Features

FROM VISION TO FRUSTRATION TO HOPE: THE CYCLE OF THE PHILIPPINES’ “UNFINISHED REVOLUTIONS
by Roy Mendoza

Download PDF       

Introduction:
1896, without doubt, is the watershed for the formation of our nation. In the absence of “Great Traditions” – Asian religions, kingship systems and empires, great monuments etc., our identity as a nation would have to base on revolt - asserting a different character from that of Spain and our struggle to be free from its impositions and chart a new course. This overwhelming desire to be free from colonialism would not materialize however until 1946. Personal animosities among the leaders of the revolution and of course, American intervention among others, would extinguish our yearning for freedom. Yet, for the next half a century under American “tutelage”, this craving for independence and self-rule would not die. Filipinos may, and indeed, quarrel over strategy, but were united towards self-rule.  

However, the prospects of independence and self rule after the war were bleak. It has given rise to a host of problems –oligarchy, warlordism, dependency among others. These endemic problems that bred underdevelopment were the main reasons for the imposition of martial rule. It was an attempt to catch up with the newly-industrialized economies of East Asia, particularly Taiwan and South Korea. Noble, grandiose and ambitious as it may sound, martial rule created a host of other problems. The institutionalization of violence, graft and corruption, concentration of wealth and power on so few, extravagant spending on questionable projects and so forth became unbearable that Filipinos had had enough of the Marcoses and in a tremendous outpouring of grief, then disappointment and then anger, fuelled many to participate in political actions that culminated in the so called People Power Revolution in February of 1896. As if a continuation of the 1896 Revolution, one after all has just to switch 8 and 9, the tremendous popular support and the feeling that people had the power to change and set their destiny was reminiscent of that spirit a hundred years ago. Alas, like the short-lived 1896 Revolution, the bright promise brought about by EDSA fell short of the people’s expectations. Thus like 1896 and 1946, the initial aspirations of the people turned to dismay and disappointment. Yet again, the shortcomings of the promise at of EDSA brought back the feelings of an “unfinished revolution” among many Filipinos. Yet, it is not without victory. The gains of EDSA are undeniable. The people’s abhorrence for dynastic rule, violence as a means of settling conflict, institutionalization of democratic political rights and processes, people’s participation in governance, greater emphasis on the basic sectors and social concerns, etc. have been the guiding light of governance.               

The discourse of the “unfinished revolution” is not new. It has been used by politicians, political parties, social movements of all stripes for various reasons and purposes and thus has become outmoded. Yet, in these times of adversity and moral degeneration especially in our political life, harking back to the idea of an “unfinished revolution” is not at all irrelevant. To the contrary, it provides us a clearer understanding and a historical grounding of the many problems besetting us today especially in the fields of anti-corruption and good governance. It provides allows us to contemplate and see in comparative terms the meanings of (abstracted) terms that have characterized the history of our people the past hundred years like hope, aspiration, frustration etc. 

Together, these events in 1896, 1946 and 1986 were brought to the fore by the people’s sufferings from oppression and symbolize the longings or hope of the Filipinos for a better future. In many ways it is like a cycle that starts out with anger and revolt that carries with it the aspirations of the people; then it is followed by the “struggle”. Though incomplete, it was able to achieve advances and carries with it the hope and aspirations of the future. If seven is the perfect number in the Bible, the number 6 is just a number short of the perfect number. It is incomplete and wanting to reach the perfect number. And like the three sixes mentioned above, it is an “unfinished revolution” challenging us for it to be complete.    

There is a dictum that would always guide the students and practitioners of history today. And that is “There is only one past but there are many histories”. Perhaps, it would not be too much if another sketch of our history the past hundred years is added to the long list of historical works that have seen print. If earlier works has a tendency to claim that it is the history on the topic, such practices have been criticized for it privileges only a particular sector, mostly the elites, or the professional historians. For even the voiceless and the inarticulate could also write their histories.

The writing of Philippine history though has been limited in its understanding of the past because of the constraints imposed by historiography and ideology. Earlier works on history, especially up until the mid 70’s, tended to see our history as based on the perspective of colonizers and whites. It belittled the aspirations and struggles of Filipinos and would implicitly suggest that we were better off colonized. On the other hand, with the rise of nationalist historiography emphasis has been placed on our struggle to achieve nationhood, the heroism of the patriots against foreign aggression etc. but sees history within the deterministic prism of class struggle and dialectical materialism, in the process ignoring the perceptions and beliefs of, ironically, the many especially the inarticulate.

