Sie sind auf Seite 1von 74

Various theories have been put forward to explain the origin of the state.

Some philosophers
assert that the state is the result of social contract or an agreement between the people and the
sovereign. There are others who feel that it is the direct result of force.
There is yet another set of philosophers who contend that the state is a magnified image of the
family. All these theories, however, are maimed and fallacious and have little truth in them.
This led Garner to remark that the state is neither a handiwork of God, nor the result of a superior
physical force, nor the creation of a contract, nor a mere expansion of family. It is a slow process
of growth and evolution. The state did not come into existence abruptly.
It has developed from its crude and simple form to the modern, complex structure slowly. In the
words of Leacock, "the state is a growth, an evolution, the result of a gradual process running
through out all the known history of man and receding into remote and unknown past."
To sum up, the origin of the state cannot be traced to a single factor of a definite period. The
historical theory regards the state as a product of slow historical evolution extending over a long
period. Various factors have contributed to its development. These may be discussed as follows:
1. Social instinct:
Aristotle simply stated a fact when he remarked: "Man is by nature a social animal." The germs
of social life are laid in the very nature of man. It is this elemental instinct which prompted
primitive people to live together in groups.
The state is thus primarily based on the gregarious instinct of man. According to Aristotle, state
is even primary to family. Its origin lies in the basic instinct of sociability of man. State is thus
natural outcome of very social nature of man.
2. Kinship:
The social instinct of man was supplemented by kinship or blood relationship. The earliest
human organizations were based on kinship or blood relationship. Blood relationship was the
most important bond of union among the primitive people.
It knit together clans and groups and gave them unity and cohesion. The people who had their
origin in a common ancestor lived together in separate social units. Those who could not
establish any blood relationship were treated as enemies. Even today, we see various castes and
sub-castes.
In sociological sense they have their origin in common ancestor and caste is still known by the
name of that original ancestor.
There is a good deal of controversy among political thinkers as to what the form of social
organization was in the primitive ages. Certain philosophers assert that tribes and matriarchal

families were the ancient social organizations. Others contend that the most primary social group
was a patriarchal family.
Regardless of this controversy Dr. Leacock remarked, "here it may be matriarchal family, there it
may be patriarchal family, but there is no denying the fact that the family is at basis of the state.
" Seeds of the state are found in rigid family discipline. It is in the family that a relationship
between command and obedience is established. A family represents the figure of a state in
miniature. All the for factors essential for the formation of the state are seen in their diminutive
form in the family.
The members of the family constitute the population Home is the territory. The patriarch or the
head of the family forms the government with sovereign power over its members. Hence the
justification of Aristotle's remark "State is the magnified image of the family.
" The original family gradually expanded and developed into a household or a 'gen'. The gens by
further multiplications developed into clans and clans united to form tribes. The bond throughout
was kinship and persons unconnected by blood relationship could not become members of a tribe
unless as a special case one was admitted by adoption.
In a tribe, the head of the oldest or the strongest clan became the ruler generally called the 'Chief
and his name became the symbol of 'kinship.' In the words of MacIver, 'Kinship created society
and society at length created the state.!
3. Religion:
Religion has played a vital role in the process of the building up of the state. Religion gave unity
to the people both in the primitive and middle ages. As Gettle observes, "Kinship and religion
were simply two aspects of the same thing.
Common worship was even more essential than kinship subjecting the primitive man to authority
and discipline and to develop in him a keen sense of social solidarities and cohesion." Those
outside were regarded as stranger and even as enemies. People were thus united together under
the authority of the same religious sovereign.
Religion appeared in the world in different forms at different stages of history. In the very early
times, the prevalent religion of mankind was animismworship of animals, trees and stones. It
was later supplemented with ancestral worship. People descending from the same ancestors were
thus united together.
Later, religion appeared in the form of Nature worship. The Primitive men could not understand
such natural phenomena as storms, thunder and lightning, or the change of seasons! or the
mystery of birth and death. They had implicit faith in the spirits of the nature and the spirits of
the dead. They were afraid of the forces of nature. They worshipped them out of awe and
reverence.

In subsequent ages, magician kings made their appearance. The magicians pretended that they
could propitiate the evil spirit. Thus taking advantage of the fear, ignorance and superstition of
the fellowmen, the magicians established their authority. In course of time, the magician kings
gave way to priest kings.
The priest kings remained popular till late in the middle ages. Religion came to be organized as a
regular institution. The Popes dominated the Christian world, the Caliphs established their
authority over the Muslim world, etc.
Whatever the form of religion, there is no denying the fact that religion gave unity to the people
and thus virtually helped in the process of state building.
4. Force:
Force also played an important part in the development of the state. In primitive ages, might was
the supreme right. A powerful person would rally round him a number of warriors and attack a
certain territory and would establish his domination over it. History is replete with records
showing that big states were formed by occupation and conquest through force.
The application of force also gave territoriality to modern states. War and migration were
important factors responsible for the establishment of various states. The demand for constant
warfare often led to the rise of permanent headman or chief.
When a tribe was threatened by danger of war, it was driven by necessity to appoint a leader if
there was none. The continuation of war was conducive to the establishment of permanent
leadership.
When a leader established his authority over a certain territory by conquest and over the people
with whom he had no blood relationship, all those who lived in that territory became his subjects.
Kinship remained no longer a bond of unity.
5. Economic:
Man has unlimited wants. He cannot satisfy them alone. He has to depend upon others to satisfy
his needs. So there is always give and take in society. Man is both selfish and selfless.
There are always disputes. State is born to regulate the economic relations between man and
man.
6. Political consciousness:
The sixth factor which contributed to the growth and development of the state was the slow rise
of political consciousness. It implies the recognition of certain ends of political consciousness. It
implies the recognition of certain ends to be attained through political organization.

At first the state came into existence merely as an idea, that is, it appeared in a subjective form,
without being a physical fact. In course of time, the supreme importance of maintaining peace
and order within the community and defending the country against any external aggression was
felt. It is here that political consciousness appears in the real form.
As Kilson put it, "The need for order and security is an ever present factor; man knows
instinctively that he can develop the best of which he is capable only by some form of political
organization.
At the beginning, it might well be that the political consciousness was really political
unconsciousness but just as the forces of nature operated long before the discovery of the law of
gravitation, political organization really rested on the community of minds, unconscious, dimly
conscious or fully conscious of certain moral ends present throughout the whole course of
development.'
With the growth of civilization and march of time, man has added to his needs. He requires the
cooperation of a large number of persons for the satisfaction of his wants. This, too, is no less an
incentive for leading a regulated life in his state.
We may conclude with Burgess that the state is the gradual and continuous development of
human society out of a grossly imperfect beginning through crude but improving forms of
manifestation towards a perfect and universal organization of mankind.
The historical theory of the origin of the state contains the best elements of the other theories of
origin of the state. It recognizes the merit of the theory of Divine Origin in as much as human
nature has a tendency towards political existence.
It also takes into account the idea of the force theory that force in one form or another has been
responsible for the establishment of states. The Social Contract Theory suggests that consent on
the part of the individual in the form of political consciousness has played an important part in
the organization of the state.
The Patriarchal and the Matriarchal theories suggest that kinship played a prominent role in the
evolution of the state.
Points to Remember
Various fallacious theories have been put forward to explain the origin of the state. A state is, in
fact, a slow process of growth and evolution. Various factors have contributed to its
development.
1. Social instinct:
Man is a social animal. Social instinct is deeply embedded in him. This instinct is to a great
extent responsible for the development of the State.

2. Kihship:
The earliest organizations were based on kinship or blood relationship. Family lies at the root of
the state. There is a controversy as to what sort of families were found in the primitive ages.
3. Religion:
Religion has contributed a lot to the process of state building. It gave unity to the primitive
people. Religion appeared in
various forms at different stages of history.
4. Force:
Force has also contributed to the process of state- building. History is replete with instances of
big states having been formed by occupation and conquest.
5. Political consciousness:
Man has multifarious needs for which he depends upon the co-operation and help of others. This
consciousness of self-insufficiency compels him to live in the state.
You May Also Like:

Morgan, Meclennan and Edward Jenks severely criticized the patriarchal theory. According to
them, patriarchal families were non existent in the primitive ages. A patriarchal family came into
existence only when the system of permanent marriage was established.
Permanent marriages were not found among the primitive people. There was a sort of sex
anarchy among them. Father was generally unknown. Kinship was traced through the mother.
Hence, the ancient social unit was not the patriarchal family, but the matriarchal one.
people in the primitive age were organized in tribes, hordes or bands. Edward Jenks illustrates
this process from his studies of primitive tribes in Australia. The Australian tribes, he says, were
organized in some sort of tribes known as totem group.
The totem groups were not organized on the basis of blood relationship but they were united by a
common symbol like a tree or an animal. People belonging to a totem will not inter-marry within
the totem. They would always marry the woman of another totem group.

Men of one totem group would marry all the women of their generation belonging to another
totem group. Thus the system of marriage would include polygamy as also polyandry. Kinship
and paternity in such cases cannot be determined. Maternity is a fact.
Edward Jenks points out that with the passage of time and beginning of pastoral stage in human
civilization, matriarchal society evolved into patriarchal one. In pastoral age, men recognized the
value of women's labor in tending sheep and cattle and so gradually realized the value of
permanently retaining women at home for the purpose and thus arose the institution of
permanent marriage.
With the institution of permanent marriages, the permanent families were founded. It was in the
pastoral age again that the tribes broke up into clans which broke up into gens and finally gens
broke up into individual families. The prevalence of queen in Malabar and the power of
princesses among the Marathas in the past may be cited as evidence in favor of the matriarchal
theory.

