. His presidency is often remembered, perhaps nostalgically, as a “golden age” of clean governance and connection between the leadership and the people. This populist nationalism, focused on the welfare of the tao (common man), offered a contrast to the more elite-driven politics of his predecessors. His approach to the Huks, combining force with attraction (like resettlement programs), led to the surrender of Huk leader Luis Taruc in 1954, significantly diminishing the rebellion.

H3: Aligning with the West: SEATO and the Cold War

Despite his domestic focus, Magsaysay’s administration firmly aligned the Philippines with the United States in the intensifying Cold War. The Philippines became a charter member of the SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization) in 1954, a US-led military alliance aimed at containing communism in the region. This cemented the Philippines’ role as a key American ally, hosting major US military bases (Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Base) which themselves became symbols of continued US influence and targets for later nationalist critique. While seen by the government as crucial for national security, this strong pro-US stance limited foreign policy independence and drew criticism from those advocating a more non-aligned or Asia-centric approach.  

H3: A Nation in Mourning: Magsaysay’s Untimely Death

Magsaysay’s presidency was cut short by his tragic death in a plane crash in March 1957. His death plunged the nation into grief and created a leadership vacuum. The outpouring of national mourning reflected the genuine connection he had forged with the populace. His legacy, however, remains complex – celebrated for his populism and integrity, yet also representing a period of deep alignment with US geopolitical interests. His passing marked the end of a distinct phase in the post-war era.

H2: Economic Nationalism and Cultural Assertion (1957-1965): Finding a Filipino Voice

The period following Magsaysay saw a resurgence of explicit economic nationalism and more assertive efforts to define Philippine Identity in cultural terms, moving away from the overt US influence of the early republic.

H3: Carlos P. Garcia and the “Filipino First” Policy

Vice President Carlos P. Garcia, who succeeded Magsaysay and won the subsequent presidential election, championed the “Filipino First” Policy. Launched in 1958, this policy explicitly aimed to give preferential treatment to Filipino businessmen in securing foreign exchange allocations and government contracts. It sought to wrest control of key sectors of the economy, particularly retail and import/export, from foreign (primarily American and Chinese) dominance.

The Filipino First Policy was a landmark assertion of economic nationalism. It resonated with Filipino entrepreneurs and intellectuals who felt marginalized in their own economy. However, it also faced significant challenges:  

• Implementation Issues: Cronyism and corruption sometimes undermined the policy’s goals, benefiting well-connected elites rather than broadly fostering Filipino enterprise.  
• Foreign Opposition: American businesses and the US government expressed concern, viewing it as discriminatory and potentially violating the spirit, if not the letter, of existing economic agreements.
• Domestic Criticism: The policy was criticized for fostering inefficiency and failing to address deeper structural problems in the Philippine economy.

Despite its limitations, the Filipino First Policy marked a significant moment where the Philippine government actively prioritized national economic interests, shaping discourse on economic nationalism for years to come. Garcia’s administration also emphasized austerity and moral regeneration.  

H3: The National Language Debate: Pilipino Takes Center Stage

The quest for a unified Philippine Identity inevitably involved language. The post-war era saw intensified debate over the National Language. While the 1935 Constitution had mandated the development of a national language based on one of the existing native languages, its implementation was slow and contentious.

Under Garcia and continuing under his successor, the Institute of National Language promoted Pilipino, largely based on Tagalog, the language of Manila and surrounding provinces. This faced pushback from speakers of other major Philippine languages (like Cebuano, Ilocano, Hiligaynon) who felt marginalized.

• Proponents: Argued that a common indigenous language was essential for national unity, cultural identity, and decolonization from English.
• Opponents: Argued for multilingualism, criticized the Tagalog-centricity of Pilipino, or favored the continued prominence of English for international communication and education.

This debate highlighted the internal diversity of the Philippines and the challenges of constructing a singular national identity acceptable to all regions. The promotion of Pilipino in schools and official communications grew steadily, but the tension between national unity and regional linguistic identity remained.

