The Rise of Philippine Labor Movements Under American Colonial Rule (1898-1946)

Labor movements, broadly defined as the collective efforts of workers to improve their working conditions, wages, and rights, have played a transformative role in shaping modern societies. They represent the organized voice of the working class, advocating for fairer treatment and greater economic justice. In the context of the Philippines, the period of American colonial rule (1898-1946) stands out as a crucial epoch for the emergence and development of organized labor. It was during these decades that Filipino workers, facing the harsh realities of a new economic order imposed by a foreign power, began to coalesce, demand rights, and challenge the status quo.

This article delves into the historical trajectory of Philippine labor movements under American colonial rule. It argues that the rise of these movements was a direct and powerful response to the specific socio-economic conditions prevalent during this era, significantly molding the political and social landscape of the Philippines in ways that resonate even today. From the initial suppression of nationalist fervor to the introduction of new economic policies and the influence of global labor ideologies, the American period provided fertile ground for the seeds of organized labor to sprout and grow, laying the foundation for the modern Philippine labor landscape.

Historical Context: Philippines under Early American Rule

The transition from over three centuries of Spanish colonial sovereignty to American rule after the mock Battle of Manila Bay in 1898 was a tumultuous period for the Philippines. Following the Philippine-American War (1899-1902), which saw fierce resistance from Filipinos seeking genuine independence, the United States established its civil administration. This new colonial power brought with it distinct economic policies that profoundly impacted Filipino life and work.

The American economic agenda primarily focused on integrating the Philippines into the global capitalist system, particularly as a source of raw materials and a market for American goods. This was facilitated by policies like the Payne–Aldrich Act of 1909 and the Underwood–Simmons Act of 1913, which established preferential free trade relations between the Philippines and the United States. While proponents argued this spurred economic growth, it largely favored American businesses and Filipino elites involved in export agriculture. Emphasis was placed on cultivating cash crops like sugar, coconut, tobacco, and abaca for export, often leading to the neglect of subsistence farming and exacerbating land ownership issues.

Simultaneously, nascent industries began to emerge, particularly in urban centers like Manila, focusing on processing export goods, manufacturing consumer items, and developing infrastructure (ports, railways). This led to a gradual shift from purely agrarian labor to wage labor in factories, ports, and construction sites.

However, the social conditions for the majority of Filipino workers were dire. Despite the promise of modernization, poverty remained widespread, especially in rural areas. For those who transitioned to wage labor, the situation was often worse. Working conditions were typically harsh and unregulated. Long hours were common, often exceeding 10-12 hours a day, six or even seven days a week. Wages were meager, barely sufficient to cover basic necessities, and often subject to arbitrary deductions or delays. Safety standards were virtually non-existent, leading to frequent accidents and injuries. There was a complete lack of job security, benefits, or any formal recognition of worker rights. Employers, whether foreign or local elite, held immense power, and individual workers had little leverage to negotiate for better terms.

Adding to the socio-economic pressures was the political climate. Following the brutal suppression of the Philippine-American War, open nationalist and revolutionary movements were heavily policed. Laws like the Sedition Law of 1901, which criminalized advocating for independence, effectively stifled overt political dissent. This created a complex environment where grievances related to economic exploitation and social inequality needed new avenues for expression and organization, paving the way for the rise of collective action focused on labor issues. The desperation born from poor conditions and the lack of political voice became a powerful catalyst for the formation of Philippine labor movements under American colonial rule.

Causes for the Rise of Labor Movements

The emergence of organized labor in the Philippines during the American period was not a sudden phenomenon but the result of converging economic, social, and political factors.

Economic Causes: The Exploitation of Labor

At the heart of the labor movement’s rise were the pervasive exploitative labor practices. In the growing industrial and port sectors, as well as large agricultural estates, workers faced:

Exploitative Practices: Long hours, dangerous environments, child labor, and lack of rest days were common. Workers in ports, for instance, faced heavy physical labor with high risks of accidents. Factory workers endured poor ventilation, lack of sanitation, and repetitive, exhausting tasks.
Low Wages: Wages were kept deliberately low to maximize profits for employers. These wages often fell far short of what was needed for a worker and their family to live decently, pushing many into debt and perpetual hardship.
Lack of Security and Benefits: Workers could be hired and fired at will. There was no concept of severance pay, health benefits, or retirement plans. Injury on the job often meant immediate dismissal with no compensation.
Impact of Industrialization: While not as extensive as in Western nations, the limited industrialization and the rise of wage labor in urban centers concentrated workers in specific locations, making it easier for them to communicate, share grievances, and organize compared to dispersed agricultural laborers. This concentration fostered a sense of collective identity and shared struggle.