1896 Philippine Revolution
The Philippine Revolution was one that is not inevitable. It could have been avoided had Spain listen to the Filipinos’ plea for reforms. Separating from Mother Spain and founding a new nation was not what was on the minds of many ilustrados fighting for reforms in Spain. Friar abuses, representation in the Spanish Congress and the introduction of a modicum of civil liberties and material progress were the aspirations of many upper class Filipinos. Spain’s reaction and brutal repression to the indio’s demands for reforms and assertion of rights paved the road towards the Revolution. If 1896 was the start of the Philippine nation-state, many historians are one in saying that what precipitated it was 1872 - the execution of the three priests Gomez, Burgos and Zamora. Gomburza has come to mean the aspirations of the local clergy to have a better status vis-a-vis the Spanish friars. Not only were the execution of priests a big no but what came after was the brutal repression of all those who were suspected of treason, especially the local elites in Cavite who were seen as moderate and reasonable. From 1872 onwards, the expansive Bagumbayan field or the Luneta was the killing fields of patriots.
    
For the vast majority of Filipinos, who were mostly tenants and sharecroppers, agrarian unrest was a major factor in the uprising. The improved economic conditions brought about by the opening of the Suez Canal have somehow sharpened the conflict in the vast agricultural estates devoted to the export economy. That these friar estates were owned by an abusive foreign clergy who greatly profited from them only fuelled peasants to join the Revolution.   

Coupled with this hatred of the Spaniards was the coming of a new found identity.  The idea of Filipinas, a new identity composed of indios that were different from the peninsulares, loyal subjects of the Spanish monarchy, made the reforms inevitable, and when it was frustrated, made the Revolution inevitable. If kalayaan meant independence from Spain for most elites, for the masses it meant freedom. Kalayaan was conceived to be like a kind of paradise on earth where people would enjoy prosperity and comfort. Laya meant there were would be no taxes, forced labor, police and surveillance. Kalayaan from Spain would be built upon closely-knit, village-based associations; it would be a voluntary “coming together” of many small clusters of people rather than the forging of a whole. The new government would be based on a covenant between followers and the chosen leaders, who were characterized as having mabuting loob or showed caring and willingness to undergo sacrifices for the sake of the whole.   

Hampered by lack of training, weapons and logistics, the Revolution suffered many setbacks in its initial stages. This led Bonifacio to retreat into the mountains of Maontalban. In the meantime, in Cavite a rising star in the person of Aguinaldo, a gobernadorcillo, was winning the battles of the Revolution. His successes could be attributed to many factors: he was a natural born leader by virtue of his being a gobernadorcillo, pretty much the equivalent of our present town mayor, a position that is inherited; a loyal army composed of peasants that are related to Aguinaldo by kinship (both blood and ritual) or as tenants; familiarity with the terrain and with it the overwhelming sentiment of driving away unwanted foreigners.
 
This signaled the passage of the Katipunan from an urban-based, intellectual-led organization into one that was rural-based and led by local elites. This process, coupled with changing the nature of the Katipunan from a secret revolutionary organization into a provisional government in waiting, would exact a heavy toll. The feud between the two leaders, and their followers, resulted in the execution of Bonifacio. In hindsight, his death made the Revolution falter. What could have been an outright victory for the Revolution was in fact turned into a debacle as a result of the personal animosities between them – a broken heart, disunity and distraction away from the goals of the Revolution. Thus ending the First Phase of the 1896 Revolution. 

The Pact of Biak-na-Bato signaled the end of the First Phase of the Revolution. From a strategic offensive phase, the Revolution was relegated to a stalemate, a condition where one could not defeat the other. This negotiated settlement called for a general ceasefire and a compensation for the Katipunan, in exchange for surrendering their weapons and the exile of Aguinaldo and its leaders to Hong Kong.   

It was while Aguinaldo and company were in Hong Kong that the Spanish – American War broke out, an event that would affect the outcome of the Revolution. The news that America would enter a war with Spain electrified the Hong Kong junta. Upon entering the Philippines, Aguinaldo began remobilizing Filipinos for the war with Spain. He also declared the Philippines’ independence the following month. However, the Americans showed no sign of leaving even after the last Spanish forces surrendered to the Americans in August. In fact, more and more American troops started to arrive.

The new republic’s response to this threat was political and diplomatic. It moved the capital to the safety of Malolos, drafted a Constitution, set up a bureaucracy, a university, schools, even a military academy. Truly, it was a nation-state in the making, reflecting the aspirations of the Filipinos to chart their own course as a people guided by the ideals of the Enlightenment. The Malolos Republic then sent diplomats abroad to campaign for its recognition. For with came acceptance in the community of nations and would force the US to remove its troops. The signing of the Treaty of Paris, the conclusion of the Spanish-American War, changed all these. For the Americans, they now have a legal claim to the islands.