A state is an organized community living under a unified political system, the government.
States may be sovereign. The denomination state is also employed to federated states that are
members of a federal union, which is the sovereign state. Some states are subject to external
sovereignty or hegemony where ultimate sovereignty lies in another state. The state can also be
used to refer to the secular branches of government within a state, often as a manner of
contrasting them with churches and civilian institutions (civil society).

Definitional issues
There is no academic consensus on the most appropriate definition of the state. The term "state"
refers to a set of different, but interrelated and often overlapping, theories about a certain range
of political phenomena. The act of defining the term can be seen as part of an ideological
conflict, because different definitions lead to different theories of state function, and as a result
validate different political strategies.
The most commonly used definition is Max Weber's, which describes the state as a compulsory
political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate
use of force within a certain territory. General categories of state institutions include
administrative bureaucracies, legal systems, and military or religious organizations.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a state is "a an organized political community under
one government; a commonwealth; a nation. b such a community forming part of a federal
republic, esp the United States of America".[1]

Types of states

States may be classified as sovereign if they are not dependent on, or subject to any other power
or state. Other states are subject to external sovereignty or hegemony where ultimate sovereignty
lies in another state. Many states are federated states which participate in a federal union. A
federated state is a territorial and constitutional community forming part of a federation. Such
states differ from sovereign states, in that they have transferred a portion of their sovereign
powers to a federal government.
The state and government

The concept of the state can be distinguished from the concept of government. The government
is the particular group of people, the administrative bureaucracy, that controls the state apparatus
at a given time. That is, governments are the means through which state power is employed.
States are served by a continuous succession of different governments.
Each successive government is composed of a specialized and privileged body of individuals,
who monopolize political decision-making, and are separated by status and organization from the
population as a whole. Their function is to enforce existing laws, legislate new ones, and
arbitrate conflicts. In some societies, this group is often a self-perpetuating or hereditary class. In
other societies, such as democracies, the political roles remain, but there is frequent turnover of
the people actually filling the positions.
States and nation-states

States can also be distinguished from the concept of a "nation", which refers to a large
geographical area, and the people therein who perceive themselves as having a common identity.
The state and civil society

In the classical thought the state was identified with both political society and civil society as a
form of political community, while the modern thought distinguished the nation state as a
political society from civil society as a form of economic society. Thus in the modern thought the
state is contrasted with civil society.
The man versus the state

English philosopher, sociologist, biologist and writer Herbert Spencer wrote of the many aspects
of the character of the state as opposed to the character of man in his book The Man Versus The
State. In it, Spencer details almost a Shakespearean academic analysis of the standoff and the
consequences of interrelationships between the state and men who live under it.
Antonio Gramsci believed that civil society is the primary locus of political activity because it is
where all forms of "identity formation, ideological struggle, the activities of intellectuals, and the
construction of hegemony take place." and that civil society was the nexus connecting the
economic and political sphere. Arising out of the collective actions of civil society is what
Gramsci calls "political society", which Gramsci differentiates from the notion of the state as a

polity. He stated that politics was not a "one-way process of political management" but, rather,
that the activities of civil organizations conditioned the activities of political parties and state
institutions, and were conditioned by them in turn. Louis Althusser argued that civil
organizations such as church, schools, and the family are part of an "ideological state apparatus"
which complements the "repressive state apparatus" (such as police and military) in reproducing
social relations.
Jrgen Habermas, spoke of a public sphere that was distinct from both the economic and political
sphere.
Given the role that many social groups have in the development of public policy and the
extensive connections between state bureaucracies and other institutions, it has become
increasingly difficult to identify the boundaries of the state. Privatization, nationalization, and the
creation of new regulatory bodies also change the boundaries of the state in relation to society.
Often the nature of quasi-autonomous organizations is unclear, generating debate among political
scientists on whether they are part of the state or civil society. Some political scientists thus
prefer to speak of policy networks and decentralized governance in modern societies rather than
of state bureaucracies and direct state control over policy.

Theories of state function


Most political theories of the state can roughly be classified into two categories. The first are
known as "liberal" or "conservative" theories, which treat capitalism as a given, and then
concentrate on the function of states in capitalist society. These theories tend to see the state as a
neutral entity separated from society and the economy. Marxist theories on the other hand, see
politics as intimately tied in with economic relations, and emphasize the relation between
economic power and political power. They see the state as a partisan instrument that primarily
serves the interests of the upper class.
Anarchist

Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state immoral and instead promotes a
stateless society, or anarchy.
Anarchists believe that the state is inherently an instrument of domination and repression, no
matter who is in control of it. Unlike Marxists, anarchists believe that revolutionary seizure of
state power should not be a political goal. They believe instead that the state apparatus should be
completely dismantled, and an alternative set of social relations created, which are not based on
state power at all.
Various Christian anarchists, such as Jacques Ellul, have identified the State and political power
as the Beast in the Book of Revelation.

Marxist perspective

Marx and Engels were clear in that the communist goal was a classless society in which the state
would have "withered away". Their views are scattered throughout the Marx/Engels Collected
Works and address past or the then extant state forms from an analytical or tactical viewpoint,
not future social forms, speculation about which is generally anathema to groups considering
themselves Marxist but who, not having conquered the existing state power(s) are not in the
situation of supplying the institutional form of an actual society. To the extent that it makes
sense, there is no single "Marxist theory of state", but rather many different "Marxist" theories
that have been developed by adherents of Marxism.
Marx's early writings portrayed the state as "parasitic", built upon the superstructure of the
economy, and working against the public interest. He also wrote that the state mirrors class
relations in society in general, acts as a regulator and repressor of class struggle, and acts as a
tool of political power and domination for the ruling class. The Communist Manifesto claimed
that the state is nothing more than "a committee for managing the common affairs of the
bourgeoisie.
For Marxist theorists, the role of the non-socialist state is determined by its function in the global
capitalist order. Ralph Miliband argued that the ruling class uses the state as its instrument to
dominate society by virtue of the interpersonal ties between state officials and economic elites.
For Miliband, the state is dominated by an elite that comes from the same background as the
capitalist class. State officials therefore share the same interests as owners of capital and are
linked to them through a wide array of social, economic, and political ties.
Gramsci's theories of state emphasized that the state is only one of the institutions in society that
helps maintain the hegemony of the ruling class, and that state power is bolstered by the
ideological domination of the institutions of civil society, such as churches, schools, and mass
media.
Pluralism

Pluralists view society as a collection of individuals and groups, who are competing for political
power. They then view the state as a neutral body that simply enacts the will of whichever groups
dominate the electoral process. Within the pluralist tradition, Robert Dahl developed the theory
of the state as a neutral arena for contending interests or its agencies as simply another set of
interest groups. With power competitively arranged in society, state policy is a product of
recurrent bargaining. Although pluralism recognizes the existence of inequality, it asserts that all
groups have an opportunity to pressure the state. The pluralist approach suggests that the modern
democratic state's actions are the result of pressures applied by a variety of organized interests.
Dahl called this kind of state a polyarchy.

Pluralism has been challenged on the ground that it is not supported by empirical evidence.
Citing surveys showing that the large majority of people in high leadership positions are
members of the wealthy upper class, critics of pluralism claim that the state serves the interests
of the upper class rather than equitably serving the interests of all social groups.
Contemporary Critical Perspectives

Jrgen Habermas believed that the base-superstructure framework, used by many Marxist
theorists to describe the relation between the state and the economy, was overly simplistic. He
felt that the modern state plays a large role in structuring the economy, by regulating economic
activity and being a large-scale economic consumer/producer, and through its redistributive
welfare state activities. Because of the way these activities structure the economic framework,
Habermas felt that the state cannot be looked at as passively responding to economic class
interests.
Michel Foucault believed that modern political theory was too state-centric, saying "Maybe, after
all, the state is no more than a composite reality and a mythologized abstraction, whose
importance is a lot more limited than many of us think." He thought that political theory was
focusing too much on abstract institutions, and not enough on the actual practices of government.
In Foucault's opinion, the state had no essence. He believed that instead of trying to understand
the activities of governments by analyzing the properties of the state (a reified abstraction),
political theorists should be examining changes in the practice of government to understand
changes in the nature of the state.
Heavily influenced by Gramsci, Nicos Poulantzas, a Greek neo-Marxist theorist argued that
capitalist states do not always act on behalf of the ruling class, and when they do, it is not
necessarily the case because state officials consciously strive to do so, but because the 'structural'
position of the state is configured in such a way to ensure that the long-term interests of capital
are always dominant. Poulantzas' main contribution to the Marxist literature on the state was the
concept of 'relative autonomy' of the state. While Poulantzas' work on 'state autonomy' has
served to sharpen and specify a great deal of Marxist literature on the state, his own framework
came under criticism for its 'structural functionalism.'
State autonomy (institutionalism)

State autonomy theorists believe that the state is an entity that is impervious to external social
and economic influence, and has interests of its own.
"New institutionalist" writings on the state, such as the works of Theda Skocpol, suggest that
state actors are to an important degree autonomous. In other words, state personnel have interests
of their own, which they can and do pursue independently of (at times in conflict with) actors in
society. Since the state controls the means of coercion, and given the dependence of many groups

in civil society on the state for achieving any goals they may espouse, state personnel can to
some extent impose their own preferences on civil society.
G. William Domhoff claims that "The idea of the American state having any significant degree of
autonomy from the owners and managers of banks, corporations, and agribusinesses is a
theoretical mistake based in empirical inaccuracies," and cites empirical studies showing a high
degree of overlap between upper-level corporate management and high-level positions in
government.