Social Causes: Awareness and Urbanization

Urbanization played a significant role in bringing workers together. As people migrated from rural areas to cities like Manila seeking work, they faced:

Urban Concentration: Living in crowded, often unsanitary tenement housing or slum areas, workers were in close proximity, facilitating the exchange of ideas and the formation of community bonds based on shared living and working conditions.
Poor Living Conditions: Beyond the workplace, housing was inadequate, sanitation was poor, and access to clean water and healthcare was limited. These conditions compounded the hardships faced by the working class.
Increased Awareness: The American period also saw the expansion of the public education system, leading to increased literacy among some segments of the population. Exposure to international news, books, and ideas, including reports on labor movements and socialist/anarchist thought in Europe and the United States, raised awareness among Filipino intellectuals and workers about the concept of worker rights and collective action.

Political Causes: Seeking a Voice

The political context under American rule also contributed to the rise of labor movements:

Suppression of Political Dissent: With overt nationalist political organizing suppressed, social and economic issues became alternative platforms for collective action and expressing discontent with the colonial administration and its associated economic system. Labor unions could frame their demands in terms of social justice and worker welfare, which were harder for the government to immediately label as seditious.
Limited Political Participation: While the Americans introduced limited forms of self-governance, political power remained largely concentrated in the hands of the colonial officials and a Filipino elite class (the ilustrados), many of whom were also landlords or business owners with interests opposed to worker demands. The masses had little direct political representation to voice their economic grievances.
Influence of Foreign Ideologies: Filipino intellectuals and labor leaders were influenced by labor movements abroad. Ideas of collective bargaining, strikes, and different political ideologies (socialism, anarchism, later communism) filtered into the Philippines, providing frameworks and strategies for organizing.
Desire for Collective Bargaining: Recognizing the futility of individual negotiation, workers sought collective power to demand better wages, shorter hours, and safer conditions. Labor unions offered the structure for collective bargaining and the potential to exert pressure through strikes and protests.

These interconnected factors created a fertile environment for the germination of Philippine labor movements under American colonial rule, transforming the struggle for basic rights into an organized force.

Early Labor Organizations and Key Figures

The early years of the American colonial period saw the tentative but determined formation of the first modern labor unions and federations in the Philippines. These organizations were often born out of specific grievances in particular industries but quickly recognized the need for broader solidarity.

One of the most pivotal figures in the early history of Philippine labor is Isabelo de los Reyes, also known as Don Belong. A prominent writer, journalist, and nationalist, de los Reyes founded the Union Obrera Democratica (UOD) in 1902. This is widely considered the first modern labor federation in the Philippines. Inspired by European labor movements, the UOD aimed to unite workers across different trades and industries to fight for better wages, shorter working hours, and humane treatment. Its early activities included organizing workers, educating them about their rights, and advocating for labor legislation. The UOD quickly gained traction, organizing several strikes. However, its outspokenness, particularly its nationalist undertones and challenges to the colonial economic system, drew the ire of the American authorities. In 1902, de los Reyes was arrested and charged with sedition and rebellion, highlighting the government’s initial repressive stance against organized labor, especially when it intersected with nationalist sentiments.

Following the suppression of the UOD and the arrest of de los Reyes, his associate Dominador Gomez took over the leadership and renamed the organization the Union del Trabajo de Filipinas. Gomez continued the advocacy for worker rights, facing similar challenges from the colonial government.

A significant development occurred in 1913 with the formation of the Congreso Obrero de Filipinas (COF). The COF emerged as the largest and most influential labor federation for a considerable period. It brought together various unions and became the primary voice of organized labor in negotiations and protests. However, the COF was not monolithic. Over time, ideological differences emerged within its ranks, leading to splits between reformist factions, who sought change primarily through legislation and negotiation within the existing system, and more radical elements, who advocated for more fundamental societal change, including socialist or communist ideals, and were more inclined towards mass action and general strikes.