While American officials would insist that what happened after was an insurrection, for Filipinos it was in defense of their freedom and independence, thus for all intents and purposes a war. In fact, a great number of Americans in the US objected to the war. Being a colony once, they believed that what the Filipinos and Aguinaldo were fighting for was the same as what Washington and the patriots fought for against the British a century before. Despite the lack of training and equipment, the Filipino army made it up with their indomitable spirit and tremendous popular support. There were even cases of African American troops deserting the US Army and joining the Filipinos for they could identify with their cause.

Several months and mounting battlefield losses into the war, elites within Aguinaldo’s cabinet began to change course, they believed that the best way to respond to the American challenge was cooperation as a way of getting autonomy and later on independence. Victory over the Americans was simply impossible. They began maneuvering themselves and caused the downfall of the irreconciliables like Mabini, Antonio Luna and Artemio Ricarte. It resulted in the tragic death of the head of the Philippine army. If the death of Bonifacio signaled the end of the first phase of the Revolution, the death of Luna likewise signaled the end of its second phase. Again, factionalism would rear its ugly head and would cause the separation of the heart that once unified Filipinos.

Yet, despite the capture of Aguinaldo and organized resistance, the struggle against foreign domination continued. Just when did the Filipino – American War ends depend on where one is coming from. While some see it ended with the capture of Aguinaldo, others with the surrender of former revolutionary generals in 1904, some with the execution of Macarion Sakay in 1907. Indeed, the war for kalayaan continued even if it was now guided by millenarianism and folk religiosity.

While accepting the fact that the Americans were here to stay, still the nationalist fervor brought about by the Revolution was to be the battle cry of many politicians. In fact, starting from the 1907 Legislative Assembly elections until the end of American colonial rule, the Nacionalista Party was the most dominant party. It was an amalgam of many smaller parties whose main concern though was complete and immediate independence. The promise of independence was both the mobilizing and unifying issue used by the Filipino politicians. It was the rallying cry of in many election campaigns to get the support of the electorate many of whom did not forget the ideals of the Revolution and its hopes of independence. But as independence could not be had without American approval and tutelage, the attitude of our politicians was to go along the Americans plan to gradually prepare the Filipinos until such time that they are ready for independence.   

At the same time, many politicians were janus-faced as they were afraid of independence. Not only by the overwhelming responsibilities that it entailed but more so the tremendous advantages brought about by the free trade arrangement (export of primary agricultural crops like sugar, copra and abaca) that tended to favor landlords like themselves. Free trade, while beneficial to the landed elite and those living in the urban areas, widened the gap between the rich and poor and aggravated tenancy problems as large tracts of lands became concentrated on the landed gentry who saw the benefits of economies of scale to maximize profits in exporting these cash crops. Many peasants who were tilling their lands but had no titles eventually lost theirs to landlords. Thus nationalism in the 20’s and 30’s were manifested in millenarian / messianic movements (Colorums, Papa Isio and the Pulajanes, Guardia de Honor, Florencio I just to name a few) that capitalized greatly on agrarian unrest. 

Thus, when the Americans finally decided to grant the Philippines independence but with a transition period of ten years (the Commonwealth), many felt betrayed by the Filipino politicians’ acquiescence. They could not understand why after campaigning for independence for a long time, this time they were asking people to vote in a referendum to accept the provisions of the proposed Commonwealth.    

Much as many nationalist historians would criticize American colonization, the truth is the Philippines was the most prepared for independence as compared to other Southeast Asian countries. Either they have to fight for it or make do with whatever skills they have once the colonizers called it quits after the Second World War. To prepare for it, many Filipinos were sent to the US to study, in particular, courses in medicine and public health, law, sciences and engineering and education – called pensionados, they were to head or manage the civil service. Filipinos became members of the Philippine Commission in the early years of American rule to give them representation and later on as Resident Commissioners. Indeed, the prospects for independence was bright if not for the next chapter in our history – the Japanese Occupation. 