H3: Diosdado Macapagal: Land Reform and Symbolic Nationalism

Diosdado Macapagal defeated Garcia in the 1961 election, promising reform and a “New Era.” His administration is noted for two key actions impacting nationalism and identity:  

1. Agricultural Land Reform Code of 1963: Recognizing the link between land inequality and social unrest (as demonstrated by the Hukbalahap Rebellion), Macapagal championed this ambitious Land Reform legislation. It aimed to abolish share tenancy and establish a system of leaseholds, eventually leading to owner-cultivatorship. While a significant step on paper, its implementation was hampered by landlord resistance, lack of funding, and numerous loopholes. Its limited success meant agrarian issues continued to fuel discontent.  
2. Changing Independence Day: In 1962, Macapagal changed the official celebration of Philippine Independence Day from July 4 to June 12. This date commemorated Emilio Aguinaldo’s declaration of independence from Spain in 1898. This was a powerful symbolic act of Philippine Nationalism, distancing the nation’s founding moment from the US-granted independence and rooting it in the earlier Filipino revolutionary struggle. While July 4 remained “Philippine-American Friendship Day,” June 12 became the primary expression of national sovereignty.  

Macapagal’s presidency also saw the negotiation of the Laurel-Langley Agreement (1955, but its effects and phase-out discussions were prominent in the 60s), which revised the Bell Trade Act. While it corrected some imbalances and set a timeline for the phasing out of Parity Rights (by 1974), it continued to structure the Philippine economy around US trade relations, demonstrating the enduring complexity of achieving full economic autonomy.

H2: The Marcos Ascendancy and Growing Discontent (1965-1972): Seeds of Authoritarianism

The election of Ferdinand Marcos in 1965 ushered in the final phase of this post-war era, characterized by ambitious development projects, a state-sponsored Cultural Renaissance, but also rapidly escalating social unrest and political polarization that paved the way for authoritarian rule.

H3: “This Nation Can Be Great Again”: Infrastructure and Image

Marcos campaigned on a platform of dynamic leadership and national discipline, famously declaring, “This nation can be great again.” His first term (1965-1969) was marked by significant government spending on infrastructure – roads, bridges, schools (“Marcos pre-fab schools”), and irrigation projects. This generated initial popularity and projected an image of progress and effective governance. Marcos was adept at using nationalist rhetoric to bolster his image and justify his programs. He was the first president to win re-election (in 1969), albeit in an election marred by allegations of massive fraud and vote-buying.  

H3: Cultural Renaissance and State Patronage: The CCP

The Marcos era, particularly with the active involvement of First Lady Imelda Marcos, saw a heightened focus on promoting Filipino arts and culture. The most prominent symbol of this was the establishment of the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) complex, inaugurated in 1969. The CCP aimed to be a world-class venue for Philippine and international arts, fostering a sense of national pride in cultural achievements. It supported Filipino artists, dancers, musicians, and writers.  

However, this state-sponsored Cultural Renaissance was criticized by some as elitist, focusing on high art accessible mainly to the wealthy, and serving as a projection of the Marcos regime’s power and prestige rather than a reflection of grassroots culture. Figures like the acclaimed writer Nick Joaquin, while participating in the cultural scene, also offered complex and sometimes critical perspectives on Philippine Identity and history that resisted easy state co-option.  

H3: Rising Social Unrest and Student Activism

Despite the veneer of progress, deep-seated problems festered and intensified during Marcos’s presidency. Economic inequality remained stark, the benefits of development often failed to reach the poor, and corruption scandals plagued the administration. The limitations of Macapagal’s Land Reform became increasingly apparent.

This disillusionment fueled a dramatic rise in social unrest, particularly among students and urban youth. Inspired by global protest movements (anti-Vietnam War, student revolts in Europe) and Maoist ideology, radical student activism surged. Groups like the Kabataang Makabayan (KM) and Samahang Demokratiko ng Kabataan (SDK) organized massive demonstrations demanding fundamental societal changes. Issues ranged from US imperialism (US Influence, military bases, Laurel-Langley Agreement) and government corruption to tuition fee hikes and the need for genuine land reform. This period saw a radicalization of Philippine Nationalism, viewing neocolonialism and domestic feudalism as intertwined problems requiring revolutionary solutions.  

H3: The Resurgence of Armed Struggle: CPP and NPA

The growing radicalization found expression in the re-establishment of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) in 1968, guided by Maoist thought under Jose Maria Sison. In 1969, its military wing, the New People’s Army (NPA), was formed. The CPP–NPA linked urban intellectual radicalism with rural peasant grievances, rapidly gaining strength in various parts of the country. Their platform of national democracy and armed revolution presented a fundamental challenge to the existing political and economic order, reviving the armed struggle tradition seen earlier with the Hukbalahap Rebellion.  