Key leaders within the COF included figures like Francisco Varona, who represented a more moderate, reformist approach, and Crisanto Evangelista, who became a leading figure of the more radical wing, eventually playing a crucial role in the introduction of communist ideology into the Philippine labor movement.

Other significant early unions and leaders existed, often organized along craft or industry lines, such as printers, tobacco workers, and port laborers. These early organizations, despite facing significant obstacles, laid the essential groundwork for the future development of Philippine labor movements under American colonial rule. They demonstrated the power of collective action and brought worker issues to the forefront of national consciousness.

Here is a table summarizing some of these early key organizations and figures:

Organization	Founded	Key Figure(s)	Ideological Leanings (Early)	Key Activities / Significance	Fate / Evolution
Union Obrera Democratica (UOD)	1902	Isabelo de los Reyes	Nationalist, Anarcho-syndicalist (influenced)	First modern labor federation, organized early strikes, advocated for worker rights.	Suppressed by the government, leaders arrested.
Union del Trabajo de Filipinas	1903	Dominador Gomez	Nationalist, Labor Advocacy	Successor to UOD, continued organizing and advocacy.	Continued operations, faced government scrutiny.
Congreso Obrero de Filipinas (COF)	1913	Francisco Varona, Crisanto Evangelista	Initially Broad, later split into Reformist and Radical factions.	Major federation, represented diverse unions, engaged in strikes and negotiations.	Split in the late 1920s/early 1930s due to ideological conflicts (especially communism).
Katipunan ng Anak Pawis sa Pilipinas (KAP)	1929	Crisanto Evangelista	Pro-Communist	Formed by radical wing of COF, aimed for broader worker-peasant alliance.	Became closely linked with the early Communist Party of the Philippines (PKP).

This table highlights the foundational role of these early groups and the individuals who dared to challenge the colonial economic order in the name of worker solidarity.

Course of Events: Major Strikes and Developments

The history of Philippine labor movements under American colonial rule is punctuated by periods of intense activity, marked by significant strikes, legislative battles, and ideological shifts.

One of the earliest notable labor actions was the UOD strike in 1902, which involved workers from various sectors in Manila demanding better wages. This strike, though met with government repression and the arrest of Isabelo de los Reyes, demonstrated the potential power of unified labor action and sent a clear message to both employers and the colonial government about the growing discontent.

In response to the burgeoning labor unrest and perhaps as an attempt to regulate rather than simply repress, the colonial government began to introduce rudimentary labor legislation. Act No. 1868, the Philippine Labor Act of 1908, was one of the first significant pieces of legislation, establishing a Bureau of Labor to gather statistics and mediate disputes, although its powers were limited.

The 1920s and 1930s witnessed a significant intensification of labor unrest. Economic hardships, coupled with rising political consciousness and ideological influences, fueled numerous strikes across different industries. These decades saw the peak of the COF’s influence but also the widening ideological chasm within it.

The split within the COF became pronounced in the late 1920s, primarily over the issue of radicalism and the growing influence of communist ideas. Crisanto Evangelista and his followers, advocating for a more militant approach and class struggle, broke away from the more moderate leadership. This split led to the formation of new, more radical labor centers, most notably the Katipunan ng Anak Pawis sa Pilipinas (KAP) or “Assembly of Toiling Masses of the Philippines” in 1929.

This period also saw the formal establishment of the Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP) in 1930, with Crisanto Evangelista as a key figure. The PKP quickly sought to organize and mobilize the working class and peasantry, viewing labor struggles as integral to the broader anti-imperialist and anti-feudal revolution. The connection between the labor movement and the nascent communist party became a defining characteristic of the radical wing of Philippine labor.

Major strikes during this period included:

The 1924 Tobacco Strike: Workers in the tobacco factories, a significant industry, went on strike demanding better wages and conditions.
The 1934 Manila Port Strike: This major action paralyzed the vital port of Manila, highlighting the strategic importance of port workers and their ability to disrupt trade. The strike involved thousands of workers and was a significant show of force by the labor movement.
Peasant Uprisings: While distinct from urban labor movements, significant peasant uprisings like the Colorum Uprisings and the Sakdalista movement in the 1920s and 1930s were fundamentally linked to labor issues in agriculture – landlessness, tenancy problems, usury, and exploitative landlord practices. Labor leaders and organizations often expressed solidarity with peasant struggles, recognizing the shared plight of the working poor.