Theories of state legitimacy


States generally rely on a claim to some form of political legitimacy in order to maintain
domination over their subjects.
Divine right

The rise of the modern state system was closely related to changes in political thought, especially
concerning the changing understanding of legitimate state power. Early modern defenders of
absolutism such as Thomas Hobbes and Jean Bodin undermined the doctrine of the divine right
of kings by arguing that the power of kings should be justified by reference to the people.
Hobbes in particular went further and argued that political power should be justified with
reference to the individual, not just to the people understood collectively. Both Hobbes and
Bodin thought they were defending the power of kings, not advocating democracy, but their
arguments about the nature of sovereignty were fiercely resisted by more traditional defenders of
the power of kings, like Sir Robert Filmer in England, who thought that such defenses ultimately
opened the way to more democratic claims.
Rational-legal authority

Max Weber identified three main sources of political legitimacy in his works. The first,
legitimacy based on traditional grounds is derived from a belief that things should be as they
have been in the past, and that those who defend these traditions have a legitimate claim to
power. The second, legitimacy based on charismatic leadership is devotion to a leader or group
that is viewed as exceptionally heroic or virtuous. The third is rational-legal authority, whereby
legitimacy is derived from the belief that a certain group has been placed in power in a legal
manner, and that their actions are justifiable according to a specific code of written laws. Weber
believed that the modern state is characterized primarily by appeals to rational-legal authority.

Etymology
The word state and its cognates in other European languages (stato in Italian, Estado in Spanish,
tat in French, Staat in German) ultimately derive from the Latin status, meaning "condition" or
"status."

With the revival of the Roman law in the 14th century in Europe, this Latin term was used to
refer to the legal standing of persons (such as the various "estates of the realm" - noble, common,
and clerical), and in particular the special status of the king. The word was also associated with
Roman ideas (dating back to Cicero) about the "status rei publicae", the "condition of public
matters". In time, the word lost its reference to particular social groups and became associated
with the legal order of the entire society and the apparatus of its enforcement.
In English, "state" is a contraction of the word "estate", which is similar to the old French estat
and the modern French tat, both of which signify that a person has status and therefore estate.
The highest estates, generally those with the most wealth and social rank, were those that held
power.
The early 16th century works of Machiavelli (especially The Prince) played a central role in
popularizing the use of the word "state" in something similar to its modern sense.

History
The earliest forms of the state emerged whenever it became possible to centralize power in a
durable way. Agriculture and writing are almost everywhere associated with this process:
agriculture because it allowed for the emergence of a class of people who did not have to spend
most of their time providing for their own subsistence, and writing (or the equivalent of writing,
like Inca quipus) because it made possible the centralization of vital information.
The first known states were created in Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, the Inca
civilization), and others, but it is only in relatively modern times that states have almost
completely displaced alternative "stateless" forms of political organization of societies all over
the planet. Roving bands of hunter-gatherers and even fairly sizable and complex tribal societies
based on herding or agriculture have existed without any full-time specialized state organization,
and these "stateless" forms of political organization have in fact prevailed for all of the prehistory
and much of the history of the human species and civilization.
Initially states emerged over territories built by conquest in which one culture, one set of ideals
and one set of laws have been imposed by force or threat over diverse nations by a civilian and
military bureaucracy. Currently, that is not always the case and there are multinational states,
federated states and autonomous areas within states.
Since the late 19th century, virtually the entirety of the world's inhabitable land has been
parcelled up into areas with more or less definite borders claimed by various states. Earlier, quite
large land areas had been either unclaimed or uninhabited, or inhabited by nomadic peoples who
were not organised as states. However, even within present-day states there are vast areas of
wilderness, like the Amazon Rainforest, which are uninhabited or inhabited solely or mostly by
indigenous people (and some of them remain uncontacted). Also, there are states which do not

hold de facto control over all of their claimed territory or where this control is challenged.
Currently the international community comprises around 200 sovereign states, the vast majority
of which are represented in the United Nations.
Pre-historic stateless societies

For most of human history, people have lived in stateless societies, characterized by a lack of
concentrated authority, and the absence of large inequalities in economic and political power.
The anthropologist Robert L. Carneiro comments:
"For 99.8 percent of human history people lived exclusively in autonomous
bands and villages. At the beginning of the Paleolithic [i.e. the stone age], the
number of these autonomous political units must have been small, but by
1000 B.C. it had increased to some 600,000. Then supra-village aggregation
began in earnest, and in barely three millenia the autonomous political units
of the world dropped from 600,000 to 157. In the light of this trend, the
continued decrease from 157 to 1 seems not only inescapable but close at
hand".

The anthropologist Tim Ingold writes:


"It is not enough to observe, in a now rather dated anthropological idiom, that
hunter gatherers live in 'stateless societies', as though their social lives were
somehow lacking or unfinished, waiting to be completed by the evolutionary
development of a state apparatus. Rather, the principal of their socialty, as
Pierre Clastres has put it, is fundamentally against the state."
The Neolithic period

During the Neolithic period, human societies underwent major cultural and economic changes,
including the development of agriculture, the formation of sedentary societies and fixed
settlements, increasing population densities, and the use of pottery and more complex tools.
Sedentary agriculture led to the development of property rights, patriarchal societies,
domestication of plants and animals, and larger family sizes. It also provided the basis for the
centralized state form by producing a large surplus of food, which created a more complex
division of labor by enabling people to specialize in tasks other than food production. Early
states were characterized by highly stratified societies, with a privileged and wealthy ruling class
that was subordinate to a monarch. The ruling classes began to differentiate themselves through
forms of architecture and other cultural practices that were different from those of the
subordinate laboring classes.
In the past, it was suggested that the centralized state was developed to administer large public
works systems (such as irrigation systems) and to regulate complex economies. However,

modern archaeological and anthropological evidence does not support this thesis, pointing to the
existence of several non-stratified and politically decentralized complex societies.
The state in ancient Eurasia

Mesopotamia is generally considered to be the location of the earliest civilization or complex


society, meaning that it contained cities, full-time division of labor, social concentration of
wealth into capital, unequal distribution of wealth, ruling classes, community ties based on
residency rather than kinship, long distance trade, monumental architecture, standardized forms
of art and culture, writing, and mathematics and science. It was the world's first literate
civilization, and formed the first sets of written laws. By the middle of the 4th millennium B.C.,
most Mesopotamian settlements were fortified, signifying that organized warfare was common.
The state in classical antiquity

Although primitive state-forms existed before the rise of the Ancient Greek empire, the Greeks
were the first people known to have explicitly formulated a political philosophy of the state, and
to have rationally analyzed political institutions. Prior to this, states were described and justified
in terms of religious myths.
Several important political innovations of classical antiquity came from the Greek city-states and
the Roman Republic. The Greek city-states before the 4th century granted citizenship rights to
their free population, and in Athens these rights were combined with a directly democratic form
of government that was to have a long afterlife in political thought and history.
The Feudal state

During Medieval times in Europe, the state was organized on the principle of feudalism, and the
relationship between lord and vassal became central to social organization. Feudalism led to the
development of greater social hierarchies.
The formalization of the struggles over taxation between the monarch and other elements of
society (especially the nobility and the cities) gave rise to what is now called the Standestaat, or
the state of Estates, characterized by parliaments in which key social groups negotiated with the
king about legal and economic matters. These estates of the realm sometimes evolved in the
direction of fully-fledged parliaments, but sometimes lost out in their struggles with the
monarch, leading to greater centralization of lawmaking and military power in his hands.
Beginning in the 15th century, this centralizing process gives rise to the absolutist state.
The modern state

Cultural and national homogenization figured prominently in the rise of the modern state system.
Since the absolutist period, states have largely been organized on a national basis. The concept of
a national state, however, is not synonymous with nation state. Even in the most ethnically
homogeneous societies there is not always a complete correspondence between state and nation,

hence the active role often taken by the state to promote nationalism through emphasis on shared
symbols and national identity.

Sovereignty of the Philippines


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Sovereignty of the Philippines refers to the status of the Philippine nation as an
Independent sovereign state. This article covers sovereignty transitions relating to the
Philippines, with particular emphasis on the passing of sovereignty from Spain to the United
States in the Treaty of Paris (1898), signed on December 10, 1898 to end the SpanishAmerican
War.
President of the United States William McKinley asserted U.S. sovereignty over the Philippines
on December 21, 1898 in his Benevolent Assimilation Proclamation.[1]
In March 1897 Emilio Aguinaldo, a leader of the Katipunan, had been elected President of a
revolutionary government at the Tejeros Convention.[2] That government had been meant to
replace the Katipunan, though the latter was not formally abolished until 1899. Aguinaldo was
again elected President at Biak-na-Bato in November 1897, leading the Biak-na-Bato Republic.
Exiled in Hong Kong after the Pact of Biak-na-Bato, he returned to the Philippines to renew
revolutionary activities with the advent of the Spanish-American War and, in May 1898, formed
a dictatorial government. In June 1898, Aguinaldo proclaimed independence from Spanish
sovereignty and transformed his dictatorial government into a revolutionary government. On
January 22, 1899 (subsequent to the signing of the Treaty of Paris) Aguinaldo's government was
constituted by the Malolos Congress and is called the Malolos Republic as well as the First
Philippine Republic (Spanish: Republica Filipina). Aguinaldo was again elected president in
January 1899, and attempted unsuccessfully to persuade other countries to recognize his nascent
government. Following the outbreak of general hostilities between U.S. and Filipino forces in
February 1899, the PhilippineAmerican War ensued. Aguinaldo's government effectively ceased
to exist on April 1, 1901, when he pledged allegiance to the United States after being captured by
U.S. forces in March of that year.
The Philippines continued as a U.S. territory until July 4, 1946, when the U.S. relinquished
sovereignty and recognized the independence of the Republic of the Philippines. The current
Philippine government considers Emilio Aguinaldo to have been the first President of the
Philippines and considers the Malolos Republic as the "First" Philippine Republic.[3]

