THE SECULARIZATION ISSUE WAS AN INTERNATIONAL ISSUE
by Peter Jaynul V. Uckung

      We all know that the agitation for secularization precipitated the execution of Father Gomes, Burgos, and Zamora, which in turn engendered the seed of discontent among the Filipino reformists, which in turn fanned the flame of Philippine revolution. But few knew the real reason for the move to secularize, much less where and why it came to be.

      The reign of Charles III of Spain in 1759 ushered in the policy of subjecting the Catholic Church to the control of the crown. The religious order with their corporate existence, would not easily bow down under his rule, unlike the seculars who were subject to the bishops, who were themselves appointed by the crown. It is well known that the religious orders, or regular clergy, try to preserve their corporate freedom and governance of their dioceses against the control of the bishops.

      Under Governor-general Simon de Anda, secularization was implemented in the Philippines. In 1774 a royal cedula made this policy official. Resistance to this policy was supported by allegations that the training of Filipino seculars was inadequate. Some religious regulars reasoned, with racist overtone, that the Filipinos were not priestly material. But the more serious charge was that native priests would one day lead revolts against Spain. Spain experienced this predicament when Mexico and Peru, led by native priests, waged  wars of independence against her.  

      The secularization policy of 1774 was overturned in 1826 by the Spanish government, although the Vatican discouraged the permanence of a religious order in governing a parish. The Vatican’s or the Pope’s control of the Catholic ministers in the Philippines was not absolute. Decisions coming from the Pope still have to pass approval from the Spanish government. More often than not, the religious orders in the Philippines use their influence with the government to thwart the wishes of the Vatican. Religious rule of the regulars, then, continue to be paramount.

      By this time a number of Filipino priests were becoming conscious of their rights and were now becoming active and united in defending them. From among them, there arose a leader, a Filipino priest, Father Pedro Pelaez (from Pagsanjan, Laguna). But his untimely death in 1863, during an earthquake in Manila, deprived the secularization movement of a wily, respected and influential leader.

     And then forward came Father Jose Burgos, regarded as the protégé of Pelaez. Both of them were passionate in establishing the rights of the seculars. For Pelaez, the more important issue was the rights of the secular clergy being violated by the friars. This was also true for Burgos.  But there was one more important aspect of the issue: that the seculars were being denied of their right to govern a parish because of their race and inferiority to Europeans. Burgos was now evolving into a religious nationalist.

       Nationalism, in any form, was not about to be tolerated by the Spanish government. Secularism must be destroyed. And destroyed they were on 17 February 1872, with the execution of three of the most visible supporters of secularism, Fathers Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomes, and Jacinto Zamora, in connection with the Cavite mutiny, which was unsatisfactorily proven.

THE BATTLE OF BANGKUSAY: A PARADIGM OF DEFIANCE AGAINST COLONIAL CONQUEST
By Chris Antonette Piedad-Pugay

     While it is true that it took us Filipinos almost three centuries before we successfully proclaim our independence from the Spaniards, and that several Filipino patriots sacrificed their lives and performed heroic deeds to liberate the country from oppressors, it is sometimes quite saddening that there are some events and people who remained unsung, not given proper places and worst, forgotten.  The battles fought by Filipinos from the late 16th century until the revolutionary period should be hailed and recognized, whether they resulted to victory or catastrophe, since what matters most was the unselfish desire of its key players in demanding for changes. Among the battles fought by Filipinos that seemed unremembered was the Battle of Bangkusay, which was the last or if not one of the last resistance movements of the natives of Manila against the Spaniards.

     As early as 1570, the Spanish forces headed by Miguel Lopez de Legazpi heard of news about a rich kingdom in the northern part of the Philippines.  Plans to conquer the said kingdom were immediately set and on 30 May 1570, an expedition consisted of 600 natives of the Visayan Islands and 120 Spaniards commanded by Martin de Goiti and Juan de Salcedo left Panay and headed to the northern part of the Philippines.

       Manila during the time was a flourishing Moslem kingdom under Rajah Sulayman.  It was situated in the south side of the mouth of the Pasig River and being defended by a wooden fort.  The area of Tondo, on the other hand was being ruled by Lakandula.

       When the Spaniards arrived in Manila, they were initially accepted by the natives and their leaders, but when Sulayman learned that friendship with the Spaniards meant vassalage, he and his followers became hostile.  An initial battle took place on 24 May 1570 where the natives were defeated and retreated.  On the other hand, the Spanish forces returned to Panay to report to Legazpi what they have discovered in the northern part of the islands.

      After a year, Legazpi headed the Second Conquest of Manila.  He left Panay with 27 vessels, 280 Spaniards and several hundred Visayan auxiliaries. On 16 May 1571, Legazpi landed in Manila and took possession of the kingdom.  Three native chiefs, including Laya and Lakandula declared themselves friends of Spain, but Sulayman at first showed hesitation and appeared before Legazpi only in May 18 to make peace with the Spaniards.  The following week after his arrival, Legazpi released an edict in accordance to the king’s command that lands would be given to those who desire to settle in the City of Manila which he was founding in the name of His Majesty.  These events were followed by a short period of peace.  Soon enough, natives from other kingdoms/provinces insulted the Manilans by telling them that if the Spaniards would come to their place they would be received well in a battle.  These natives also tried to influence village leaders, and in a few days, the Manilans tried to wage a war against the Spaniards.  In a few days, thousands of warriors from Agonoy and Macabebe met in Tondo headed by a “brave youth” whose name was not mentioned (though accounts of Gregorio Zaide referred to him as Torik Sulayman, while other authors decided to maintain that it was Rajah Sulayman who headed the uncompromising natives from Bulacan and Pampanga and the other Manilans).  Whether the identified “Brave Youth” was Rajah Sulayman or Torik Sulayman, is not a big deal at all, what matters most was there was a 16th century native from the islands who led  a resistance against a formidable colonizer.  Several warriors from nearby provinces were said to reach Manila through an estuary known as Bankusay Channel.

        When the news about the coming of the warriors reached Legazpi, he ordered Lakandula to convince the uncompromising natives to cooperate with the Spaniards.  Unfortunately, the “brave youth” who headed the group vehemently refused and declared that he and his people would never be friends to the Castilians.

        When Legazpi learned about the incidence, he reckoned that he would not allow the said native warrior to find glory in challenging the Spain.  He ordered his man to prepare for a battle.  On 3 June 1571, the Spanish Forces embarked in search for native warriors in Bankusay.

         A fierce battle ensued; unfortunately, the native forces did not withstand the Spanish Army’s might.  The leader of the combined native warriors was killed and the rest of his men escaped and fled.  When the battle ended, the Macabebes and Manilan natives were forced to accept Spanish sovereignty.  When peace was established, Legazpi resolved with the agreement of the captains and the religious to establish a city on the site of Manila.  The founding of the city took place on 24 June 1571.

         The Battle of Bankusay remains to be historic and significant event in history, despite of the failure of the natives to expel the colonizers.  It was the last or if not one of the last resistance of the natives of Manila against the Spaniards. The battle’s conclusion was deemed one of the major driving forces why Legazpi decided to establish the City of Manila.

References:

San Agustin, Gaspar de.  “Conquistas delas Islas Filipinas.”  Manila: San Agustin  Museum, 1998.

“Relation of the Conquest of Luzon and other Islands, Manila 20 April 1572” The  Philippine Islands, Vol. VIII.