The establishment of the Commonwealth of the Philippines in 1935, a transitional government towards full independence, brought about a shift in labor policy. President Manuel L. Quezon recognized the need to address social unrest through legislation. The Commonwealth period saw the passage of several landmark labor laws, including:

Commonwealth Act No. 103 (1936): Created the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), a specialized body tasked with compulsory arbitration of labor disputes. This marked a significant step towards institutionalizing labor relations, though it also gave the government considerable power to intervene in strikes.
Commonwealth Act No. 444 (1939): Established the Eight-Hour Labor Law, a major victory for the movement, though its implementation and enforcement were often challenging.
Legislation establishing minimum wage standards (though initially limited in scope and application) and regulating working conditions.
The creation of the Department of Labor in 1933 (initially a bureau, elevated to department status under the Commonwealth), providing a formal government body responsible for labor affairs.

These developments demonstrate the dynamic nature of Philippine labor movements under American colonial rule, constantly evolving in response to economic conditions, government actions, and internal ideological debates, culminating in significant legislative gains during the Commonwealth era despite continued challenges.

Government Response and Repression

The response of the American colonial government and the subsequent Commonwealth government to the rise of labor movements was a mix of outright repression, legal control, and, later, attempts at regulation and co-optation.

In the early years, particularly under the military government and the initial civil administration, the approach was primarily suppressive. The arrest of Isabelo de los Reyes and the use of the Sedition Law against labor leaders demonstrated a clear intent to dismantle organizations perceived as threats to colonial authority or economic stability. Strikes were often met with police or military intervention, sometimes leading to violence.

The government frequently used its legal power to control labor activities. While some early laws like the 1908 Labor Act aimed at mediation, they also provided a framework for government oversight. The Sedition Law remained a potential tool against outspoken leaders.

As labor movements grew and became harder to simply suppress, the strategy shifted towards regulation and institutionalization. The creation of the Bureau of Labor and later the Department of Labor indicated a recognition that labor issues needed formal handling. The establishment of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) in 1936 was a prime example of this. The CIR aimed to resolve disputes through arbitration, preventing disruptive strikes. While this offered a legal avenue for addressing grievances, critics argued it also limited the workers’ most powerful weapon – the right to strike – by making arbitration compulsory.

There were also attempts at co-optation, where the government or employers would support or create more moderate unions to counter the influence of radical ones. This strategy aimed to divide the labor movement and channel worker grievances into less confrontational paths.

The approach differed somewhat between the early period of direct military and civilian rule and the later Commonwealth period. The early phase was characterized by more overt repression and suspicion of labor organizing, often linking it to residual nationalist resistance. The Commonwealth period, under Filipino leadership, saw a greater emphasis on social justice rhetoric and the passage of welfare-oriented legislation, partly to address widespread discontent and partly to build a national identity distinct from the purely exploitative aspects of colonial capitalism. However, even under the Commonwealth, radical labor leaders, particularly those associated with the PKP, continued to face harassment and legal action, especially as political tensions rose globally and domestically.

The government’s fluctuating response – from repression to regulation and attempted co-optation – significantly shaped the strategies and internal dynamics of Philippine labor movements under American colonial rule, forcing them to adapt and find different ways to pursue their objectives.

Ideologies and Influences

The Philippine labor movements under American colonial rule were a melting pot of various ideologies, reflecting both indigenous experiences and international influences.

Anarcho-Syndicalism: Early leaders like Isabelo de los Reyes were influenced by European anarcho-syndicalism, which advocated for the abolition of the state and capitalism through the direct action of workers, particularly general strikes. The UOD’s structure and methods initially showed some of these leanings, emphasizing worker solidarity and direct industrial action.
Socialism: Socialist ideas, emphasizing collective ownership or control of the means of production and distribution, gained traction, particularly in the 1920s. Figures within the COF began discussing socialist principles as a potential solution to the economic inequalities faced by workers and peasants.
Communism: From the late 1920s onwards, communism, specifically Marxist-Leninism, became a significant influence, largely through figures like Crisanto Evangelista and the establishment of the PKP in 1930. Communist ideology provided a framework for analyzing class struggle, identifying the root causes of exploitation in capitalism and imperialism, and advocating for a revolutionary overthrow of the existing system. This ideology heavily influenced the radical wing of the labor movement and aimed to unite workers and peasants in a common struggle.
Influence of American Labor Union Models: While critical of American colonial policy, Filipino labor leaders also observed and sometimes adopted organizational models and strategies from American labor unions, such as collective bargaining, union structures, and specific protest tactics.
Nationalism and Anti-colonialism: Underlying all these ideologies was a strong current of nationalism and anti-colonialism. For many labor leaders and members, the struggle for worker rights was inseparable from the broader struggle for national liberation. They saw the economic exploitation they faced as a direct consequence of foreign domination and the colonial economic structure. Labor organizing became a form of resistance against both economic injustice and colonial rule.