Contents

1 Sovereignty

2 Spanish period

2.1 Early contact

2.2 Spanish conquest

2.3 Spanish rule

2.4 The Katipunan

3 SpanishAmerican War period


o

3.1 American hostilities, Aguinaldo's return, Dictatorial government

3.2 Philippine declaration of independence, Revolutionary government

3.3 Peace protocol, U.S. military government, Treaty of Paris

4 PhilippineAmerican War period


o

4.1 Dictatorial and Revolutionary governments

4.2 First Philippine Republic

5 U.S. civil government of the Philippines

6 Commonwealth period

7 Japanese occupation during World War II

8 Independence and sovereignty

9 Post-independence territorial changes

10 Independence Day holiday

11 Philippine Supreme Court statements regarding sovereignty

12 Disputes and challenges to sovereignty


o

12.1 Island of Palmas

12.2 Spratly Islands

12.3 Sabah and Palawan

13 See also

14 References

15 Bibliography

Sovereignty
Main articles: Sovereignty and Sovereign state

Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a territory. It can be
found in a power to rule and make law that rests on a political fact for which no purely legal
explanation can be provided.
A sovereign state is a political association with effective internal and external sovereignty over a
geographic area and population which is not dependent on, or subject to any other power or state.
As a practical matter, the question of sovereignty for the Philippines did not arise until near the
end of the 19th century. The constitutive theory of statehood was developed in the 19th century
to define what is and is not a state. With this theory, statehood depends on an entity's recognition
by other countries.[4]

Spanish period
Main article: History of the Philippines (15211898)
Early contact

Although they were not the first Europeans in the Philippines, the first well documented arrival
of western Europeans in the archipelago was the Spanish expedition led by Portuguese-born
Spanish explorer Ferdinand Magellan, which first sighted the mountains of Samar at dawn on 16
March 1521 (Spanish calendar). Magellan sought friendship among the natives beginning with
Humabon, the chieftain of Sugbu (now Cebu), and took special pride in converting them to
Catholicism. His involvement with the native tribes eventually led to his death on 27 April 1521
in the Battle of Mactan. After Magellan's voyage, subsequent Spanish expeditions were
dispatched to the islands and, in 1543, Ruy Lpez de Villalobos named the islands of Leyte and
Samar Las Islas Filipinas after Philip II of Spain.[5] The single surviving vessel from Magellan's
fleet, the Victoria, returned to Spain in 1522, after which Spain claimed dominion over the
Philippine archipelago on the basis of discovery, a valid mode of acquisition at the time.[6]

Spanish conquest

On April 27, 1565, Spanish Conquistadores attacked the defiant Rajah Tupas, who had succeeded
Rajah Humabon as king of Cebu.[7] Tupas was defeated and made to sign an agreement after his
defeat, effectively placing the Philippines under Spain. On February 8, 1597, King Philip II, near
the end of his 42 year reign, issued a Royal Cedula instructing to Francisco de Tello de Guzmn,
then Governor-General of the Philippines in severe terms to fulfill the laws of tributes and to
provide for restitution of ill-gotten taxes imposed on the natives. The Cedula also decreed an
undertaking by which the natives (referred to as Indians), "... freely render to me submission."
The decree was published in Manila on August 5, 1598. King Philip died on 13 September, just
forty days after the publication of the decree, but his death was not known in the Philippines until
middle of 1599, by which time a referendum by which the natives would acknowledge Spanish
rule was underway. With the completion of the Philippine referendum of 1599, Spain could be
said to have established legitimate sovereignty over the Philippines.[8]
Spanish rule

During Spain's 333 year rule in the Philippines, the colonists had to fight off the Chinese pirates
(who lay siege to Manila, the most famous of which was Limahong in 1574), Dutch forces, and
Portuguese forces. Moros from western Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago constantly raided
the coastal Christian areas of Luzon and the Visayas and occasionally brought home loot and fair
women. They often sold their captives as slaves. A British conquest of the Spanish Philippines
occurred during the Seven Years' War, with British occupation of the capital between 1762 and
1764. Also, there were a number of failed Philippine revolts during Spanish rule.
The Katipunan

On July 7, 1892, the night Filipino writer Jos Rizal was to be banished to Dapitan, Andrs
Bonifacio, Teodoro Plata, Ladislao Diwa, and others founded the Katipunan, a secret
organization opposed to Spanish rule. Its discovery in 1896 by the Spanish colonial government
led to the outbreak of Philippine Revolution.
An article on the website of the Philippine Government's National Commission for Culture and
the Arts asserts that the Katipunan became an "open de facto government" on 24 August 1896.[9]
Emilio Aguinaldo wrote that the Cabinet conferred on Bonifacio the title Haring Bayan
(Sovereign).[10] Filipino historian Gregario Zaide also wrote that the Katipunan was a government
by itself.[11] However, the Katipunan were not recognized by other countries as the legitimate
government of the Philippines.
At the Tejeros Convention held by the Katipunan on March 22, 1897, Emilio Aguinaldo was
elected to the office of President.[12] Bonifacio, as chairman of the convention and Supremo if the
Katipunan, voided the convention proceedings, but Aguinaldo (who had not been present at the
convention) took his oath of office as President the next day in Santa Cruz de Malabon (present-

day Tanza) in Cavite.[13] On November 1, 1897, a constitution written by Felix Ferrer and Isabelo
Archero established the Republic of Biak-na-Bato, with Aguinaldo as President.
On December 1415, 1897, the Pact of Biak-na-Bato suspended the revolution, with Aguinaldo
and other Katipunan leaders agreeing to go into voluntary exile abroad.[14] General Francisco
Makabulos of Tarlac, a Katipunan leader who did not go into exile, established the Central
Executive Committee, which was intended to be a provisional government "until a general
government in these islands shall again be established." This rebel government had a
constitution, popularly called the constitution of Makabulos, which provided for an executive
committee composed of a President, Vice President and Secretary of the Interior.[15]

SpanishAmerican War period


Main article: SpanishAmerican War
American hostilities, Aguinaldo's return, Dictatorial government

After the Philippines became a theater of operations in the SpanishAmerican War, with
hostilities commencing on May 1, 1898 with the Battle of Manila Bay, Aguinaldo and others
returned from exile to the Philippines in order to resume their revolution against the Spanish
colonial government. On May 24, in the wake of his military victories, Aguinaldo announced
that he was assuming "command of all the troops in the struggle for the attainment of our lofty
aspirations, inaugurating a dictatorial government to be administered by decrees promulgated
under my sole responsibility..." and issued a decree formally establishing a Dictatorial
Government. This was done under the authority of the Biak-na-Bato republic, nullifying orders
issued prior to the signing of the Pact of Biak-na-Bato and asserting that the Dictatorial
Government was temporary in nature, "... so that, when peace shall have been reestablished and
our legitimate aspiration for unrestricted liberty attained, it may be modified by the nation, in
which rests the principle of authority."[16]
Philippine declaration of independence, Revolutionary government

On June 12, 1898, the Philippine Declaration of Independence was proclaimed at an event led by
Emilio Aguinaldo in his mansion in Kawit, Cavite (this proclamation did not address the de jure
status of the Spanish colonial government, which continued to exist under the Spanish national
government then embroiled in the Spanish-American War).[17][18] On June 23, Aguinaldo issued a
decree replacing the Dictatorial Government with a Revolutionary Government.[19]
Peace protocol, U.S. military government, Treaty of Paris

On August 13, with American commanders unaware that a peace protocol had been signed in
Washington, D.C. between Spain and the United States on the previous day, American forces
captured the city of Manila from the Spanish.[20] The next day, August 14, the U.S. established a
military government in the Philippines, with Major General Wesley Merritt as the first military
governor.[21] General Merritt received news of the August 12 peace protocol on August 16, three
days after the surrender of Manila.[22]

As a consequence of its defeat, Spain transferred its rights over the Philippine archipelago to the
U.S., with the Philippines ceasing to be a colony of Spain and becoming a colony of the U.S.[23]
On December 10, 1898, the Treaty of Paris was signed between Spain and the United States,
ending the Spanish-American war. In article III of this treaty, Spain ceded the Philippines to the
United States.[24] Felipe Agoncillo, who had been assigned by Aguinaldo as Ambassador to the
United States, had traveled to Paris but had been refused admission to the conference. He worked
hard to prevent the ratification of the treaty by Spain, but failed. Returning to Paris, he sent a
message to Aguinaldo about the refusal of the United States and other foreign powers to
recognize the independence of the Philippines.[25]
During the entire time that the Filipino revolutionary movement developed as described above,
first under Bonifacio and later under Makabulos and Aguinaldo, the Philippines was under
Spanish sovereignty.[17] The Filipino revolutionary movement was an insurgency against the
Spanish colonial government,[26] and the various "governments" described above were insurgent
governments.[26]
By today's standards, a treaty of cession is void if it arises out of an act of annexation procured
by the threat or use of force. Although the 1898 annexation of the Philippines by the U.S. would
have been unlawful by todays standards, it does not follow that the U.S. claims of sovereignty
are unfounded. Under the doctrine of intertemporal law, a juridical fact must be appreciated in
light of the law contemporary with it, and not the law in force at the time when a dispute in
regard to it arises or falls to be settled. Thus, the legality of any act should be determined in
accordance with the law of the time the act was committed, and not by reference to law as it
might have become at a later date.[27] By the Westphalian sovereignty standards of the late 19th
century, the cessation of these territories by Spain to the U.S. was valid.[28]