Disclaimer:
In 2016, based on thorough deliberation of primary sources from the Archivo General de Indias, the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) Board of Commissioners ruled that the unnamed leader of the 2,000 warriors from Macabebe and Hagonoy was neither Rajah Soliman nor Torik Sulayman. The Board approved the historical marker for the said personality bearing the title “Ang Kabataang Pinuno ng Macabebe.” The same is iterated in the historical marker installed at Plaza Moriones, Tondo, Manila in 2021. The NHCP produced a short audio-visual presentation about the historic event here: https://fb.watch/dp16VGSUBa/.

I HATE YOU BUT I LOVE YOU, THE STORY OF THE FILIPINO-HISPANO FRIENDSHIP IN THE SIEGE OF BALER
by: Quennie Ann J. Palafox

      All books depicting the stories of war have always had sad endings as war was never splendid or heroic regardless of its cause when it captures many lives including innocent victims. The color red in the Philippine flag symbolizes the valor of the Filipinos who offered their lives for the cause of the revolution- it is the blood of the Filipino people that surged for the fight for freedom that gave its red color. Similar to that of a game, war is divided by two opposing sides but only one will emerge as the victor. In the ancient period, the conquered militia is either killed en masse or enslaved. 

     In the episode of the Siege of Baler in Philippine History, the spotlight does not focus on the capitulation but the ‘renewal of the friendship’ between the two enemies, the Filipinos and the Spanish forces. There was a friendship that sprouted between the two parties because the Filipinos for a long time they had been loyal to the Spaniards as the seed of Catholicism germinated in their hearts.

      This friendship underwent a difficult test when the Filipinos demanded freedom from the Spaniards that the latter rejected, and so a revolution had ensued. When the sentiments shifted against the Spaniards, the locals led by Teodorico Luna Novicio, Norberto Valenzuela, and Antero Amatorio established a Katipunan chapter in Baler around 1897. The fiery desire to be unchained from the colonial string was epitomized in the following events on October 3, 1897:  the attacks of the residence of the politico military governor of Principe in Baler and the town’s school and commandancia. This fighting between the revolutionist and Spanish troops lasted until October 10. Those who managed to survive the attack took refuge inside the Baler Church.

       The conclusion of the Pact of Biak-na-Bato on December 24, 1897 eased the Spanish garrison from 400 to only 50 men. The new garrison which arrived in February 1898 was led by Capt. Enrique de las Morenas and was provided with arms, ammunition, and food consisting of garbanzos or chickpeas, wine, bacon, biscuits, Australian corned beef, sardines, coffee, sugar, olive oil, and 70 cavanes of unhusked rice.  The town now a deserted place, Spanish Captain de las Morenas gathered his men to the Baler Church on June 27, 1898 for fear of enemy attack.  The Baler Church would be a haven for these Spanish forces being isolated from the outside world for the next eleven months. Novico Luna’s troops started to attack the church by surrounding it on the following day and fires broke out in the town on June 30, 1898. Demanding the Spanish to surrender, the revolutionist left a letter in front on the church including in the letter the news that Manila fell into the hands of Filipino troops and that Spanish forces in other parts of the country had already capitulated.

       On July 19, Col. Calixto Villacorta from Nueva Ecija, had taken the lead of the Filipino forces. The sending of several parleys with the Spanish defenders demanding their capitulation to the extent of firing several rounds at the church but failed to penetrate its thick walls and conveying the newspapers which included the news of the fall of Manila did not move the Spanish defenders but instead, the Spanish commander destroyed the papers to prevent demoralization of his men.  The Franciscans sent to the church, Fray Juan Lopez and Fray Felix Minaya, to convince the Spaniards to surrender defected.

       On the Spanish camp, provisions started to run out. The Spanish defenders were afflicted with Beribei, scurvy, and dysentery reducing their number. The death of Captain de las Morenas on November 22, 1898 left 2nd Lieutenant Saturnino Martin Cerezo in command of the garrison. After 167 days, the defenders managed to open the door of the church.

         By the final days of May, Lt. Col. Cristobal Aguilar Castañeda, an emissary Governor General de los Rios, convinced Martine Cerezo and his men to surrender.  The Spanish newspaper El Imparcial made him conclude that there was no more reason to defend when the colony was not theirs anymore.

      On June 2, 1899, the bugle was sounded signaling surrender, the Filipinos emerged from their trenches shouting Amigos! Amigos! Amigos!  Filipino Colonel Simon Tecson met with Martin Cerezo and his aides while the Spaniards remained inside the church. Cerezo laid down his terms to the capitulation to which the Filipinos agreed such as the Spanish troops should not be treated as prisoners of war. This was signed by Col Tecson and Major Nemesio Bartlome for the Filipinos and by Martin Cerezo and Vigil Quiñones for the Spaniards. With the terms of surrender completed, the cazadores marched out of the church with their arms while the Filipino troops lined up the pathway. From more than 50 individuals who entered the church of Baler, 35 survived.

      Aguinaldo impressed by the bravery of these Spanish defenders in Baler, issued a decree on June 30, 1899 providing the Spanish forces to be considered as friends not enemies and be given safe conduct pass necessary for them to be able to return to their country.  On July 20, 1899 Martin Cerezo and his men left Manila aboard the vessel Alicante and reached Barcelona on September 1, 1899.

REMEMBERING THE FATHER OF JUNE 12 PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE DAY
By Chris Antonette P. Pugay

      Former President Diosdado D. Macapagal issued Proclamation No. 28 endorsing to the Congress the urgency of enacting a measure to fix June 12 as Philippine Independence Day. Two years later, Republic Act No. 4166 proclaiming June 12 as Independence Day and July 4 as Philippine Republic Day was signed and approved by President Macapagal. This surprised many who were accustomed to July 4 as the celebration of the Philippine Independence, however, President Macapagal’s proclamation drew overwhelming support from the public, civic organizations, professional associations, and even political parties. While the former president received praises for this act, the Filipinos should also recognize the person who actually fathered the idea of June 12 as Philippine Independence Day – Gabriel F. Fabella.

      Gabriel F. Fabella was a known lawyer, educator, and an assemblyman during his lifetime. He was born to Maximo Fabella and Rafaela Fabrero on 18 March 1898 in Jones (formerly Banton), Romblon. He finished his secondary course in the Manila High School (presently known as Araullo High School) in 1916. Eventually he pursued his undergraduate and graduate degrees in education at the University of the Philippines. He obtained his law degree from the National Law College.

     Fabella taught in various schools like Capiz Intermediate School, Romblon High School, Tayabas High School, and even in the College of Liberal Arts in the University of the Philippines. For quite a while he worked as the editor of Bagong Iwag and translated some of Shakespeare’s plays in Filipino. He had been very active in the academe and eventually involved himself with politics by joining the Nacionalista-Democratico Party. He served as member of the First National Assembly from 1935 to 1938 while fostering his historical advocacy by being active in the Philippine Historical Association.

Bill filed in 1959

       Fabella toyed with the idea of changing the date of Philippine independence from July 4 to June 12 as early as 1959. Eventually, he tried to seek the help of his constituents from UP in order for his vision to come true. Also in the same year, the Philippine Historical Association submitted a resolution sponsored by Fabella which was the basis of Congressman Ramon Mitra’s bill seeking to adopt June 12 as the independence day of the Philippines.