H3: The Road to Martial Law (Prelude to the End of the Era)

The period from 1970 to 1972 was marked by escalating political violence and instability. The First Quarter Storm of 1970 saw massive, often violent clashes between student protesters and state forces in Manila. A series of bombings rocked the capital, culminating in the deadly Plaza Miranda bombing in August 1971 during a political rally of the opposition Liberal Party. Marcos blamed the communists and suspended the writ of habeas corpus.  

This climate of fear and crisis, whether organically occurring or strategically manipulated, provided Marcos with the justification he needed. Citing the growing communist insurgency (NPA) and civil disorder, Ferdinand Marcos declared Martial Law on September 21, 1972, effectively ending the Third Republic and the specific post-war era defined by its particular blend of democratic institutions (however flawed) and evolving nationalist discourse. The 1946-1972 period, which began with the promise of independence, concluded with the imposition of authoritarian rule, drastically reshaping the landscape of Philippine Nationalism and Philippine Identity for the next fourteen years.

H2: Cross-Cutting Themes in Post-War Nationalism and Identity (1946-1972)

Several key themes permeated the entire post-war era, influencing the trajectory of Philippine Nationalism and the construction of Philippine Identity.

H3: The Elusive Quest for “Filipino Identity”

Beyond political and economic struggles, this period witnessed a fervent, often contentious, intellectual and cultural search for what it meant to be Filipino. Having emerged from centuries of Spanish and American colonization, defining an authentic Philippine Identity was paramount.

• Language: The National Language debate (Tagalog/Pilipino vs. English vs. regional languages) was a central battleground.
• Arts and Literature: Writers like Nick Joaquin, NVM Gonzalez, Jose Garcia Villa, and Bienvenido Santos explored themes of history, alienation, cultural hybridity, and the Filipino experience in both English and Filipino. Artists experimented with blending indigenous motifs and Western styles.
• Values: Debates raged about “Filipino values” – were they inherently indigenous, Spanish-influenced, Americanized, or a unique blend? Concepts like hiya (shame), utang na loob (debt of gratitude), and pakikisama (getting along) were analyzed and debated.
• History: Reinterpreting Philippine history from a Filipino perspective, challenging colonial narratives, became crucial for nationalist intellectuals like Teodoro Agoncillo and Renato Constantino, influencing how identity was understood in relation to the past.  

H3: The Many Faces of Nationalism

Philippine Nationalism during 1946-1972 was not monolithic. It manifested in various forms:

• Political Nationalism: Focused on sovereignty, independence (June 12 vs July 4), and challenging overt foreign control (e.g., critiques of US bases, SEATO).
• Economic Nationalism: Centered on controlling the national economy, promoting Filipino businesses (Filipino First Policy), questioning agreements like the Bell Trade Act and Laurel-Langley Agreement, and demanding Land Reform. This stream often grappled with the realities of neocolonialism.
• Cultural Nationalism: Emphasized promoting Filipino languages (Pilipino), arts, traditions, and challenging Western cultural dominance (US Influence). The CCP represented a state-led version of this.
• Radical Nationalism: Seen in the Hukbalahap Rebellion and later the CPP–NPA and student activism (First Quarter Storm), linking national liberation with social revolution and anti-imperialism.

These streams often overlapped but sometimes conflicted, reflecting the diverse interests and ideologies within Philippine society.

H3: The Enduring Shadow and Substance of US Influence

Throughout the post-war era, the relationship with the United States remained the single most significant external factor shaping Philippine affairs. This US Influence was pervasive:

• Economic: Bell Trade Act, Parity Rights, Laurel-Langley Agreement, development aid, private investments.  
• Military: US bases, SEATO membership, military aid and training, involvement in counter-insurgency (Huks, early NPA).
• Political: Close diplomatic ties, perceived American backing for certain administrations, Cold War alignment.
• Cultural: Dominance of English, popularity of American consumer culture, media, and entertainment.

Navigating this complex relationship – benefiting from aid and security guarantees while asserting sovereignty and resisting neocolonialism – was a central challenge for every administration from Manuel Roxas to Ferdinand Marcos. Critiques of US Influence were a constant feature of nationalist discourse across the political spectrum.