PhilippineAmerican War period


Main article: PhilippineAmerican War
Dictatorial and Revolutionary governments

On June 18, 1898, Aguinaldo proclaimed a Dictatorial government.[29] Five days later, on June
23, he issued a decree changing its character to a revolutionary government.[30]
After proclaiming his Revolutionary government, Aguinaldo created diplomatic positions abroad
in order to persuade foreign powers to recognize Philippine independence and promulgated
decrees creating committees abroad for the purpose of carrying on propaganda activities. He
issued decrees on June 24 and August 10 establishing the Hongkong Junta whose members were
to represent the Philippines in different countries.[31] A 24 August decree created a revolutionary
committee in foreign countries.[32] Diplomatic agents were appointed for the U.S., Japan,
England, France, and Australia. The Paris Committee and Madrid Committee were created to
work for the recognition of Philippine independence by France and Spain.[31]

First Philippine Republic


Main article: History of the Philippines (15211898)

On January 22, 1899, the promulgation of the Malolos Constitution replaced Aguinaldo's
insurgent revolutionary government with the First Philippine Republic; also an insurgent
government, but insurgent against the United States instead of against Spain.
Felipe Agoncillo went to the U.S. to work for American recognition, but his attempts to secure an
official audience with U.S. President William McKinley failed. He sailed to Europe to appeal to
the American Peace Commissioners there to negotiate the Treaty of Paris, but failed in this as
well. He returned to the U.S. to fight the ratification of the treaty.[31] On February 4, 1899, with
Agoncillo in the U.S., general hostilities erupted between U.S. and Filipino forces, beginning
what later came to be known as the PhilippineAmerican War.[33] With the eruption of hostilities,
Agoncillo fled the U.S.[31]
That same day, Aguinaldo issued an order commanding "... That peace and friendly relations
with the Americans be broken and that the latter be treated as enemies, ..."[34] On March 30, U.S.
Forces captured Malolos, Bulacan, which had been the seat of Aguinaldo's various governments.
Meanwhile, Aguinaldo had evacuated and established new headquarters in San Isidro, Nueva
Ecija.[35] By June, Aguinaldo had moved his headquarters to Cabanatuan where, on June 2, a
Declaration of War on the United State was officially proclaimed.[36]
On March 23, 1901, after about two years of war, Aguinaldo was captured in Palanan, Isabela.
On April 1, 1901, Aguinaldo swore an oath accepting the authority of the United States over the
Philippines and pledging his allegiance to the American government.[37]

U.S. civil government of the Philippines


Main articles: History of the Philippines (15211898) and Taft Commission
Further information: History of the Philippines (1898-1946)#U.S. Territory (1901
1935)

After Aguinaldo swore allegiance to the U.S., the U.S. military government was replaced by a
civil government on July 4, 1901.[38]
Scattered fighting continued for some time but the U.S. enacted the Philippine Organic Act on
July 1, 1902 and, on July 4, U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed a full and complete
pardon and amnesty to all people in the Philippine archipelago who had participated in the
conflict, effectively ending the war.[39][40]
In 1916, the Philippine Autonomy Act, popularly known as the Jones Law, was passed by the
U.S. Congress. The law, which served as the new organic act (or constitution) for the Philippines,
stated in its preamble that the eventual independence of the Philippines would be American

policy, subject to the establishment of a stable government. The law maintained the Governor
General of the Philippines, appointed by the President of the United States, but established a
bicameral Philippine Legislature to replace the elected Philippine Assembly (lower house) and
appointive Philippine Commission (upper house) previously in place.[41]
Numerous independence bills were submitted to the U.S. Congress, and the HareHawes
Cutting Act became U.S. law on January 17, 1932. The law required the Philippine Senate
ratification, which was not forthcoming. Philippine President Quezon led a twelfth independence
mission to Washington to secure a better independence act. The result was the Tydings
McDuffie Act of 1934, which was ratified by the Philippine Senate. The law provided for the
granting of Philippine independence by 1946.[42]
The Tydings-McDuffie Act provided for the drafting and guidelines of a Constitution, for a 10year "transitional period" as the Commonwealth of the Philippines before the granting of
Philippine independence. On May 5, 1934, the Philippines legislature passed an act setting the
election of convention delegates. Governor General Frank Murphy designated July 10 as the
election date, and the convention held its inaugural session on July 30. The completed draft
constitution was approved by the convention on February 8, 1935, approved by U.S. President
Franklin Roosevelt on March 23, and ratified by popular vote on May 14. The first election
under the constitution was held on September 17, and on November 15, 1935 the
Commonwealth government was inaugurated.[43]

Commonwealth period
Main article: Commonwealth of the Philippines

The period 19351946 would ideally be devoted to the final adjustments required for a peaceful
transition to full independence, a great latitude in autonomy being granted in the meantime.
On May 14, 1935, an election to fill the newly created office of President of the Commonwealth
of the Philippines was won by Manuel L. Quezon (Nacionalista Party) and a Filipino government
was formed on the basis of principles superficially similar to the US Constitution. (See:
Philippine National Assembly).

Japanese occupation during World War II


Main article: Second Philippine Republic

A few hours after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the Japanese
launched air raids in several cities and US military installations in the Philippines on December
8, and on December 10, and Manila was occupied by the Japanese on January 2, 1942. The
Commonwealth government by then had become a Government in exile seated in Washington,
D.C., upon the invitation of U.S. President Roosevelt. Philippine President Manuel L. Quezon
had declared Manila, the capital, an "open city" and left it under the rule of Jorge B. Vargas, as

mayor. The Japanese entered the city on January 2, 1942 and established it as the capital. Japan
fully captured the Philippines on May 6, 1942, after the Battle of Corregidor. The Second
Philippine Republic was established on October 14, 1943 under Japanese occupation and
endured until the end of the war, it was repudiated and the government of the Commonwealth of
the Philippines restored.

Independence and sovereignty


Main article: Philippine independence

Philippine independence finally came on July 4, 1946, with the signing of the Treaty of Manila
between the governments of the United States and the Philippines. The treaty provided for the
recognition of the independence of the Republic of the Philippines and the relinquishment of
American sovereignty over the Philippine Islands.[44]
During the interim since the end of the 19th century, the constitutive theory of statehood had
given way to the declarative theory of statehood. A document that is often quoted on the matter is
the Montevideo Convention (1933), Article 1 of which states:
The state as a person of international law should possess the following
qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c)
government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Once the Treaty of Manila took effect, the Philippines, in possession of all these qualifications,
became an independent nation and a sovereign state.

Post-independence territorial changes


In 1961, the Philippines enacted Republic Act No. 3046 (RA3446), to define the baselines of the
territorial sea of the Philippines.[45] This Act was amended on September 18, 1968 by RA5446,[46]
and on March 10, 2009 by RA9522.[47]
Presidential Proclamation No. 1596 had asserted Philippine sovereignty over the Spratly Islands
on June 11, 1978.[48] RA9522 reasserted that, and also asserted Philippine sovereignty over
Scarborough Shoal.[47]
On 8 April 2009, the Philippines lodged a partial territorial waters claim with the United Nations
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (UNCLCS) in relation to the continental
shelf in the region of Benham Rise.[49] On 28 April 2012, Ramon Paje, director of the Philippine
Department of Environment and Natural Resources announced that the claim had been approved
by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).[50]

Independence Day holiday


From 1946 to 1961, July 4 (the anniversary date of the Treaty of Manila), was observed as
Independence Day. On 12 May 1962, Philippine President Diosdado Macapagal issued
Presidential proclamation No. 28, which declared Tuesday, June 12, 1962 (the anniversary date
of the 1898 Philippine Declaration of Independence) as a special public holiday throughout the
Philippines, "... in commemoration of our people's declaration of their inherent and inalienable
right to freedom and independence.[51]" On August 4, 1964, Republic Act No. 4166 renamed the
July 4 holiday as "Philippine Republic Day", proclaimed the twelfth day of June is as the
Philippine Independence Day, and enjoined all citizens of the Philippines to observe 12 June
with rites befitting Independence Day.[52]

Philippine Supreme Court statements regarding sovereignty


During the period when the military government exercised administrative control, the Taft
Commission (created on March 16, 1900) exercised legislative powers. On June 11, 1901, the
commission had passed the Judiciary Law (Act no. 126), vesting judicial power in the Supreme
Court, Courts of First Instance and Justice of the Peace courts.
At least two cases decided by the Philippine Supreme Court contain statements by the court
concerning the exchange of sovereignty between Spain and the United States.

In United States v. Smith, the Philippine Supreme Court wrote that a complete
separation of Church and State had been caused by the change of
sovereignty from Spain to the United States. [53]

In Philippines vs. Lo-Lo and Saraw, the court said, more clearly, "By the Treaty
of Paris, Spain ceded the Philippine Islands to the United States." [54]

Disputes and challenges to sovereignty


Island of Palmas
Main article: Miangas

The island of Palmas, also referred to as Miangas, is located in the Celebes Sea south of
Mindanao, at approximately 53330N, 1271253 E.[55][56] The island lies within the
geographical area described by Article III of the Treaty of Paris as encompassing the Philippine
archipelago and ceded by Spain to the U.S.[24] The Island of Palmas Case was a case involving a
territorial dispute between the Netherlands and the United States which was heard by the
Permanent Court of Arbitration. The arbitrator ruled on 4 April 1928 that the island forms in its
entirety a part of Netherlands territory.[57]
Spratly Islands
Main article: Spratly Islands

The Spratly Islands, also known as the Kalayaan Islands, are a group of more than 650 reefs,
islets, atolls, cays and islands in the South China Sea between the Philippines, China, Malaysia,
Brunei, and Vietnam. They comprise less than five square kilometers of land area, spread over
more than 400,000 square kilometers of sea. The islands lie within the geographical area
described by Article III of the Treaty of Paris as encompassing the Philippine archipelago and
ceded by Spain to the U.S.[24] A number of sovereignty disputes regarding these islands have
arisen, some of which remain unresolved as of 2009.
Sabah and Palawan
Main article: North Borneo dispute#Philippine Claim

Sabah is a Malaysian state located on the northern portion of the island of Borneo.[58] The
Philippines has a dormant claim over much of the eastern part of the territory. To date, Malaysia
continues to consistently reject Philippine calls to resolve the matter of Sabah's jurisdiction to the
International Court of Justice.[59] Also, territorial cessations made by the Sultan of Sulu have led
to sovereignty disputes over the Philippine island of Palawan.