       Apart from the resolution, Fabella made sure he did his part by carrying his advocacy in his public speeches and over the radio. He explained to the public the significance of celebrating June 12 as the country’s independence day.  This was the content of his speeches in Mindoro, Cavite and Legaspi City. He also wrote an article “June 12 or July 4?” that was published in the Sunday Times Magazine on June 1960 and this stirred positive responses and support from the people.

His arguments and reasons embodied in the PHA resolution in advocating June 12 to be the independence day were the following:

• First, United States celebrates independence day every July 4, the day Americans declared their independence not 3 September 1783 when Great Britain recognized their liberty;
• Second, if the Philippines celebrates its independence day every July 4, our celebration would be dwarfed by the US celebration;
• Third, June 12 was the most logical date since Filipinos were not actually particular about fixing of dates, what we actually cared for is independence itself;
• Fourth, if the Philippines celebrates common independence day with USA, other nations might believe that the Philippines is still a part of United States.

       As Filipinos celebrate every twelfth of June as independence day, they should also remember that an unpretentious person like Fabella undertook extraordinary task of changing the date from July 4 to June 12.

A HAVEN FOR FILIPINO PATRIOTS
by Augusto V. de Viana, Ph.D

      During the latter part of the Spanish colonial rule, the Philippine Revolution and the Filipino American War, Hong Kong served as a refuge for Filipino patriots.  Beginning from the aftermath of the execution in 1872 of Filipino secular priests, Fathers Mariano Gomes, Jose Burgos and Jacinto Zamora who championed the rights of the native clergy, Filipino exiles such as Jose Ma. Basa sought refuge in the colony, then under the rule of the British.   Basa was first deported to the Marianas in 1872 but later escaped and from that time on lived in Hong Kong.  He would later help in the smuggling of  Rizal’s novel, the Noli Me Tangere to the Philippines.

      When the Philippine Revolution broke out in 1896 more Filipinos escaping Spanish tyranny found their way to Hong Kong.  Among them was a lawyer named Felipe Agoncillo.  Agoncillo was accused of being a filibustero or subversive and was about to be arrested when he fled to Hong Kong.  There they would be joined by his wife Marcela Agoncillo and their daughters.  The Agoncillos lived in a house located at Morrison Hill Road in Wanchai.  As the Philippine Revolution wore on, the street became a gathering place of Filipino patriots.  At the conclusion of the Pact of Biak na Bato in December 1897, they were joined by Filipino revolutionary leaders like General Emilio Aguinaldo.

       One of the visitors to the Agoncillo house was Antonio Luna.  Mrs. Agoncillo recounts that Luna, who became a general in the revolutionary army, loved to cook and whenever he drops by he would go straight to the kitchen to do European dishes.  Another visitor was Aguinaldo who would use the place to meet with other Filipino revolutionaries.  After returning from Singapore where American consul Spencer Pratt convinced him to resume leadership of the Philippine Revolution, Aguinaldo dropped by and asked Mrs. Agoncillo a unique favor.  She was to sew the flag of the Philippines.

       Mrs. Agoncillo agreed to undertake the task.  Working with her five-year-old daughter, Lorenza and Delfina Herbosa Natividad, was a niece of the martyred hero Jose Rizal who married one of Aguinaldo’s generals, Mrs. Agoncillo bought the finest silk cloth from a nearby market.  The trio worked manually and with the aid of a sewing machine.  Their eyes and fingers hurt from the prolonged sewing and sometimes they had to redo the flag because a ray in the sun was not sewn right.  The flag which became known as the sun and the stars flag, was finished after five days and on May 17 it was packed among the things Aguinaldo brought to Manila.  This was the same flag that was unfurled from the window of Aguinaldo’s house in Kawit, Cavite during the proclamation of Philippine independence on June 12, 1898.

        Filipinos continued to work for Philippine independence as Hong Kong became the base of the Philippine Central Committee better known as the Hong Kong Junta. They tried to convince other countries to recognize Philippine independence.  After American rule was firmly established in Manila, many of its members including Felipe Agoncillo returned to the Philippines to undertake a political struggle to secure the country’s freedom.

       Today a simple marker stands at the Morrison Hill Park in Hong Kong which commemorates the site where the first Philippine flag was sewn.  The sites of the Agoncillo residence and that of the Hong Kong Junta however, remain unmarked until today.

Dr. de Viana is Chief of the Research, Publications and Heraldry of the National Historical Institute.

THE FIRST LABOR DAY AND OTHER PRE-WORLD WAR II MILESTONES IN THE WORKERS MOVEMENT IN THE PHILIPPINES

       According to the Historical Calendar (1521-1969) of the National Historical Institute, the first Labor Day in the Philippines that was held on May 1st, the date recognized as Labor Day throughout the world since the growth of the labor movement, was in 1913.  On May 1, 1913, Filipino workers and labor leaders convened a labor congress, the third since unionism took hold in the country, at the Cine Oriente along C.M. Recto street, then known as Azcarraga, in Manila.  Around 36 labor unions heeded the call to hold congress and unite under one umbrella, the better to fight for the rights of Filipino workers.  Thus was born the Congreso Obrero de Filipinas (COF) or Congress of Philippine Labor.  Elected as president was Hermenigildo Cruz, unschooled protégé of Philippine labor pioneer and one of the great intellects of his time, Isabelo de los Reyes.  Cruz went on to become one of the stalwarts of the labor movement, playing no small part in the realization, eventually, of many of labor’s legitimate demands.  Following in the footsteps of an earlier federation– the Union Obrera Democratica de Filipinas (Democratic Labor Union of the Philippines)– the COF passed several landmark resolutions:  to advocate for absolute and true Philippine Independence; to condemn the American Federation of Labor for excluding African Americans and Asians from its membership rolls; and to fight for the legislation of the eight-hour work day.  Workers then were made to work for as many as 12 hours a day, even more—and for a mere pittance barely able to hold body and soul together for the next working day.

     The long road to the first Labor Day was nonetheless paved with the hardships of the first generation of organized workers during other celebrations, or non-celebration, of Labor Day in the past, and other events which, though did not transpire on May 1st, were definite steps towards workers’ emancipation. 

      In 1899 a strike was staged by workers in the printing press of the Revolutionary government.  This was followed by the establishment of the Union de Impresores de Filipinas or UIF in December 1901 and the establishment of the first workers’ federation, the Union Obrera Democratica (UOD) headed by de los Reyes in 1902.  That year saw the staging of a successful general strike organized by the UOD in order to demand an increase in wages.  The government’s response was swift and malevolent:  organizers including delos Reyes, were seized and thrown in jail.    Nevertheless, the strikes managed to achieve victory, small though it was, in the form of wages being raised in a number of establishments.

       The next major victory came a year later, on Labor Day itself when some 100,000 workers led by Dominador Gomez (who took the place of de los Reyes as foremost labor leader), massed before the gates of Malacañang Palace, shouting slogans against American imperialism and that Governor General grant their just demands.  Some 200 troops were immediately mobilized to guard the gates, holding them off with their bayonets aimed at them.  To compensate for the governor refusing to see them, Gomez held an impromptu lecture against America’s double standards and the prevailing system in the country that allowed workers to suffer unjust conditions, concluding his diatribe with an exhortation to the workers to close ranks and unite for only through solidarity would they achieve genuine independence.  Accused of being subversive in speech and action, Gomez went the way of his predecessor De los Reyes—before the month ended he was also locked behind bars.