These diverse ideologies, sometimes coexisting uneasily within the same organizations, provided the intellectual and political fuel for the labor movement, shaping its goals, strategies, and its relationship with the colonial state and Filipino elite.

Significance and Impact

The rise of Philippine labor movements under American colonial rule had profound and lasting significance, shaping not only the lives of workers but also the broader trajectory of Philippine history.

Short-term Impact: Immediate Gains and Awareness

In the short term, the efforts of early labor organizations yielded tangible results:

Increased Awareness: Labor movements successfully brought the plight of workers – low wages, long hours, poor conditions – to public attention and onto the political agenda.
Gained Concessions: Through strikes, negotiations, and advocacy, workers achieved some concessions from employers and the government, including slight wage increases, modest improvements in working conditions in some sectors, and recognition of their right to organize (though often contested).
Influenced Early Legislation: The pressure exerted by labor movements was a key factor behind the passage of early labor laws, such as the creation of the labor bureau, the Eight-Hour Labor Law, and the establishment of the CIR.

Long-term Impact: Foundation for Modern Labor and Society

The long-term impact of this period is even more significant:

Foundation for Modern Labor Law: The legislative framework established during the Commonwealth period, particularly the CIR and the eight-hour day law, formed the bedrock of modern Philippine labor law and industrial relations. While imperfect, these laws acknowledged the state’s role in labor matters and the basic rights of workers.
Significant Political and Social Force: Labor movements became a permanent and significant force in Philippine politics and society. They provided a platform for the working class to participate in national life and advocate for their interests, influencing elections, policy debates, and social reforms.
Contribution to Nationalist Struggle: By linking economic exploitation to colonial rule, labor movements contributed significantly to the broader nationalist and anti-colonial struggle, mobilizing a crucial segment of the population against foreign domination.
Shaped Leftist Movements: The radical wing of the labor movement played a central role in the development of leftist and communist movements in the Philippines, establishing a legacy of activism focused on class struggle and systemic change that continues to influence Philippine politics today.
Established Collective Bargaining: The principle of collective bargaining, though challenging to implement consistently, was introduced and fought for during this period, establishing the idea that workers have a right to negotiate terms and conditions collectively with their employers.

The struggles of Philippine labor movements under American colonial rule were instrumental in raising class consciousness, securing fundamental worker rights, and contributing to the complex socio-political landscape of the independent Philippines.

Challenges and Perspectives

The path of Philippine labor movements under American colonial rule was fraught with challenges, both internal and external.

Internal Divisions: The movement was often plagued by internal divisions. Ideological splits (reformist vs. radical, socialist vs. communist), personality clashes among leaders, and regional differences in organizing (urban industrial workers vs. rural agricultural laborers) weakened solidarity and strategic coherence.
Strong Government and Employer Resistance: Labor organizations faced relentless opposition from powerful employers (both foreign and Filipino elite) and the colonial government. This resistance manifested in repression, legal challenges, union-busting tactics, and attempts to divide workers.
Lack of Widespread Public Support (in some instances): While often drawing on popular grievances, radical labor actions or ideologically driven movements did not always receive universal public support, sometimes due to government propaganda, lack of understanding, or fear of reprisal.
Regional Differences: Organizing workers in the diverse Philippine archipelago presented unique challenges. The needs and conditions of port workers in Manila differed significantly from those of sugar plantation workers in Negros or tobacco farmers in the Ilocos region, requiring different organizing strategies and priorities.