This article presents a timeline of the sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines, showing
transitions of sovereignty over the Philippine archipelago. It also lists invasion attempts and
insurgency movements from the pre-Hispanic period to the present.[nb 1]

Contents

1 Timeline

2 See also

3 Notes

4 References

5 Bibliography

Timeline
Timeline of Philippine Sovereignty
Period
PreSpanish

Sovereign Entity
None

Invasions and Insurgencies


None

Philippines as an entity was

non-existent. Islands
comparable to Greece
composed of numerous
sovereign and independent
chiefdoms, several minor
kingdoms, and
thalassocracies such as the
Maguindanao, Confederation
of sultanates in Lanao and
Sulu who were all already
engaged in trading with the
Chinese, Japanese, Malays
and India.

Considered by Western
nations as territorium nullius
(an expression deriving from
Roman Law meaning "empty
land", or "land belonging to
no one").[1]

Spain
1521
1565

Ferdinand Magellan claimed None


the islands for Spain in 1521.
[2]

Spain

Miguel Lpez de Legazpi


forced the Treaty of Cebu on
Rajah Tupas, which
effectively gave Spain
suzerainty over Cebu.[3]

From Cebu, Legaspi


expanded Spanish rule
Further information: Philippine
across the Philippines, taking
revolts against Spain
possession of Manila for
[4]
Spain in 1571.

1565
1599

1599
1762

Dagami Revolt (1567), Manila


Revolt (1574), Pampangos
Revolt (1585), Conspiracy of
the Maharlikas (Luzon),
Revolts Against the Tribute
(1589), Magalat Revolt (1596)

Spain

Referendum of 1599
legitimised Spain's

Battles of La Naval de Manila,


a series of five naval battles
between Spanish and Dutch
forces in 1646.

Further information: Eighty Years'


War

sovereignty.[5]

Igorot Revolt (1601), Chinese


revolt of 1602, Irraya Revolt
(1621), Tamblot Revolt (16211622), Bankaw Revolt (1621
1622), Isneg Revolt (1625
1627), Cagayan Revolt (1639),
Ladia Revolt (1643), Zambales
Revolt (1645), Pampanga
Revolt (1645), Sumuroy Revolt
(164950), Pintados Revolt
(16491650), Zambal Revolt
(1660), Maniago Revolt (1660),
Malong Revolt (16601661),
Ilocano Revolt (1661), Chinese
revolt of 1662, Panay Revolt
(1663), Sambal Revolt (1681
1683), Tingco plot (1686),
Rivera Revolt (1718),
Magtanaga Revolt (1718),
Caragay Revolt (1719),
Dagohoy Rebellion (17441829), Agrarian Revolt (1745
1746)

Further information: Philippine


revolts against Spain
In dispute between Britain and
Spain.

1762
1764

1764
1872

Silang Revolt (176263),


Palaris Revolt (1762-1765),
Camarines Revolt (1762
1764), Cebu Revolt (1762
1764), Dabo and Marayac
Revolt (1763), Isabela Revolt
(1763)

The British Occupation


happened between 1762 and
1764 during the Seven Years'
War. Only the colonial capital
of Manila and the nearby
principal port of Cavite were Further information: Philippine
taken by the British.
revolts against Spain

Spain

Lagutao Revolt (1785), Ilocos


Norte Revolt (1788),
Magtanong and Malibiran
Revolt (1787), Nueva Vizcaya
Revolt (1805), Ambaristo
Revolt (1807), Ilocos Norte

Revolt (1811), Sarat Revolt


(1815), Bayot Revolt (1822),
Novales Mutiny (1823), Parang
and Upay Revolt (18221835),
Pule Revolt (18401841),
Camerino Revolt (18651869),
Labios Revolt (18701871),
Cavite Mutiny (1872)
Further information: Philippine
revolts against Spain
1872
1892

Spain

August
Spain
1892
Novembe
r 1897

The Katipunan

The group, formed in 1892,


became an insurgent
revolutionary movement in
August. The exact date is
disputed, held to be either on
13 August with the tearing of
cedulas or on 24 August with
the "Cry of Pugad Lawin".[6]
This begins what is generally
called the Philippine
Revolution.

January 1895 - Andrs


Bonifacio assumes Supreme
Presidency of the Katipunan.

August 1896 - The Katipunan


Supreme Council was
reorganised into a "cabinet" of
an insurgent revolutionary
government. The Katipunan
and its successor insurgent
movements regarded
themselves as legitimate
governments from this point
onwards.[7][8]
o

25 August - Andrs
Bonifacio is elected
Supremo/President of

the Katipunan.

March 1897 - Emilio Aguinaldo


is elected President by
Katipunan attendees of the
Tejeros Convention. He was
sworn in and assumed the
office despite Bonifacio having
annulled the convention
proceedings.[9]

The Republic of Biak-na-Bato

Novembe
r 1897
Spain
Decembe
r 1897

Established as an insurgent
constitutional republic on
November 2, 1897, with
Aguinaldo as President. This
insurgent government had a
constitution, President, Vice
President, etc., and succeeded
the Katipunan Insurgency.

None
Decembe
r 1897 Spain
April 1898

14 December 1897 - Signing


of the Pact of Biak-na-Bato,
suspending the insurgency.
Aguinaldo and other insurgent
leaders went into voluntary
overseas exile.

Central Executive Committee

April 1898
May
Spain
1898

May 1898 Spain

April 1898 - General Francisco


Makabulos forms the insurgent
General Executive Committee
of Northern Luzon, intended to
be a provisional government
"until a general government of
the Republic in these islands
shall again be established."
This insurgent government
had a constitution, President,
Vice President, etc.[10][11]

Unofficial dictatorial government

headed by Aguinaldo

1 May 1898 - Hostilities


between the U.S. and Spain
commenced in the Philippines.
[12]

June 18,
1898

19 May - Aguinaldo
returns to the
Philippines.[13]

o 24 May - Aguinaldo

announces in Cavite, "...


I return to assume
command of all the
forces for the
attainment of our lofty
aspirations, establishing
a dictatorial
government which will
set forth decrees under
my sole
responsibility, ..."[14]

Official dictatorial government


headed by Aguinaldo
June 18,
1898
June 23,
1898

12 June 1898 - Independence


is proclaimed in Kawit by the
Dictatorial Government of the
Philippines.[15]

18 June - Aguinaldo proclaims


dictatorial government.[16]

Spain

June 23,
1898
Spain
August
14, 1898

August
In dispute between the U.S. and
14, 1898 Spain

Decembe

Revolutionary government headed


by Aguinaldo

23 June 1899 - Aguinaldo


issues proclamation replacing
his dictatorial government
with a revolutionary one.[17]

Revolutionary government headed


by Aguinaldo


r 10,
1898

14 August 1898 - The day


after the surrender of Manila
to their forces, General
Wesley Merritt established a
military government over
portions of the country under
American control.[18]

United States

Decembe
r 10,
1898
January
22, 1899

10 December 1898 - Spain


cedes the Philippines to the
United States.[19]

1/2 January 1899 - Acting


Spanish Governor-General
Diego de los Ros returns to
Manila from Zamboanga.[20]

o 4 January - U.S.

Revolutionary government headed


by Aguinaldo

General Elwell Otis


issues proclamation
announcing the United
States as having
obtained possession
and control of all of
the Philippines from
the Spanish.[21]
Malolos Republic

January
22, 1899
United States
April 11,
1899

April 11,
1899

United States

22 January 1899 Promulgation of the Malolos


Constitution. Replaces
Aguinaldo's insurgent
revolutionary government with
the Malolos Republic, also
known as the First Philippine
Republic, with Aguinaldo as
President.[22] Although the
republic never received foreign
recognition, Filipinos consider
Aguinaldo to be the first
president.[23]

Malolos Republic

6 February 1899 - Treaty of


Paris is ratified by the U.S.
Senate.[24]

19 March - Treaty of Paris is


ratified by the Queen-Regent
of Spain.[24]

11 April - Following exchange


of treaty ratifications
between the U.S. and Spain,
the Philippines became an
Unincorporated Territory of
the United States.[24]

June 2,
1899

In dispute between United States


and the Malolos Republic

June 2,
1899
April 19,
1901

April 19,
1901
1902

On June 2, 1899, undeclared


general hostilities between
U.S. and Philippine forces
having been ongoing since
February 4, the Malolos
Republic promulgated a
Declaration of War against
the United States,[25] thereby
officially beginning the
PhilippineAmerican War.

Emilio Aguinaldo, President


of the Malolos Republic, was
captured by U.S. Forces on
March 23, 1901.

Aguinaldo signed a formal


surrender document on April
19, 1901, acknowledging
and accepting the
sovereignty of the United
States throughout the entire
archipelago.[26]

United States

None

No organized insurgency.