        Not all of workers’ militant actions merited retaliation: in 1908, a general strike staged by waterfront workers affiliated under Union de Marinos de Filipinas, organized by Pedro Guevara, so paralyzed Manila’s shipping industry that the industry firms gave in to their demands for better working conditions and higher wages.

       For every step up however since that first Labor Day in 1913, it seemed that the workers’ movement made two steps back.  Time and again, discord usually in the form of methodological differences among leaders reared its ugly head, causing dissension and splits.  Thus, at the COF congress held on May 1, 1929, left-wing members headed by the communist and committed union pioneer Crisanto Evangelista bolted due to the presence of large numbers of non-members.  A few days later Evangelista and his group held a conference, during which they organize, along Communist lines, the Katipunan ng Anak Pawis (KAP), and passed a resolution calling for establishment of a workers’ party.  A year later, KAP and COF held separate congresses.  But it is the KAP, with its more aggressive brand of unionism reminiscent of de los Reyes and Gomez’, that provoked the authorities’ ire.  Thus, during KAP’s congress in Manila on May 31, 1931, constabulary and police agents, a number of them working incognito, pounced upon and arrested around 300 unknowing KAP officers and some convention delegates. While the greater number of those arrested were released after a day in prison, around 24 leaders remained locked up including Evangelista and Juan Feleo, KAP officer and vice-president of the Kalipunang Pambansa ng mga Magbubukid sa Pilipinas (KPMP), a union of peasants and rural workers.  By September the same year, the Communists and their organizations, including KAP, were outlawed.

       A tragedy struck the workers’ movement in 1934, although it occurred not in the month of May but September.  Perhaps one of the earliest strikes ever to have been sacrificed with workers’ blood, the strike staged on 1 September 1934 at a cigar factory in Manila, saw the killing and injury of a number of workers.  A year later on May 1-2, 1935, the Sakdal, an organization many of whose members were peasants and rural workers, staged their uprising against the Commonwealth government in Laguna, Cavite, Nueva Ecija and Bulacan, which resulted in the killing of 59 Sakdalistas by responding government troops.  Though it may not have been of the workers’ movement its membership and basic demands (genuine Philippine independence and social justice) mirrored those of the workers’ unions, too.  The violence and bloodshed in these two last events bespoke of the increasing turbulence of the times not only in the Philippines but in the world at large when peoples were beginning to get caught in the increasing crossfire of the ideological battle between democracy on one hand, and fascism on the other.  It was also a harbinger of worse things to come not only for the working class but for all Filipinos when the country would be plunged into World War II and the Japanese occupation six short years later.

BONIFACIO’S MILITANT LEGACY
by: Peter Jaynul V. Uckung 

      A revolution is never gentle. Most often, it destroys the intended target of forceful change. It also devours its instigators in the following power struggle which eventually comes with it. With such dire eventualities, a revolution is still a cherished solution to most social problems polarized into immobility by the legal control of whoever is in power. Because a revolution brings about a promise of immediate relief to unbearable socio-economic problems, the perceived losses to its occurrence is always considered a small price to pay.

      In the Philippines, the face of Revolution is undeniably that of Andres Bonifacio’s. Mention his name and a timbre of militant agitation suddenly colors any kind of conversation. For that was the intention of the organization he (and Ladislao Diwa, Teodoro Plata and Deodato Arellano) founded – the Katipunan – on the night of July 7, 1892: to usher in social alleviation to the flight of his countrymen by revolution. Bonifacio and his friends decided to militarily confront the inflexible colonial authorities who were so seemingly impervious to any thought of reforms called upon by the Filipino intelligentsia.

      During that time, the call for reforms did well in Western Europe where authorities and governments, too afraid to confront social issues through the test of force, enter into compromise with the people calling for change. Europe had just gone through the Age of Enlightenment – the popularization of social progress, rational, scientific knowledge and above all, the liberation of the will from superstitious bondage encouraged by religion. The social and political reforms that were effected in Europe became an illuminating beacon of hope and blueprint for Filipinos wanting change without bloodshed and sudden shift of status quo.

      But reform-calling propagandists lacked the convincing factor of force, economic or armed. And Filipino reformists themselves were easily dealt with by force. They were arrested, imprisoned, deported, harassed and their economic privileges were curtailed. The only thing that was so convincingly shown by the call for reforms was its futility. Meanwhile, the masses continued suffering. The abuses went on relentlessly. And righteous men, at the end of their forbearance, began to plan the revolution. It is an accepted fact that the revolution succeeded in one of its original intentions – that of deposing a tyrannical and decadent government with the declaration of Philippine Independence on June 12, 1898.

      There was tremendous rush of political adrenalin during the formation of the Malolos Congress in 1898. The revolution opened up the floodgates barring democratic ideas. The Congress of the First Philippine Republic became the crucible of the Philippines’ finest minds in nation building. But Bonifacio, the man who breathed fire into the heart of the Katipunan was no longer around. He was executed on May 10, 1898 on orders by men he himself had inducted into the revolutionary organization. His executioners said he was a traitor. But his killing bore the indelible mark of a power struggle.

      The memory of Bonifacio, nevertheless, became synonymous with social change so popular with the masses, who in the wake of the revolution (and American intervention) found themselves still tilling the lands they could not own, or working backbreaking jobs for endless hours without just compensation. The Americans vastly improved our educational system, the national health, human rights, and freedom of speech but subordinated the country’s economic interest to theirs.

        A number of pre-war enacted laws animating tariffs, duties, free trade privileges designed to protect U.S. economic interest would attest to this.

        There were Filipinos who believed that real sovereignty resided with the Philippines having a sound economy not dependent on that of the US.

       Some of Filipinos then began to introduce revolutionary ideas well within the margins of legal procedures to remedy the centuries-old problem of economic inequity suffered by Filipino workers. It was, rightly perceived by Isabelo de los Reyes (He founded the Iglesia Filipina Independiente [Aglipay Church]) that the first step to a healthy national economy was a healthy, contented labor force. So he established the first labor union in the Philippines, whose power to win labor disputes by strikes and demonstrations became the bane of abusive business establishments. It was not strange to see the strikers and demonstrators carry the red standard of militant solidarity, which was reminiscent of Bonifacio’s original Katipunan banner.

       Bonifacio impregnated the Filipino minds with the idea of militancy against legalized oppression. He taught us to hate oppression and gave us the most effective means to confront it.

       It was his greatest gift.

THE SAGA OF THE PHILIPPINE REFORM MOVEMENT FROM PROVINCIA TO INDEPENDENCIA
by Augusto V. de Viana

      The 19th century forms a crucial part in the development of Philippine nationalism and the Filipino nation. Developments within and outside the Philippines led to the emergence of factors that led to the creation of a Filipino sentiment and identity. The country had entered a new period of international trade. Though officially prohibited by Madrid, foreign merchants were already trading with the Philippines by bringing in western goods and exporting Philippine products like sugar and dyestuff.

      The presence of new players was an important factor in the formation of a middle class. This middle class rose from entrepreneurs and middlemen who gained a level of wealth and enabled their families to provide their children with education. Since the country’s educational system was centered on the promotion of religion, it was inevitable that many of the families sent their sons to take up the religious vocation. Also having a member of the family as one of the cloth was seen both as a status symbol and a fulfillment of religious obligation. At that time the shortage of priests allowed natives to assume the leadership of some parishes.

