The depth of the democratic spirit, however, is evidence of the existence of a democratic pattern in Philippine traditions, customs and practices that antedates the arrival of the United States in this country. The successful revolt against Spain in 1898 was itself the culmination of a liberal movement dating back to the middle of the 19th century. Indeed, its roots go back to pre-Spanish times; the "barangays" (pre-Spanish communities) were governed by a council of elders, and the absence of absolute rulers is a notable feature of early Philippine history. What might be called the formal introduction of democracy into Philippine life found a receptive soil and a hospitable atmosphere, else it could not have flourished as it has. In other words, our people were quite ready for modern democratic institutions when they were established; they were not strangers to the ideals, methods and usages of democratic life.
The deep-seated—we might say intuitive—feeling for democracy manifested itself throughout the centuries of Spanish domination. Filipino agitation brought about their first representation in the Spanish cortes (parliament) as early as 1810. A Filipino was among the signers of the Spanish constitution of 1812, a liberal document that raised high hopes in the country for, an improvement in colonial government. When Ferdinand VII was restored to the throne and the constitution abolished shortly thereafter, the reaction in the Philippines was immediate revolt. It was the Spanish revolution of 1868, however, against the absolute monarchy of Isabella II, that spelled the beginning of democracy as an organized movement in the Philippines. The reforms brought about by the revolt in Spain were extended to the Philippines by liberal colonial administrators. A native school of democratic reformers arose, led by Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Regidor and others, and their teachings were to survive and dominate the thought of the colony for years after their sources were snuffed out in the parent country, where liberalism proved to be short-lived.
The return to a strong monarchical form of government in Spain was accompanied by vigorous attempts to suppress liberal ideas in the colonies. Starting in 1872, a series of violent uprisings took place, and were put down only after much bloodshed; from this time on, Spanish rule was to be maintained in the Philippines only through military strength.
Faced with the continual prospect of revolution, and heeding a lesson learned in South America, the Spaniards once again began the introduction of reforms. The payment of tribute was abolished, provincial governments were reorganized, and the Spanish Civil Code was introduced.
But the fires of nationalism, once aroused, are not easy to extinguish. Where better colonial government would once have sufficed, only independence was now acceptable. Spain's South American possessions had revolted successfully. Reforms failed to keep pace with even the moderate demands of a new school of Filipino leaders, among whom Jose Rizal, our national hero, was foremost, and it was not long before the Filipinos decided that more radical steps were necessary to achieve their aspirations.
In 1896, a secret organization, the Katipunan, rose in rebellion once more. Strongly influenced by the French Revolution a century earlier, its leaders made the ideals of equality and brotherhood the cornerstones of the organization's purposes. The fight against the Spaniards ended momentarily with the Pact of Bianabato, under which most of the reforms demanded were guaranteed in exchange for a return to peace.
This proved to be temporary. The desired reforms were not carried out, many revolutionary leaders were imprisoned and executed. Warfare broke out again throughout the Islands in 1898. This second phase of the revolution had just started when Admiral Dewey and an American fleet sailed into Manila Bay, to engage Spain in a conflict that had started halfway around the world, in Cuba.
Emilio Aguinaldo, who had taken over the leadership of the rebellion from Andres Bonifacio in 1896, returned from exile in Hongkong in May 1898, to lead the new uprising. The rebels captured most of Luzon from Spain; and Philippine independence was proclaimed in the province of Cavite in June. A revolutionary Congress was convened, and a government set up.
All this time the American fleet lay in Manila Bay, after destroying a Spanish squadron, when American troops finally landed, the end of Spanish rule was already in sight; revolutionary leaders believed that their country's independence was assured, and worked hard at establishing a republican government.
The Filipino Congress that assembled at Malolos, in the province of Bulacan, in September 1898, framed a constitution for the new nation embodying the highest ideals of democracy, freedom and human dignity. In the history of Asia, the Malolos Constitution stands out as one of the finest charters of human rights ever formulated.
Nor was this exceptional. All the documents of the Philippine revolution were inspired by the spirit of democracy whose flood-tide had already swept over Europe and America. Not merely national independence, but personal liberty and equal justice were the rallying cries of the rebellion.
When Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States, over the protests of the Philippine Revolutionary Government, it signalled the renewal of the fight for independence against a new adversary. The first battles were fought around Manila early in 1899, one of the few areas where the insurgents against Spain were not in complete control. Against the well-organized American forces, however, the Philippine army proved futile, and the invaders slowly drove Aguinaldo northward through Luzon, finally forcing his capitulation in 1901.