Several groups collectively


known as Irreconcilables
continued fighting the United

States military, the Philippine


Scouts, or the Philippine
Constabulary. These included
remnants of the Katipunan and
other resistance groups.
Tagalog Republic

1902
1907

In 1902, General Macario


Sakay, a veteran Katipunan
member, established his own
Tagalog Republic (Tagalog:
Repblik ngg Katagalugan),
and held the presidency with
Francisco Carren as vice
president. In April 1904, Sakay
issued a manifesto declaring
Filipino right to selfdetermination at a time when
support for independence was
considered a crime by the
American occupation forces in
the Philippines.[27]

The republic ended in 1907


when Sakay and his leading
followers were arrested and
executed by the American
authorities as bandits.[28]

United States

No organized insurgency
1907
1913

United States

1913
1935

United States

None

United States

None

1935
1941

The Commonwealth of the


Philippines, still under U.S.
sovereignty, was
inaugurated on November
15, 1935. The enabling
legislation, the Tydings
McDuffie Act, provided for a

Scattered resistance to U.S.


rule continued.

ten-year period of peaceful


transition to full
independence.
In dispute between the United
States/Commonwealth of the
Philippines and Japan/Republic of
the Philippines
1941
March 29,
1942

Japan invaded the Philippines None


on 8 December 1941.

Philippine Executive
Commission, provisional
government

In dispute between the United


States/Commonwealth of the
Philippines and Japan/Republic of
the Philippines

Japanese forces occupied the


country between 1942 and Hukbalahap
1945.

During the occupation


period, the Philippines
Commonwealth maintained a
Government in Exile in
Australia and, later, in
Washington, D.C.[29]

There was a Second


Philippine Republic, which
was declared independent in
1942.

An Allied campaign to defeat


Japanese forces commenced
on October 20, 1944 and
hostilities continued until the
war's end with the Japanese
surrender in August 1945.

March 29,
1942
Septembe
r 2, 1945

Septembe United States


r 2, 1945

On March 29, 1942, peasant


leaders determined to oppose
the Japanese invasion met in a
forest clearing at the junction
of the provinces of Tarlac,
Pampanga, and Nueva Ecija to
organize a resistance
movement against the
Japanese invaders. The
movement was designated
Hukb ng Bayan Laban sa
Hapn, or Hukbalahap.[30]

Hukbalahap

July 4,
1946

On September 2, 1945,
representatives of the
Empire of Japan signed the
Japanese Instrument of
Surrender. The instrument
contained language explicitly
accepting the Potsdam
Declaration, which contained
language limiting Japanese
sovereignty to the four main
Japanese islands and other
minor islands as might be
determined.
Hukbalahap[32]

Republic of the Philippines


July 4,
1946
1954

1954
Present

On July 4, 1946, the United


States recognized the
independence of the
Republic of the Philippines as
a separate self-governing
nation.[31]

Republic of the Philippines

On May 17, 1954, Luis Taruc,


leader of the Hukbalahap
movement, surrendered
unconditionally and
announced that he
"unreservedly recognized the
authority of president
Magsaysay and the
sovereignty of the republic of
the Philippines."[33]

None

The history of the Philippines is believed to have begun with the arrival of the first humans
using rafts or primitive boats, at least 67,000 years ago as the 2007 discovery of Callao Man
showed.[1] The first recorded visit from the West is the arrival of Ferdinand Magellan, who
sighted the island of Samar Island on March 16, 1521 and landed on Homonhon Island (now part
of Guiuan, Eastern Samar province) the next day. Homonhon Island is southeast of Samar Island.
[2]

Before Magellan arrived, Negrito tribes inhabited the isles, who were subsequently joined and
largely supplanted by migrating groups of Austronesians. This population had stratified into
hunter-gatherer tribes, warrior societies, petty plutocracies and maritime-oriented harbor
principalities which eventually grew into kingdoms, rajahnates, principalities, confederations and

sultanates. Iron Age finds in Philippines also point to the existence of trade between Tamil Nadu
and the Philippine Islands during the ninth and tenth centuries B.C.[3] States included the
Indianized Rajahnate of Butuan and Cebu, the dynasty of Tondo, the august kingdoms of
Maysapan and Maynila, the Confederation of Madyaas, the sinified Country of Mai, as well as
the Muslim Sultanates of Sulu and Maguindanao. These small maritime states flourished from as
early as the 1st Millennium.[4][5] These kingdoms traded with what are now called China, India,
Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, and Indonesia.[6] The remainder of the settlements were independent
Barangays allied with one of the larger states. The "balangay" or "barangay" represented an
independent community in the Archipelago ruled by a "Datu". There were, however, instances
where a Datu of a certain barangay was aided by a council of elders in running the affairs of the
barangay similar to privy councils of European monarchs. In that patriarchal society, the Datu
and his family constituted the highest authority in the barangay and were therefore considered
the equivalent of European monarchs. His rule was absolute. He dispensed justice and declared
war against other barangays. Therefore, at the apex of pre-Spanish nobility in the Philippine
Archipelago, was the Datu the term commonly use by the Tagalogs. In Mindanao, Sultan and
Rajah were used accordingly for the highest chief of their respective communities.
Spanish colonization and settlement began with the arrival of Miguel Lpez de Legazpi's
expedition on February 13, 1565 who established the first permanent settlement of San Miguel
on the island of Cebu.[7] The expedition continued northward reaching the bay of Manila on the
island of Luzon on June 24, 1571,[8] where they established a new town and thus began an era of
Spanish colonization that lasted for more than three centuries.[9]
Spanish rule achieved the political unification of almost the whole archipelago, that previously
had been composed by independent kingdoms and communities, pushing back south the
advancing Islamic forces and creating the first draft of the nation that was to be known as the
Philippines. Spain also introduced Christianity, the code of law, the oldest Universities and the
first public education system in Asia, the western European version of printing, the Gregorian
calendar and invested heavily on all kinds of modern infrastructures, such as train networks and
modern bridges.
The Spanish East Indies were ruled as part of the Viceroyalty of New Spain and administered
from Mexico City from 1565 to 1821, and administered directly from Madrid, Spain from 1821
until the end of the SpanishAmerican War in 1898, except for a brief period of British rule from
1762 to 1764. During the Spanish period, numerous towns were founded, infrastructures built,
new crops and livestock introduced. The Chinese, British, Portuguese, Dutch, Japanese, and
indigenous traders, complained that the Spanish reduced trade by attempting to enforce a Spanish
monopoly. Spanish missionaries attempted to convert the population to Christianity and were
eventually generally successful in the northern and central lowlands. They founded schools, a
university, and some hospitals, principally in Manila and the largest Spanish fort settlements.
Universal education was made free for all Filipino subjects in 1863 and remained so until the end

of the Spanish colonial era. This measure was at the vanguard of contemporary Asian countries,
and led to an important class of educated natives, like Jos Rizal. Ironically, it was during the
initial years of American occupation in the early 20th century, that Spanish literature and press
flourished.
The Philippine Revolution against Spain began in August 1896, culminating two years later with
a proclamation of independence and the establishment of the First Philippine Republic. However,
the Treaty of Paris, at the end of the SpanishAmerican War, transferred control of the
Philippines to the United States. This agreement was not recognized by the insurgent First
Philippine Republic Government which, on June 2, 1899, proclaimed a Declaration of War
against the United States.[10] The PhilippineAmerican War which ensued resulted in massive
casualties.[11] Philippine president Emilio Aguinaldo was captured in 1901 and the U.S.
government declared the conflict officially over in 1902. The Filipino leaders, for the most part,
accepted that the Americans had won, but hostilities continued and only began to decline in
1913, leaving a total number of casualties on the Filipino side of more than one million dead,
many of them civilians.[12][13]
The U.S. had established a military government in the Philippines on August 14, 1898, following
the capture of Manila.[14] Civil government was inaugurated on July 1, 1901.[15] An elected
Philippine Assembly was convened in 1907 as the lower house of a bicameral legislature.[15]
Commonwealth status was granted in 1935, preparatory to a planned full independence from the
United States in 1946.[16] Preparation for a fully sovereign state was interrupted by the Japanese
occupation of the islands during World War II.[17] After the end of the war, the Treaty of Manila
established the Philippine Republic as an independent nation.[18]
With a promising economy in the 1950s and 1960s, the Philippines in the late 1960s and early
1970s saw a rise of student activism and civil unrest against President Ferdinand Marcos who
declared martial law in 1972.[citation needed] The peaceful and bloodless People Power Revolution of
1986, however, brought about the ousting of Marcos and a return to democracy for the country.
The period since then, however, has been marked by political instability and hampered economic
productivity.