Key Presidents and Nationalist Policies/Events (1946-1972) Table

President	Term	Key Nationalist Policies / Events / Context
Manuel Roxas	1946-1948	Independence (July 4), Bell Trade Act/Parity Rights accepted
Elpidio Quirino	1948-1953	Continued Huk campaign, early reconstruction efforts
Ramon Magsaysay	1953-1957	Populist appeal, Huk surrender, SEATO membership
Carlos P. Garcia	1957-1961	Filipino First Policy, Austerity Program
Diosdado Macapagal	1961-1965	Land Reform Code (1963), Changed Independence Day to June 12
Ferdinand Marcos	1965-1972*	Infrastructure drive, CCP establishment, Rising Student Activism/First Quarter Storm, CPP/NPA resurgence, Plaza Miranda Bombing (1971), Lead-up to Martial Law

Export to Sheets

*Note: Marcos’s presidency continued under Martial Law after 1972, but this table focuses on the period defined by the article.

Key Takeaways:

• The Post-War Era (1946-1972) was defined by the struggle to give substance to formal independence, wrestling with US influence (neocolonialism) and internal socio-economic problems.  
• Philippine Nationalism manifested diversely: political (sovereignty), economic (Filipino First Policy, challenging Bell Trade Act), cultural (National Language, arts), and radical (Huks, CPP–NPA, Student Activism).  
• Forging a unified Philippine Identity was complex, marked by language debates (Pilipino/Tagalog), cultural exploration (Nick Joaquin, CCP), and reinterpretations of history.
• Economic issues, particularly Parity Rights, unequal trade (Laurel-Langley Agreement), and failed Land Reform, were major drivers of discontent and nationalist sentiment.
• Presidents from Manuel Roxas to Ferdinand Marcos navigated these issues with varying approaches, from close US alignment (Magsaysay, Roxas) to assertive Economic Nationalism (Garcia) and symbolic nationalism (Macapagal).
• Growing social unrest, fueled by inequality and disillusionment, radicalized segments of the population (First Quarter Storm, NPA), contributing significantly to the political crisis that ended the era with Martial Law in 1972.

Conclusion: An Era of Contested Meanings and Unfinished Quests

The quarter-century following World War II, from 1946 to 1972, was a period of profound transformation and contestation in the Philippines. It began with the formal achievement of independence, a long-cherished nationalist goal, but unfolded under the long shadow of US influence and the heavy burden of post-war reconstruction. The journey through the Third Republic was marked by a continuous effort to define Philippine Nationalism – was it primarily about political sovereignty, economic nationalism, cultural authenticity (Philippine Identity), or social revolution?

Administrations rose and fell, each leaving its imprint: the necessary compromises of Manuel Roxas, the populist connection of Ramon Magsaysay, the assertive Filipino First Policy of Carlos P. Garcia, the symbolic nationalism and Land Reform attempts of Diosdado Macapagal, and the initial infrastructure push coupled with rising dissent under Ferdinand Marcos. Simultaneously, a dynamic cultural scene grappled with language (Tagalog/Pilipino) and artistic expression, seeking to articulate a distinct Filipino voice after centuries of colonialism.

However, the promise of nation-building often fell short. Persistent economic dependency, epitomized by the Bell Trade Act and Parity Rights, fueled critiques of neocolonialism. Deep social inequalities, particularly in land ownership, sparked rebellions like the Hukbalahap movement and later the NPA. By the late 1960s and early 1970s, disillusionment coalesced into powerful social unrest, particularly student activism culminating in the First Quarter Storm.  

Ultimately, the Post-War Era (1946-1972) laid bare the complexities and contradictions inherent in the Filipino quest for self-determination. The unresolved tensions between elite democracy and popular demands, national aspirations and foreign dependencies, and competing visions of Philippine Identity created a volatile environment. The era did not end with resolution, but with the imposition of authoritarian rule, demonstrating the fragility of the institutions built and the profound challenges that continued to face the Filipino nation in its ongoing journey of decolonization and self-discovery. The questions raised and battles fought during these crucial years continue to echo in contemporary Philippine society.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ):

Q1: What was the significance of the Bell Trade Act and Parity Rights?