1946 Philippine Independence
Independence came at a most difficult time. We were heavily devastated by the war and at the same time we could not get help from the US because their priorities then was to develop Europe, and in Asia Japan, to prevent the spread of communism. The postwar government was faced with very pressing concerns – rehabilitate the country, defend its borders from foreign aggression, revive the economy, promote social justice and democracy

To avail of rehabilitation funds from the Americans, we had to enter into a “Faustian bargain” – to host military facilities, giving American businessmen the same opportunities as that of locals (parity rights) and the continuation of free trade. These compromised our early years as an independent country for it resulted in domestic turmoil. The passage of the parity rights into law angered many sectors especially landless peasants that had borne the onerous conditions of feudalism and became the target of Huk mobilization. The hosting of the US bases, the pillar of Philippine – American relations, proved to be a very difficult relationship because of the inherent problems in hosting the bases – criminal jurisdiction of US servicemen and their dependents, the struggle to come up with an independent foreign policy and with it the respect of the international community, just to name a few. Furthermore, the resumption of free trade prevented the urgent need to industrialize the nation as a way of sustaining economic growth and reducing poverty.      

Unlike Japan where an enlightened dictator (Douglas Mc Arthur) supported by a large American staff undertook basic social changes – the Peace Constitution, agrarian reform, doing away with the zaibatsu and propping up a new breed of capitalists, encouraging the growth of labor unions and freedom of the press etc. - in the Philippines we were stuck with the same pre-war elites that favored the old ways of doing things. In many ways, it was like building a new house on old foundations.

The Postwar period saw the growth and the important role played by provincial elite families. Among these were the Camerinos and Remullas of Cavite, Montelibanos and Lopezes of Negros, the Osmenas and Duranos of Cebu, Dimaporo of Lanao, the Crisologos and Singsons of Ilocos etc. They became important as they were the extension of the central government in these “frontier” places where state presence and support is weak. They implemented the rules promulgated by the state, collect taxes, enforce law and order and during election periods, deliver the votes to the nationally-elected candidates. In return, they will have to have access to state funds and patronage, through pork barrel funds and other funding sources and dole outs in order to provide patronage to their followers and maintain their loyalty. In this symbiotic relationship, corruption among politicians is more the norm than the exception. Provincial elites too were armed with so called private armies, sometimes to augment police and security personnel but more so to protect their grip on political power and prevent rivals from taking their posts. For these so called “strong men” are also susceptible when the central government switch favors to other clans. Such is the case when Marcos shifted his favors from the Crisologos to the Singsons just before the declaration of martial law.                  

Thus, in more ways than one, the declaration of martial law was a revolution because it wanted to alter the existing political and economic structure. It wanted to do away with political warlords and their private armies that have long been a bane to Philippine democracy. It wanted to do away with monopoly capitalists and oligarchs that have long stifled economic development. While critics and opponents of Marcos say he merely wanted to prolong his hold on power and enrich himself, his family and close associates, this analysis is myopic for it fails to consider that outside the Philippines (notably South Korea, Chile, Argentina, Pakistan just to name a few) martial rule was also imposed. Authoritarian governments were the prescription by multilateral aid agencies to fast track the development of so-called less developed countries and was seen as the antidote to strong societal forces that threatened the stability of the state and hence, achieve economic development. The model for this project was the so called East Asian economic tigers whose success lay in the central role of the state or what is referred to as the developmental state.              

Thus, the “New Society” was the remedy to the decay and festering wounds of the pre-martial law society – warlordism and unrestrained political violence, feudalism and the worsening tenancy problems, the profligate ways of the rich, social problems that are ever present until today. It also wanted to promote decency with the banning of “bomba” movies and sensationalism in media, and citizenship with its renewed appeal to nationalism and nation-building.

The first five years of martial law, from 1972 – 1977, were the best years. We registered high economic growth rates and were the darling of the World Bank, once even cited as the model for other third world countries to emulate. But alas, both internal and external factors conspired to frustrate the vision of the “New Society.” Crony capitalism, the new term for oligarchy, uncontrolled and misprioritized spending, kleptocracy and the acceptance of corruption in public life etc. made its toll on the populace. It seemed the Marxists were correct in its critique of the developmental state by saying it could not be replicated because they are the products of historical specificities. True enough, our lack of a Confucian tradition (unquestioned loyalty to the state and ruler) and bureaucracy (a government insulated from the abuse and caprices of politicians as well as the turmoil of politics) strongly suggests that grandiose projects depends greatly on strong structures.             

1983 would be the precursor of the people power revolution of 1986. Even if opposition to the Marcos regime was considerable before this year, the death of Ninoy Aquino angered the apolitical and the apathetic. Once a rambunctious traditional politician, the repentant and transformed Ninoy died in a manner that Filipinos saw resembled that of Rizal, with some even of Jesus. Many historians would point out that this identification of the passion of the Christ with the travails and death of Rizal was what motivated many peasants into joining the fight against Spain. With a very pious and reserved widow thrown at the forefront of politics, she was the antithesis to the male strongman who has come to symbolize power and oppression. Indeed, just like the death of Rizal in 1896, religious symbolism would prove to be a very strong motivating force to collective action among Filipinos. And the events of EDSA in 1986, with all its imagery and drama, was a testimony to this.
      