Divine right of kings vs. equality of rights for all men

      Around the same time the world was experiencing events which would change the course of history. The French Revolution in 1789 and the fall of Napoleon toppled the old monarchies of Europe. In its wake came the arrival of a new thinking that preached the equality and rights of all men against the divine right of kings. With its monarch deposed, Spanish patriots enacted a liberal constitution at Cadiz that promised equality even to Spain’s colonies. However, the restoration of the monarchy following Napoleon’s fall restored the old order. This led to revolts in the Spanish empire that resulted in the loss of most of Spain’s colonies in the Americas.

      Two oceans away in the Philippines, Spanish rulers reeling from the events imposed a tight grip on the colony. The concessions given by Spain in the Cadiz constitution applied only to Spaniards. Two revolts by Mexican born soldiers advocating the separation of the Philippines were ruthlessly suppressed. A local movement led by Apolinario de la Cruz was also squashed for fear that it might be used as a platform for an independence movement. The measures only drew the Filipinos together in the coming years.

      With the loss of the American colonies was the reduction of the vital subsidy for the Philippines. The country had to be self-sufficient and for this purpose the government enacted measures to increase revenues by imposing monopolies. The reduction of revenues also meant the reduction of services. Meanwhile the middle class was getting stronger by the decade. In 1859 the return of the Jesuits and the demand of the Recollects for the native clergy to give up their curacies struck a nationalistic chord. Native priests requested that the government respect their rights granted by the pope and the ing and their abilities in administering their parishes. This clamor fell on deaf ears.

Taste of liberalism and reprisals

       A brief liberal administration in Spain and in the Philippines under Governor General Carlos Ma. De la Torre allowed native priests to be joined by laymen demanding greater freedom and liberalism. These laymen who comprised the cream of Filipino intelligentsia demanded the end of the domination by the friars and representation in the Spanish Cortes. The end of the brief liberal administration and the restoration of the old order under Gov. Gen. Rafael de Izquierdo targeted them for reprisal. The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 was seen as a separatist movement and members of Filipino clergy led by Mariano Gomes, Jacinto Zamora, and Jose Burgos and prominent Filipinos led by Jose Basa, Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Crisanto de los Reyes were considered plotters of the movement. The three priests were given a swift trial and publicly executed while the laymen were deported never to return to the Philippines. The events of 1872 practically decimated the ranks of the early reformers.

Reforms not secession; provincia not independencia

      By the 1880s a new breed of reform-seeking Filipinos began to emerge. These were Gregorio Sanciangco, Marcelo H. del Pilar, Graciano Lopez-Jaena, Mariano Ponce, Jose Rizal, and others. They were joined by some survivors of the first wave of reformists. All of them came to Europe particularly Spain because the conditions were more tolerable there than in the Philippines. Actually they were exiles and used Spain as a forum to ventilate the plight of the Philippines. One characteristic of their struggle for reforms was that they were all loyal Spanish subjects and they called Spain as the mother country.

       Sanciangco in his Elprogreso de Filipinas drew up ways on how Spain could best administer the Philippines and earn the needed revenue to allow it to become a productive colony. Del Pilar and the rest of the reformists were one in advocating for the conversion of the Philippines from a colony to that of a province. They demanded the expulsion of the friars and the institution of free speech and the right to education. They made their presence felt through publications like the La Solidaridadfirst edited by Lopez Jaena, then by del Pilar. Jose Rizal made two allegorical novels about the conditions of the Philippines, the Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, which were aimed to awaken the Spanish authorities on the conditions of the Philippines. At the same time, he wrote to remind the Filipinos of the greatness of their race buried by centuries of colonization and the shameful habit of the Filipinos to discard their own culture. For making their thoughts heard through the press, their movement for reforms was called the Propaganda Movement.

      The movement, however, was not totally united. Problems emerged caused by factionalism and personal ambitions. The movement failed because of the more pressing problems faced by Spain. Lack of funds and the loss of enthusiasm of its members also led to its failure. Graciano Lopez Jaena berated the Filipino community for allegedly not supporting his political ambitions. He left the movement and became its nemesis. He died alone and friendless. Jose Rizal also left the movement to lead a new one in the Philippines, where he said, the struggle should properly take place. Upon arriving in the Philippines he established the La Liga Filipina in a bid to organize the people. Marcelo del Pilar tried to keep the movement afloat until a bout with tuberculosis cost his life.

Revolution

      In the Philippines, Rizal’s La Liga suffered a stillbirth when authorities arrested him four days after its foundation and deported him to Dapitan. The organization was judged to be subversive because of its aims of advocating unity against perceived oppression. The organization lingered for a while under leaders like Numeriano Adriano and accepted new members which included Apolinario Mabini. It evolved into a new organization, the Cuerpo de Compromisarios— the body of the committed. At the outbreak of the Philippine Revolution in August 1896, members of the Liga and the Cuerpo were targeted for arrest because of the allegation that these were subversive organizations. The sentiment of those in the movement was that of desperation. As early as 1890, del Pilar wrote to his brother-in-law, Deodato Arellano, telling him to prepare an organization that would launch a revolution against Spain. Del Pilar was actually the spirit that inspired the Katipunan. It was only achieved in 1892 right after the arrest and deportation of Rizal in 1892. From then on Spain will not be the mother country but an exploiter and an oppressor and from then on the goal of the Filipinos will not be a provincia but independencia – freedom.

Sources:
Dery, Luis C. Awit Kay Inang Bayan: De La Salle University Press, 2003. Joaquin, Nick. AKA Quijano de Manila: A Question of Heroes. Serialized in Philipine Free Press, 1972. (NHI file) Sanciangco, Gregorio. The Progress of the Philippines. Manila: National Historical Institute, 2003.

THE PHILIPPINE FLAG:
SYMBOL OF OUR SOVEREIGNTY AND SOLIDARITY
By Carminda R. Arevalo

      The flag is the country’s most cherished symbol. It is the nation’s emblem for freedom.  It symbolizes patriotism, love of country and sense of nationhood and embodies the aspirations and sentiments of the Filipino people in their unceasing quest for independence.  It stands as instrument of unity that binds the Filipino people.

       Prior to the outbreak of the Philippine Revolution of 1896, the Filipinos had no national flag of their own. The only known flag to them was the Spanish flag.  But when the Filipinos rose in revolt against Spain, each revolutionary group had its own banner. General Mariano Llanera’s troop, for instance, used the “skull flag” in Nueva Ecija.  Bonifacio himself had a personal standard.

       Our early flags were those of the Katipunan.  The first was made of red piece of cloth with letters “K.K.K.” arranged in a row in the center of the rectangular field. This flag was unfurled during the “First Cry of the Revolution” in August 1896.  An early version of the Katipunan flag had three K’s arranged in an equilateral triangle. A flag with only one “K” later replaced this. The letter “K” was later changed to an ancient Tagalog “K” within the figure of a sun with eight rays.

      During the Naic Assembly on March 17, 1897, another change was made in the flag.  The ancient Tagalog “K” was replaced by a mythical sun, which remained in use until the signing of the Pact of Biak-na-Bato on December 10, 1897.  All these flags had a red background to signify the revolutionary character of the Katipunan.