Sporadic fighting continued for a short while after the defeat of Aguinaldo, but there no longer was a serious challenge to American rule. On the fourth of July, 1901, William Taft became the first civil governor of the Philippines.
Loss of their independence proved, paradoxically, to be the start of a new era in the democratic current in Philippine history. A succession of high-minded American administrators pursued a then unheard-of program of inculcating a people conquered by force of arms with the practice of democratic self-government. A system of public education was introduced, Filipinos were appointed to the central governing body of the country, the Philippine Commission, and autonomous provincial and municipal governments were established. Political parties came into existence; by 1907 an all Filipino law-making body was organized, the Philippine Assembly, which shared duties with the Philippine Commission.
The Philippines never lost sight of their ultimate goal of independence, but henceforth the battles for national sovereignty were fought entirely within the framework of democratic institutions. It is to the lasting credit of the people of the Philippines and of the United States that independence was won and recognized using only weapons of justice and reason. It is this same spirit, this same faith in the processes of democracy that our Republic thrives on today.
The success of our drive for the recognition of our right to independence is but one measure of our competence in the ways of democracy, and our devotion to its principles. When aggressors once more wrested freedom from us in the second world war, our continued and effective resistance to occupation and totalitarianism proved again that democracy was too deeply imbedded in the Filipino soil to be swayed by the early success of an anti-democratic surge.
But more significant than these two instances of the strength of our democracy was the determination to establish our Republic at a time when the country was in ruins, its resources laid waste and its people helpless.
When the agreed time for our independence came, the Philippines had just undergone the devastation of a world war. If ever there was an unfavorable occasion for a new nation setting out on the road of national independence, it was 1946, before the labors of peace had completely eradicated the chaos of war. It required a strong moral fiber to bind the people together and bend them to the task of lifting the country from its tragic state. This fiber was found in the ideals of democracy which had sustained Filipinos in all the long years of their struggle for independence; in this time of crisis, it was found not wanting.
In our years of independence, the challenges to our national existence have been many and serious. The demoralization that war brought, the economic crisis that has never been completely overcome, are factors that could have steadily sapped our spiritual vigor that they have not is proof of the efficacy of democratic solutions.
The Communist-inspired Huk dissidence posed at one time a grave threat, but it has been put down without once sacrificing the protections guaranteed by the Constitution or subverting the purposes and methods of justice. The government has leaned over backwards in assuring that just grievances are not disregarded in the hysteria and general revulsion over a threat to the very substance of our way of life.
This same spirit that has given us sustenance in our growth has been translated to the international field in our continuing good relationship with our former rulers, contrasting with the bitterness characterizing feelings between other former colonies in Asia and other colonial powers.
Even more actively, it has been demonstrated by a display of initiative in mustering the freedom-loving countries of the Far East in the present cold war against Communist imperialism. The Baguio Conference of 1950 summoned by the then President Quirino was a forerunner of SEATO, at a time when the United States itself had not yet recognized the need for an alliance in the Orient against Communism. When the United Nations went to war to defend South Korea, the Philippines was the first to respond to the call for soldiers, and many brave men perished defending a distant land and people whose only tie with them was that they were another young democracy resisting the aggression of a totalitarian power bent on conquest.
Democracy, however, does not bring, unmixed blessings. It is not a cure-all that need only be displayed to achieve results. It needs not merely a knowledge of its explicit precepts, but also a feeling, an almost subconscious, instinctive acceptance of its implicit meanings. It is here that some shortcomings of Philippine democracy lie.
The introduction of political institutions and practices that are concomitant with American democracy could not also include, in the Philippines, the long years of experience in the use of these practices. As a result there has yet to grow a deeper appreciation of the trust that accompanies public office, and further training in the management and uses of the institutions to further the progress of the country.
Yet this does not mean that democracy in the Philippines is superficial. The converse has been proven many times. What it does mean is that there is a need to re-awaken the early, Oriental manifestations of democracy, long subordinated to the more explicitly rational, distinctively Occidental knowledge of it. This characteristic of Asian thinking can be described as an innate fellow-feeling, an emphasis on what is common to all men. This forms as solid a foundation for democracy in the Far East as the principle of personal liberty and individualism served for the West.
Ours is a robust democracy and we intend to keep it so, at whatever sacrifice necessary. It has served us well and has given us our happiness, progress, dignity. Our every effort today is directed towards making it lasting and ever-responsive to our changing circumstances and needs. It is our way of life and part of our very being. It is the substance of the Philippine Republic.
We have learned well the value of being ourselves and by ourselves seeking advancement and security. Our people are awake to their duties and are vigilant of their liberties. Self-government is the secure anchor of their destiny and they know it.