Historians studying this period offer various perspectives on the rise and impact of these movements:

Some focus on the role of specific leaders, highlighting the vision, courage, and strategic decisions of figures like Isabelo de los Reyes and Crisanto Evangelista in mobilizing workers.
Others emphasize the impact of American policy, arguing that colonial economic structures and the government’s response to dissent were the primary drivers shaping the labor movement’s trajectory and radicalization.
There are ongoing debates on the effectiveness and radicalism of the movements. Some historians argue that the reformist approach achieved more tangible gains in terms of legislation, while others contend that the radical wing, despite facing severe repression, was crucial in raising fundamental questions about class, power, and national liberation.

Understanding these challenges and diverse perspectives is essential for a nuanced appreciation of the complex history of Philippine labor movements under American colonial rule.

Conclusion

The period of American colonial rule in the Philippines (1898-1946) was a crucible for the emergence and growth of organized labor. The rise of Philippine labor movements under American colonial rule was fundamentally driven by the harsh socio-economic realities imposed by the new colonial order: exploitative labor practices, low wages, poor conditions, and limited political avenues for redress.

From the pioneering efforts of figures like Isabelo de los Reyes and the formation of early federations like the UOD and COF, Filipino workers began to organize, assert their rights, and engage in collective action, including strikes and protests. This era saw the introduction of diverse ideologies, from anarcho-syndicalism and socialism to the significant influence of communism, which shaped the goals and strategies of different factions within the movement.

Despite facing relentless government repression, strong employer resistance, and internal divisions, these early labor organizations achieved significant milestones. They raised national awareness about worker issues, secured some concessions, and, crucially, influenced the passage of landmark labor legislation during the Commonwealth period, laying the institutional foundation for modern Philippine labor relations.

The struggles of Philippine labor movements under American colonial rule were more than just a fight for better wages and hours; they were deeply intertwined with the broader nationalist aspiration for independence and the quest for social justice in a society grappling with the impacts of colonialism and nascent industrial capitalism. The legacy of these early struggles continues to shape the landscape of labor relations and the ongoing pursuit of economic equity in the Philippines today.

Key Takeaways:

Philippine labor movements emerged under American rule primarily due to harsh working conditions, low wages, and lack of rights.
Early leaders like Isabelo de los Reyes and organizations like UOD and COF were foundational.
The movement faced significant repression but also achieved legislative gains, especially during the Commonwealth period (e.g., 8-hour day, CIR).
Ideologies like nationalism, socialism, and communism played key roles and sometimes caused internal divisions.
The struggle for labor rights was linked to the broader fight for national independence and social justice.
This period laid the groundwork for modern Philippine labor law and established labor as a significant socio-political force.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ):

When did the first modern labor union appear in the Philippines? The first modern labor federation, the Union Obrera Democratica (UOD), was founded in 1902 by Isabelo de los Reyes during the American colonial period.
What were the main demands of early Filipino labor movements? Their main demands included better wages, shorter working hours (especially the eight-hour day), improved working conditions, recognition of worker rights, and the right to organize and bargain collectively.
How did the American colonial government initially react to labor movements? The initial reaction was largely repressive, using laws like the Sedition Law to arrest leaders and suppress strikes.
What was the significance of the Congreso Obrero de Filipinas (COF)? The COF was the largest and most influential labor federation for a significant part of the American period, uniting various unions and leading major labor actions, though it later split along ideological lines.
How did the Commonwealth period affect labor movements? The Commonwealth period saw the passage of significant labor laws like the Eight-Hour Labor Law and the creation of the Court of Industrial Relations, institutionalizing labor relations but also giving the government more control over disputes.
What role did communism play in the Philippine labor movement during this era? From the late 1920s, communism became a major influence, particularly through figures like Crisanto Evangelista and the PKP, advocating for a more radical, class-struggle approach and linking labor issues to anti-imperialism.

Sources:

Constantino, Renato. The Philippines: A Past Revisited. Tala Publishing Services, 1975.
Ofreneo, Rene E. Philippine Labor: Profile of a Decade. Institute of Industrial Relations, University of the Philippines, 1983.
Salazar, Zeus A. Pangasinan 1900-1915: The Beginnings of Modernization. University of the Philippines Press, 1971. (For context on early 20th-century conditions)
Weeks, David. The Philippine Labor Movement. Harvard University Press, 1961.
Brief history of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Philippines: https://www.dole.gov.ph/about-us/history/ (Provides context on legislative developments)
Philippine-American War information: https://www.loc.gov/everyday-mysteries/history/item/what-was-the-philippine-american-war/ (For historical context)

Category: American Colonial Period (1901-1946), US Civil Administration