• The Bell Trade Act (1946) dictated post-independence economic relations between the US and Philippines. Its most controversial element was Parity Rights, which required amending the Philippine Constitution to grant Americans equal rights with Filipinos in exploiting natural resources and operating public utilities. This was seen by nationalists as infringing on sovereignty and ensuring continued US influence (economic neocolonialism), though proponents argued it was necessary for US reconstruction aid.  

Q2: Why did President Macapagal change Independence Day from July 4 to June 12?

• President Diosdado Macapagal moved Independence Day to June 12 in 1962 to align the celebration with Emilio Aguinaldo’s 1898 declaration of independence from Spain. This was a significant act of Philippine Nationalism, emphasizing the nation’s revolutionary origins rather than the date independence was granted by the US (July 4, 1946), thereby asserting a more autonomous historical narrative.  

Q3: What was the Hukbalahap Rebellion?

• The Hukbalahap Rebellion was a post-WWII insurgency primarily active in Central Luzon. Its roots lay in pre-war peasant movements demanding Land Reform. Initially anti-Japanese guerillas, they fought the Philippine government after 1946 due to unresolved agrarian issues and political persecution. The rebellion, eventually weakened significantly under Ramon Magsaysay, highlighted deep social inequalities.  

Q4: What was the “Filipino First” Policy?

• Championed by President Carlos P. Garcia (1957-1961), the Filipino First Policy aimed to prioritize Filipinos over foreigners (especially Americans and Chinese) in business opportunities, particularly in receiving foreign exchange allocations and government contracts. It was a major expression of Economic Nationalism designed to strengthen Filipino control over the national economy.  

Q5: What caused the First Quarter Storm?

• The First Quarter Storm refers to a period of intense student activism and massive demonstrations, often met with state violence, in Manila during the first few months of 1970. Its causes were multifaceted, including anger over government corruption under Ferdinand Marcos, opposition to US influence (Vietnam War, military bases), demands for genuine Land Reform, rising tuition fees, and broader disillusionment with the socio-political system, fueled by radical nationalist and leftist ideologies.  

Q6: What role did the National Language debate play in Philippine Identity?

• The debate over the National Language (Pilipino, based mainly on Tagalog, versus English or other regional languages) was crucial in shaping Philippine Identity during the Post-War Era. Proponents saw an indigenous national language as vital for unity and decolonization. Opponents worried about Tagalog dominance or argued for multilingualism/English. It reflected the challenge of creating a unified identity in a diverse archipelago.

Sources:

1. Agoncillo, Teodoro A. History of the Filipino People. 8th ed. Quezon City: Garotech Publishing, 1990. (A foundational text in Philippine historiography, providing extensive coverage of the post-war period).  
2. Constantino, Renato. The Philippines: A Past Revisited. Quezon City: Tala Publishing Services, 1975. (Offers a nationalist and critical perspective on Philippine history, including detailed analysis of US influence and neocolonialism).
3. Corpuz, O.D. The Roots of the Filipino Nation. Vol. 2. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 2006. (Provides deep historical context leading into the post-war era).
4. Doronila, Amando. The State, Economic Transformation, and Political Change in the Philippines, 1946-1972. Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1992. (Focuses specifically on the political economy of the period).  
5. Guerrero, Milagros C., Encarnacion, Emmanuel N., and Villegas, Ramon N. “Andres Bonifacio and the 1896 Revolution.” Sulyap Kultura. National Commission for Culture and the Arts, 1996. (While focused earlier, provides context for the shift of Independence Day). Available via NCCA: [Potentially check NCCA archives/publications online, specific link difficult to guarantee].
6. Jenkins, Shirley. American Economic Policy Toward the Philippines. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1954. (Details the context and implications of the Bell Trade Act).
7. Kerkvliet, Benedict J. The Huk Rebellion: A Study of Peasant Revolt in the Philippines. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002. (Comprehensive study of the Huk movement).  
8. Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. (Contains presidential decrees, laws like the Land Reform Code, and speeches relevant to the period). Accessible online: https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph
9. Steinberg, David Joel. The Philippines: A Singular and a Plural Place. 4th ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2000. (Provides a concise overview of Philippine history, including the post-war era).
10. Shalom, Stephen Rosskamm. The United States and the Philippines: A Study of Neocolonialism. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1981. (Analyzes the US-Philippine relationship critically).