1986 People Power Revolution
The former South African president Nelson Mandela, a freedom fighter imprisoned for 27 years, once said that when apartheid was finally abolished and his party came into power, it was like reaching the top of a mountain. But when he turned to his back, he saw that there was a higher mountain to climb. For most Filipinos, the journey to good governance ended with the departure of Marcos. The euphoria of the victory at EDSA made many Filipinos think that everything will work out fine now that we have an honest and a caring president.

Yet, we were faced with the same old problems. The institutionalization of democracy, it seems have even compounded our problems that many believe that we were better off with a strong man like Marcos. We have missed many opportunities to alter social imbalances – to come up with a genuine agrarian reform that was free from the limits imposed by landlords; selective debt repudiation so that a large portion of our budget should have been used for much needed social services; the chance to modify our political and electoral systems that have continually plagued us today etc.

If EDSA has failed to “finish the Revolution,” it has equipped us with new instruments that may finish the task. People’s participation in governance, dialogue and cooperation with other sectors that were seen as “the enemy” such as the security personnel and bureaucrats, putting into the mainstream the concerns of the basic sectors like poverty reduction even among capitalists (corporate social responsibility), are just some of the advantages for the advocates seeking for change. More than this, EDSA has inspired all of us towards heroic citizenship. No matter what background we come from, how humble our position in life, all of us are called to do our share in this “unfinished revolution.”
 
Indeed, change is gradual.  If the revolution of 1896 was against foreign domination and control and 1946 a struggle to build the nation state, 1986 is a revolution for good governance, respect for fundamental rights, a fight against transactional politics (or politics as if people mattered) to attain equity among the social classes and hopefully tear down the class divide.        

Annex:
Apolinario Mabini’s True Decalogue:

1. Thou shall love God and honor thee above all things: God is the fountain of all truth, of all justice and of all activity.
2. Thou shall worship God in the form which thy conscience may deem righteous and worthy, for in your conscience which condemns all evil deeds and praises good ones speak thy God.
3. Thou shall cultivate the special gifts that God has granted you, working and studying according to your ability, never leaving the path of righteousness and justice in order to attain perfection, and by being honored you shall glorified God.
4. Thou shall love they country after God, for she is the only Paradise God has given us in life; the patrimony of the race, the only inheritance from our ancestors; because of her we have life, love, happiness, honor and God.
5. Thou shall strive for the happiness of your country before your own, making her the kingdom of reason, justice and of labor, for if she is happy, together with thy family, thou shall likewise be happy.
6. Thou shall strive for the independence of thy country, for only you can have real interest in her advancement and exaltation, because thy independence constitutes your own liberty, advancement, perfection and her glory, exaltation and immortality.
7. Thou shall not recognize the authority of any person that has not been elected by you and your countrymen; for authority emanates from God; and as God speaks in the conscience of every man, the person designated and proclaimed by the whole people is the only one who can use true authority.
8. Thou shall strive for a republic and never a monarchy; for the latter exalts one or several families and founds a dynasty, the former makes a people noble and worthy through reason, great through liberty and prosperous and brilliant through labor.
9. Thou shall love your neighbor as yourself, for God has imposed upon him and you the obligation to help others; but if thy neighbor, failing in this sacred duty, attempts against your life, liberty and interests, then you shall destroy and annihilate him, for the law of self-preservation prevails.
10. Thou shall consider your countrymen more than your neighbor thou shall see him as thy friend, brother, or at least thy comrade with whom you are bound by one fate, by the same joys, sorrows, aspirations and interests.

Therefore, as long as the national frontiers subsist, raised and maintained by the selfishness of race and of family, with your countrymen alone shall you unite in a perfect solidarity of purpose and interest, in order to have force, not only to resist the common enemy, but also to attain all the aims of human life.

Sources:

Ileto, Reynaldo (1998) Filipinos and their Revolution (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University)  

Mc Coy, Alfred (1994) An Anarchy of Families (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press) 

Mabini, Apolinario (1992) The Philippine Revolution (Manila: National Historical Institute)        

Majul, Cesar A. (1960) Mabini and the Philippine Revoluton (Quezon City: University of the Philippines)     

Ricardo, Jose et.al. (2000) The Filipino Saga: History as Social Change (Quezon City: New Day)