     It was during the preparation of the second phase of the Philippine Revolution (1898-1902) that the idea of coming up with a new flag was conceived by General Emilio Aguinaldo, President of the Revolutionary Government. Aguinaldo and other revolutionary leaders, then exiled in Hong Kong, painstakingly designed the flag. It was handsewn by Marcela Mariño Agoncillo wife of Don Felipe Agoncillo at 535 Morrison Hill Road with the help of her daughter Lorenza and Delfina Herbosa Natividad, niece of Dr. Jose Rizal and wife of Gen. Salvador Natividad.

        Made of silk, the flag had a white equilateral triangle at the left containing a sunburst of eight rays at the center, a five-pointed star at each angle of the triangle, an upper stripe of blue and a lower stripe of red. The sun stands for liberty; the sunburst of eight rays for the first eight provinces to take up arms against Spain; and the three stars for the three island groups fo the Philippines – Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. The white triangle signifies Filipino hope for equality; the upper blue stripe stands for peace, truth and justice; while the lower red stripe stands for patriotism and valor.

        General Aguinaldo brought the flag with him when he returned to the Philippines from Hong Kong on May 19, 1898.  He unfurled it in public for the first time to celebrate the victory of the Filipino forces against the Spaniards during the Battle of Alapan on May 28, 1898.

      It was, however, in Kawit, Cavite, on June 12, 1898, that the official hoisting of the flag took place during the proclamation of Philippine Independence by General Aguinaldo.  During the unfurling, the music band of the San Francisco de Malabon played for the first time the Marcha Nacional Filipina, composed by Julian Felipe, a Filipino music teacher and composer from Cavite.  Later, the poem “Filipinas” by a young poet soldier Jose Palma became the lyrics of the anthem.

         The same flag was flown with dignity during the inauguration of Malolos Congress on September 15, 1898.

        The Philippine flag stood as witness to the glorious events of our history.  It encountered the most significant events in the Filipinos’ struggle for freedom.  And since it symbolizes our ideals and sentiments as a nation, it deserves to be treated with solemnity and dignity.

         The display of the Philippine Flag from May 28 to June 12 of each year honors the sacrifices of our heroes for our hard-earned freedom.  This also a fitting respect and affection for our national flag – the symbol of our sovereignty and solidarity.

REMEMBERING THE ZENITH OF TARLAC NATIONALISM:
A Tribute to the Valor of Gen. Francisco Makabulos (1871-1922)

“Nasira na ang ating magandang ugnayan sa mga Amerikano at nararapat na makidigma sa kanila dahil sa masamang  balakin ng mga ito na alipinin tayo at subukan ang ating mga banal na mithiin. Samakatwid, alang-alang sa dugo na nananalaytay sa ating mga ugat at sa kapuri-puring karangalang minana natin sa ating Bayan, inaasahan ko na ihahanda ninyo ang inyong mga sarili sa kanyang pagtatanggol.”(Dagupan, 4 February 1899)

   The “Cry of Tarlac” on January 24, 1897 which followed a little later than the “Cry of Pugadlawin” of Andres Bonifacio  and the raid of the Spanish cuartel in La Paz by the local Katipuneros, signified that the Revolution had reached Tarlac.

       The eight rays of the sun in the Philippine flag stands for the eight provinces that first took arms against Spain. Although a youth province, Tarlac made history when it heeded to the appeal Andres Bonifacio to fight the Spaniards. The other provinces include Cavite, Batangas, Bulacan, Laguna, Manila, Nueva Ecija and Pampanga. For centuries, Tarlac which was still part of Pampanga and Pangasinan, lived under the abuses and injustices of the Spaniards. This disheartening situation led the Tarlaqueño to revolt against the Spaniards.

       The emergence of the Katipunan and its proliferation in the province of Tarlac was attributed to Gen. Francisco Makabulos who was said to have formed a chapter in La Paz in 1895. The success of the freedom-fighting secret society in Tarlac paved to its emancipation from the yoke of colonialism.

 The dashing General Makabulos who was acclaimed for his liberation of Tarlac and other parts of Pangasinan, was a poet and playwright who bequeathed a legacy of patriotism, gallantry, and justice as a revolutionary leader. This Tarlac’s champion of freedom was born on September 17, 1871 in La Paz, Tarlac, to Alejandro Makabulos, a native of Lubao, Pampanga and Gregoria Soliman of Tondo, Manila. His loving mother taught him the alphabet and he was sent to the parochial school in La Paz to where he was educated. Makabulos finds joy in the reading of Spanish classics and the popular vernacular corridos. This greatly enhanced his poems and plays written in “sonorous Tagalog or melodious Kapangpangan.” Being a great writer, his works were published in El Heraldo de la Revolucion.  He held important positions before the outbreak of the Revolution in 1896 such as teniente mayor, cabeza de barangay and later, fiscal of the parish of La Paz.

       In June 1897, he was appointed brigadier-general by Gen. Aguinaldo at the Mt. Puray Assembly. He took part in the battle against the Spanish forces under Gen. Monet in Mt. Kamansi but the Spaniards won. He signed the Constitution of Biak-na-Bato of 1897 as Francisco Soliman and surrendered his troops to Lt. Col. Miguel de Rivera of the Spanish Army on December 15, 1897. He could have joined General Aguinaldo in Hong Kong had he agreed so. It is important to note that Gen. Makabulos had dissenting view regarding the Pact of Biak-na-Bato.

       Not fully convinced of the sincerity of the Spaniards on the provisions agreed upon in the Peace Pact, Gen. Makabulos decided to reunite his “disbanded” troops and began operating underground while Fr. Aglipay assisted in purchasing armaments with the money obtained from the amnesty. Makabulos established a revolutionary committee with him as president and Fr. Aglipay as vice president on February 17, 1898. The Makabulos Revolutionary Committee had transformed to a kind of Provisional Revolutionary Government of Central Luzon on April 12, 1898 with its jurisdiction comprising Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, Zambales, Pangasinan, La Union, and the Ilocos Region. The formation of a central government and the so-called Makabulos Constitution was his astounding legacy to his motherland as mentioned by Tarlac historian Lino Dizon. The return of Gen. Aguinaldo in the Philippines ended the Makabulos Provisional Government on May 17, 1898.

       The struggle against the Spaniards was revived by Gen. Aguinaldo upon his arrival from Hong Kong in May, 1898. With the assistance of some Kapampangan revolutionary leaders, Gen. Makabulos freed Tarlac from colonial rule on July 10, 1898. The liberation of the Eastern towns of Pangasinan, namely, Binalonan, San Manuel, and Asingan was also attributed to Gen. Makabulos. Dagupan was captured from the Spaniards on July 22, 1898 led by Gen, Makabulos with the help of Daniel Maramba and Vicente Del Prado. Following the liberation, Gen. Makabulos pronounced the humane treatment of prisoners. Gen. Makabulos was appointed as the first Filipino governor of Tarlac and Pangasinan was also placed under his command.

       The province’s peace and order situation was disrupted when an anti-revolutionists movement called Guardia de Honor spread terror among the local populace.  Historian Rosario Cortes described this movement as ‘a friar-sponsored group, these groups had joined the Republic but after the Luna assassination, they appeared to have shifted their sentiments against the Aguinaldo government’. Upon the order of General Luna in November and December, 1898, Gen. Makabulos fought these bands of rebels to the libertarian movement. To preserve the gains of the Revolutionary Government in Tarlac, Pedro  Che (Pedroche), an ex-Guardia Civil and leader of these anti-revolutionists had to be ruthlessly terminated with his band in Camiling, Tarlac.

       The enjoyment of the liberty from centuries of Spanish rule was short-lived with the advent of the new Colonizers in the persons of the Americans whom the Filipinos thought as friends. He was ready to fight the Americans but the realization that continued resistance against the Americans was no longer necessary and the birth of his fourth child convinced him to succumb together nine officers and 124 men on June 5, 1900 to Gen. Arthur MacArthur in his last stronghold at Sitio Tangadan, Labney, Mayantoc, Tarlac.

       He was designated as Councilor, then Vice-President and later served as Municipal President of La Paz. When he retired from the government service, he committed his time to farming and the writing of plays notably Uldarico and Rosario. On April 30, 1922, he died of pneumonia. A monument was erected in his honor on September 17, 1951 in recognition to his heroism.

SOLDIERS OF THE MASSES: NATIONALISTIC STRUGGLE OF HUKBALAHAP
by: Quennie Ann J. Palafox

       The dissident movement which came to be called the Huk Movement was originally consisted of peasants who raised arms against their landlords, of outlaws who found haven in the organization, and the Filipino communists who provided the leadership and who joint forces together with them under the nationalistic banner of fighting the Japanese fascism. This movement which was communist-sponsored was borne of economic, social, and political inequalities subsisted even before the coming of the Spanish, who commenced their version of mercantilism to the Filipinos, and were kept alive down to the twentieth century by unscrupulous American economic policy. Social cleavage has perpetuated in history when Filipinos are split into those who “haves” who enjoyed economic wellness and those who “have-nots” who were left with little opportunities to achieved their desires in life.

Establishment of Hukbalahap

Threat of Japanese invasion alarmed the CPP (Communist Party of the Philippines) and so, in December 1941, Pedro Abad Santos alerted Luis Taruc to rally all manpower resources in Pampanga for the emergency. Juan Feleo in the same way organized the peasantry of Nueva Ecija for the resistance movement. To prepare the citizen against Japanese invasion, a National Provisional Council of the United Front was formed to coordinate labor and peasant activities in Central. It was decided that a guerilla army be organized to combat the Japanese being inspired by the victory of the first encounter between a guerilla unit headed by an Amazon, Felipa Culala, alias Dayang-Dayang in May 13, 1942. In March 29, 1942 the HUKBALABAP (Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa Hapon) or People’s Anti-Japanese Army, was born in Sitio Bawit, San Lorenzo, Cabiao, Nueva Ecija. Luis Taruc, who was tasked to be the commander-in-chief, headed the military committee. The other committee members were Casto Alejandrino, vice commander, Felipa Culala, and Bernardo Poblete, alias Tandang Banal. Since The Huk was the military arm of the CPP and a military commissariat was immediately formed with the following as members: Taruc, Alejandrino, Mariano P. Balgos, chief of staff; Juan Feleo, Mateo del Castillo, and Ong Kiet, commander of the Wha Chi Chinese guerillas. Central Luzon was partitioned into five military districts by the Huk Military Committee to ensure an efficient offensive-defensive action against the enemy.

Japanese Attacks led by Hukbalahap

The guerillas launched attack on enemy positions, harassing the Japanese and giving them no lull. The Huks according to Alfredo Saulo, “followed a policy of continuous attacks. The policy of continuous attacks had a twofold purpose: to kill as many enemies as possible, thus increasing the people morale and confidence in the Hukbalahap, and to get arms for the still unarmed guerillas known as the “squad balutans”. In the two months that followed, Huk strength grew to approximately 5,000 active supporters, organized in thirty-five squadrons and support troops.” In January 1943, the Huk resumed its operation on carrying assaults against Police Constabulary garrisons and Japanese supply depots. As their tactical successes grew and the people saw them as more effective fighters, Huk strength grew again doubling to 10,000 by March 1943. The popularity and strength of the Huks increased; the Huks helped establishing additional squadrons and contributed to the formation of an all-Chinese force, the Overseas Chinese 48th Detachment of the People’s anti-Japanese Forces, or Wachi.

Towards the liberation

In January 1945, before the American landing on Luzon most of Tarlac, Pampanga, and Nueva Ecija, fell into the hands of the Huk where they established provisional governments in the last two provinces. The Huks also contributed in liberating the outskirts of Southern Luzon, two Huk squadrons joined with the U.S. 11th Airborne Division and helped rescue American and allied prisoners from Japanese prison-camps at Cabantuan and Los Baños.

Bernard Seeman and Laurence Salisbury who wrote for Institute of Pacific Relations, New York published an unbiased assessment of the Huks’ war record in a pamphlet entitled Cross-Currents in the Philippines. According to their findings, the Huks had 1, 200 engagements with the Japanese and puppet forces during the war and inflicted some 25, 000 enemy casualties, mostly local puppets. By war’s end, the Huks’ strength consisted of 20, 000 fully armed regulars and 50, 000 reservists.

Shortly after the war, the CPP dissolved the Hukbalahap and changed it into the Hukbalahap Veterans’ League with Alejandrino as national chairman. They lobbied for the elevation of the social and economic conditions brought about by the social injustice, that there is a need for amelioration by the government for the conditions of former Huk guerillas who were most landless farmers. However, of all the Huk squadrons that participated in the war, only two from southern Luzon were offered official recognition and promised veteran benefits, back pay, and the opportunity to integrate into the Philippine armed forces.

The Post-War Dissident Campaign of the Huks and its Eventual Fall

After the war, the country was in chaos and its economy in debacle- unemployment was rampant and the nation’s export industry had collapsed during the war.  The Philippine Trade Act (or Bell Act) of 1946 Provisions of the 1946 was seen by the Huks as another example of the United States manifestation of its imperialistic policy to the Philippines benefiting the rich landlords, businessmen and corrupt officials. But the one overruling factor that seemed to be central for Huk supporters and converts was the issue of land tenure.

When President Roxas’ successor, Elpidio Quirino took over, he granted amnesty to them instead of sending military forces against the Huks. Taruc personally went to Malacañang on June 21, 1948 to accept the amnesty from Quirino. However, the amnesty was a setback when constabulary authorities pressed to the surrender of the arms held by the Huks, who were pronounced as rebels, refused to do. The failure of the amnesty given by President Quirino in 1948 turned out to be the crucial factor that led to the CPP decision to instigate an armed struggle against the government which was under the shadow of American imperialism. In 1949, HUKBALAHAP was renamed Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan or HMB for short.

In the mid-1950s, events such as the October Manila raid injured the Huks seriously and interrupt their joint political-military strategy. Coupled with public outrage over the murder of Senora Quezon and other atrocities against civilians, the Huks’ mass support base developed cracks.

On February 17, 1954, Taruc met Manahan, accompanied by Benigno Aguino, Jr., a young reporter. Manahan urged Taruc to surrender, assuring him that Pres. Magsaysay will seriously consider his petition for a general amnesty to the Huks. On May 16, 1954, Taruc capitulated to the government and the news of his surrender spread to Southern Luzon. The failure of Huks in their fight against the constituted government could be attributed to the following: shortage of weapons and ammunitions, treatment given to surrendered, establishment of EDCOR, and failure to win the loyalty of the civilian population.

THE PETITION OF MARCH 1888
by: Ma. Cielito G. Reyno

The anti-war and pro-democracy demonstrations of the 1960s culminating in the unforgettable student-powered First Quarter Storm of 1970; the Parliament of the Streets spawned by  the 1983 assassination of Ninoy Aquino; the formation of massive human barricades around Camp Crame leading in the 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution; the coming together of millions of outraged Filipinos at EDSA in 2001, borne of a sense of injustice over the non-opening of a paltry envelope; today’s popular outcry for truth and clean governance manifested in rally after rally–all these had a forerunner in one of the rare instances of public protest against the powers-that-be during the Spanish colonial era—the call for the expulsion of the friars from the Philippines in March 1888.

      On March 1st (or the 3rd) 1888, around 300 residents led by a group of gobernadorcillos of Mania’s suburbs, chief among them the Filipino lawyer and gobernadorcillo of Santa Cruz named Doroteo Cortes, wound their way through the districts of Manila to the office of the civil governor of Manila to present a petition with some 810 signatures, addressed to the Queen of Spain seeking the expulsion of all friars from the Philippines.  The procession was calm and unmarked by any untoward incident- much like a   religious procession.  What distinguished it was the petition it presented.  Entitled “Viva España! Viva el Rey! Viva el Ejercito! Fuera los Frailes!”  (“Long Live Spain! Long Live the King! Long Live the Army! Down with the Friars!) it was a litany of what the petitioners believed to be the friars’ transgressions not only against the natives but also against the colonial government, among others: defiance of the ban of having corpses in churches; preventing the masses from learning Spanish; defending the Chinese who were disloyal to the government among others, in short, the friars were the reason the Filipinos were backward and the Philippines underdeveloped.  Even the Archbishop  (Payo) was not spared: the petitioners accused him of supporting the parish priests who defied the ban on corpses because it would be bad for business, and because of this, of flouting the authority of the Governor General.  To rectify this, the petitioners sought his return to Spain, the expulsion of the friars, and at the very least, their suppression through secularization of the parishes held by them- giving the parishes to secular priests, and the true assimilation of the Filipinos into Spanish nation.

      The procession and the petition were the culmination of a series of actions over the years in Manila, and in Malolos, Bulacan, made against members of the religious congregations- the friars- who also served as parish priests. While the anti-friar actions centered only in Malolos and several suburbs in Manila, they eventually evolved into a whole movement aimed not only at chipping away at the friars’ authority but in expelling the whole lot of them from the Islands.

       The friars’ intrusion into every aspect of the Filipino’s life was so encompassing as to impel Marcelo H. del Pilar to denounce it as “frailocracia”- monastic rule- a government of, by and for the friars, a virtual stranglehold on the neck of the Filipino nation.  While the early missionaries were impelled by a real sense of mission to spread the Christian faith in Spain’s new colony, risking disease and even death in far-flung villages as they defended – more often than not single-handedly- the newly-converted natives against the attacks, abduction and enslavement by non-Christian pirates, the succeeding generations of friars were seen by most Filipinos especially the reformists as having succumbed to corruption and greed and of exploiting the ignorant masses to sustain their luxurious lifestyles.

       According to Teodoro Agoncillo: ”While the laws of the Indies had vested [him] with the duty to defend the natives…the parish curate caused much suffering among the masses.  He exercised multifarious political and economic, patently non-spiritual, powers.  He controlled the educational system and public works of the municipalities, supervised the collection of taxes and the taking of the census, certified to the correctness of the cedulas, supervised the conscription of the natives into the army and the police force and, as the censor of plays and reading matter, determined the cultural fare of the people.  He controlled the municipal elections and acted as adviser of the municipal council.  He was also a member of the provincial board…Indeed, in the eyes of the people, the parish priest was the real representative of the king…”  With this kind of system giving the friars a monopoly on colonial administration, it was no wonder that they often succumbed to graft and abuse of power at expense of the Filipinos.

       This oppressive social system was bound to produce a counter force starting in the 1870s when the call for the secularization of parishes- the turnover of parishes from the friars to the secular priests- was first sounded by Filipino priests.  Despite the public garroting of its accused leaders –GOMBURZA- the authorities failed to destroy the movement, succeeding only in suppressing its remnants.  By the 1880s, secularization became but a part of a larger cause, a means to achieving an end- the call for an overhaul of Philippine colonial society by way of political and economic reforms- including changes in the educational system and in political administration.

         In a fortuitous turn of events, developments occurring in the central administrative government in Manila aided in no small measure the work of Filipino activists- or as they were then known- reformists such as Marcelo H. del Pilar and his group.  These included the replacement of the conservative civil governor of Manila by Jose Centeno, who because he was a Mason had liberal ideas inimical to friar authority; and the appointment of a progressive administrative official -Benigno Quiroga- who revived a law passed in 1856 banning corpses in churches as a public health measure, considerably diminishing the income and influence of the parish priests.  Non-compliance meant arrest and imprisonment.  These developments naturally boosted the reformist cause and emboldened its champions such as del Pilar – to further push the limits of their fight.

       In 1884, del Pilar and other reformists succeeded in getting one of their own elected as gobernadorcillo of Malolos against the candidate supported by the parish priest.  Del Pilar and his group succeeded initially in flouting the clout of the friar over the issue of residence taxes by refusing to follow the parish list of taxpayers, although later they were ordered by the colonial administration to follow the old list.  On another front, in Binondo, Manila in 1887, the native Filipino community- using their numerical strength – succeeded in snatching from the Catholic Chinese/Chinese mestizo community their traditional task of leading the celebration of the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary- by way of an order from the Governor General himself giving the preeminent role to the natives–despite the Chinese community’s having the backing of the parish priest. This turn of events caused the parish priest to absent himself from the celebrations, thus riling the Governor-General who ordered him as well as the Chinese gobernadorcillos relieved, which in turn angered the Archbishop.  The whole affair became a moral victory for the Filipino reformists.

          Other reformist moves followed including the order by official Quiroga for the establishment, in Malolos, of an agricultural school and another of trades and arts, and excluding any friar involvement- a virtual slap on the faces of the friars and a boost to the cause of the reformers.

         Thus was paved the path leading to the March 1888 demonstration/procession.  Its aftermath, however, was the opposite of their expectations:  not only did the petition fail to reach the Queen, it turned the Archbishop into the underdog, the aggrieved party who was inundated with visits even from Spaniards known to be against the friars.  The civil governor distanced himself from the petitioners and resigned shortly thereafter.  Quiroga sent an emissary to the Archbishop, and when Gov. Gen. Terrero resigned, his successor overturned many of the official moves made during his term which were inimical to the friars: the ban on corpses in churches was rescinded; the former parish priest of Binondo was restored to his parish, etc.  Worst of all some of the instigators and leaders of the political procession were arrested and imprisoned, and exiled. While Cortes was banished to La Union, Del Pilar, the suspected author of the petition (although more likely according to some accounts, he co-authored the petition with Cortes) evaded arrest and by October permanently eluded his enemies by fleeing to Spain.

         To del Pilar and his fellow reformists, the aftermath of the demonstration was but a step backward for the movement, in their hearts they believed they had gained a giant step forward in the politicization and nationalist awakening of the Filipinos.