Contents

1 Prehistory

2 Classical States (900 AD to 1521)

2.1 Initial recorded history

2.2 The Kingdom of Tondo

2.3 The Rajahnate of Butuan

2.4 The Rajahnate of Cebu

2.5 The Confederation of Madja-as

2.6 The Country of Mai

2.7 The Sultanate of Sulu

2.8 The Sultanate of Maguindanao

2.9 The expansion of Islam

3 Spanish settlement and rule (15651898)


o

3.1 Early Spanish expeditions and conquests

3.2 Spanish settlement during the 16th and 17th centuries

3.3 Spanish rule during the 18th century

3.3.1 British invasion (17621764)

3.3.2 Spanish rule in the second part of the 18th century

3.4 Spanish rule during the 19th century

3.5 Philippine Revolution

4 American rule (18981946)


o

4.1 PhilippineAmerican War

4.2 Insular Government (19021935)

4.3 Commonwealth

4.4 World War II and Japanese occupation

5 Independent Philippines and the Third Republic (19461975)


o

5.1 Administration of Manuel Roxas (19461948)

5.2 Administration of Elpidio Quirino (19481953)

5.3 Administration of Ramon Magsaysay (19531957)

5.4 Administration of Carlos P. Garcia (19571961)

5.5 Administration of Diosdado Macapagal (19611965)

5.5.1 Land Reform Code

5.5.2 MAPHILINDO

6 Marcos era and martial law (19651986)


o

6.1 Martial law

6.2 Fourth Republic

7 Fifth Republic (1986present)


o

7.1 Administration of Corazon C. Aquino (19861992)

7.2 Administration of Fidel V. Ramos (19921998)

7.3 Administration of Joseph Estrada (19982001)

7.4 Administration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (20012010)

7.5 Administration of Benigno Aquino III

8 See also

9 Notes

10 References

11 Further reading

12 External links

Prehistory
Main article: Prehistory of the Philippines

An Ati woman in Boracay

The earliest archeological evidence for man in the archipelago is the 67,000-year-old Callao Man
of Cagayan and the Angono Petroglyphs in Rizal, both of whom appear to suggest the presence
of human settlement prior to the arrival of the Negritos and Austronesian speaking people.[19][20]
[21][22][23]

There are several opposing theories regarding the origins of ancient Filipinos. F. Landa Jocano
theorizes that the ancestors of the Filipinos evolved locally. Wilhelm Solheim's Island Origin
Theory[24] postulates that the peopling of the archipelago transpired via trade networks
originating in the antediluvian Sundaland area around 48000 to 5000 BCE rather than by widescale migration. The Austronesian Expansion Theory states that Malayo-Polynesians coming
from Taiwan began migrating to the Philippines around 4000 BCE, displacing earlier arrivals.[25]
[26]

The Negritos were early settlers but their appearance in the Philippines has not been reliably
dated.[27] and they were followed by speakers of the Malayo-Polynesian languages, a branch of
the Austronesian languages, who began to arrive in successive waves beginning about 4000 BC,
displacing the earlier arrivals.[28][29]
By 1000 BC the inhabitants of the Philippine archipelago had developed into four distinct kinds
of peoples: tribal groups, such as the Aetas, Hanunoo, Ilongots and the Mangyan who depended
on hunter-gathering and were concentrated in forests; warrior societies, such as the Isneg and

Kalinga who practiced social ranking and ritualized warfare and roamed the plains; the petty
plutocracy of the Ifugao Cordillera Highlanders, who occupied the mountain ranges of Luzon;
and the harbor principalities of the estuarine civilizations that grew along rivers and seashores
while participating in trans-island maritime trade.[30]
Around 300700 CE the seafaring peoples of the islands traveling in balangays began to trade
with the Indianized kingdoms in the Malay Archipelago and the nearby East Asian principalities,
adopting influences from both Buddhism and Hinduism.[31][32][unreliable source?]

Classical States (900 AD to 1521)


Main article: History of the Philippines (9001521)
Initial recorded history

The Laguna Copperplate Inscription: The oldest known legal document from the
Dynasty of Tondo.

The end of Philippine prehistory is April 21[33] 900 AD,[34] the date inscribed in the oldest
Philippine document found so far, the Laguna Copperplate Inscription. From the details of the
document, written in Kawi script, the bearer of a debt, Namwaran, along with his children Lady
Angkatan and Bukah, are cleared of a debt by the ruler of Tondo. From the various Sanskrit
terms and titles seen in the document, the culture and society of Manila Bay was that of a Hindu
Old Malay amalgamation, similar to the cultures of Java, Peninsular Malaysia and Sumatra at the
time. There are no other significant documents from this period of pre-Hispanic Philippine
society and culture until the Doctrina Christiana of the late 16th century, written at the start of the
Spanish period in both native Baybayin script and Spanish. Other artifacts with Kawi script and
baybayin were found, such as an Ivory seal from Butuan dated to the early 11th century[35] and
the Calatagan pot with baybayin inscription, dated to the 13th century.[36]
In the years leading up to 1000 CE, there were already several maritime societies existing in the
islands but there was no unifying political state encompassing the entire Philippine archipelago.
Instead, the region was dotted by numerous semi-autonomous barangays (settlements ranging in
size from villages to city-states) under the sovereignty of competing thalassocracies ruled by
datus, rajahs or sultans[37] or by upland agricultural societies ruled by "petty plutocrats". States

such as the Kingdom of Maynila, the Kingdom of Taytay in Palawan (mentioned by Pigafetta to
be where they resupllied when the remaining ships escaped Cebu after Magellan was slain), the
Chieftaincy of Coron Island ruled by fierce warriors called Tagbanua as reported by Spanish
missionaries mentioned by Nilo S. Ocampo,[38] Namayan, the Dynasty of Tondo, the
Confederation of Madyaas, the rajahnates of Butuan and Cebu and the sultanates of
Maguindanao and Sulu existed alongside the highland societies of the Ifugao and Mangyan.[39][40]
[41][42]
Some of these regions were part of the Malayan empires of Srivijaya, Majapahit and
Brunei.[43][44][45]
The Kingdom of Tondo
Main article: Kingdom of Tondo

Flag of Lakan Dula

Since at least the year 900, the thalassocracy centered in Manila Bay flourished via an active
trade with Chinese, Japanese, Malays, and various other peoples in East Asia. Tondo thrived as
the capital and the seat of power of this ancient kingdom, which was led by kings under the title
"Lakan" and ruled a large part of what is now known as Luzon from or possibly before 900 AD
to 1571. During its existence, it grew to become one of the most prominent and wealthy kingdom
states in pre-colonial Philippines due to heavy trade and connections with several neighboring
nations such as China and Japan. In 900 AD, the lord-minister Jayadewa presented a document
of debt forgiveness to Lady Angkatan and her brother Bukah, the children of Namwaran. This is
described in the Philippine's oldest known document, the Laguna Copperplate Inscription.[46]
The Rajahnate of Butuan
Main article: Kingdom of Butuan

By year 1011 Rajah Sri Bata Shaja, the monarch of the Indianized Rajahnate of Butuan, a
maritime-state famous for its goldwork[47] sent a trade envoy under ambassador Likan-shieh to
the Chinese Imperial Court demanding equal diplomatic status with other states.[48] The request
being approved, it opened up direct commercial links with the Rajahnate of Butuan and the
Chinese Empire thereby diminishing the monopoly on Chinese trade previously enjoyed by their
rivals the Dynasty of Tondo and the Champa civilization.[49] Evidence of the existence of this
rajahnate is given by the Butuan Silver Paleograph.[50]

A golden statuette of the Hindu-Buddhist goddess "Kinari" found in an archeological


dig in Esperanza, Agusan del Sur.
The Rajahnate of Cebu
Main article: Rajahnate of Cebu

The Rajahnate of Cebu was a classical Philippine state which used to exist on Cebu island prior
to the arrival of the Spanish. It was founded by Sri Lumay otherwise known as Rajamuda
Lumaya, a minor prince of the Chola dynasty which happened to occupy Sumatra. He was sent
by the maharajah to establish a base for expeditionary forces to subdue the local kingdoms but he
rebelled and established his own independent Rajahnate instead. This rajahnate warred against
the 'magalos' (Slave traders) of Maguindanao and had an alliance with the Butuan Rajahnate
before it was weakened by the insurrection of Datu (Lord) Lapulapu.[51]
The Confederation of Madja-as
Main article: Confederation of Madja-as

During the 11th century several exiled datus of the collapsing empire of Srivijaya[52] led by Datu
Puti led a mass migration to the central islands of the Philippines, fleeing from Rajah Makatunao
of the island of Borneo. Upon reaching the island of Panay and purchasing the island from
Negrito chieftain Marikudo, they established a confederation of polities and named it the
Confederation of Madja-as centered in Aklan and they settled the surrounding islands of the
Visayas. This confederation reached its peak under Datu Padojinog. During his reign the
confederations' hegemony extended over most of the islands of Visayas. Its people consistently
made piratical attacks against Chinese imperial shipping.[53]
The Country of Mai
Main article: Country of Mai

Around 1225, the Country of Mai, a Sinified pre-Hispanic Philippine island-state centered in
Mindoro,[54] flourished as an entrepot, attracting traders & shipping from the Kingdom of Ryukyu
to the Yamato Empire of Japan.[55] Chao Jukua, a customs inspector in Fukien province, China
wrote the Zhufan Zhi ("Description of the Barbarous Peoples"[56]), which described trade with
this pre-colonial Philippine state.[57]

The Sultanate of Sulu


Main article: Sultanate of Sulu

The official flag of the Royal Sultanate of Sulu under the guidance of Ampun Sultan
Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram of Sulu.

In 1380, Karim ul' Makdum and Shari'ful Hashem Syed Abu Bakr, an Arab trader born in Johore,
arrived in Sulu from Malacca and established the Sultanate of Sulu. This sultanate eventually
gained great wealth due to its manufacture of fine pearls.[58]
The Sultanate of Maguindanao
Main article: Sultanate of Maguindanao

At the end of the 15th century, Shariff Mohammed Kabungsuwan of Johor introduced Islam in
the island of Mindanao and he subsequently married Paramisuli, an Iranun Princess from
Mindanao, and established the Sultanate of Maguindanao.[59] By the 16th century, Islam had
spread to other parts of the Visayas and Luzon.
The expansion of Islam

The Islamic center in Marawi city.

During the reign of Sultan Bolkiah in 1485 to 1521, the Sultanate of Brunei decided to break the
Dynasty of Tondo's monopoly in the China trade by attacking Tondo and establishing the state of

Selurong (now Manila) as a Bruneian satellite-state.[60][61] A new dynasty under the Islamized
Rajah Salalila[62] was also established to challenge the House of Lakandula in Tondo.[63] Islam
was further strengthened by the arrival to the Philippines of traders and proselytizers from
Malaysia and Indonesia.[64] The multiple states competing over the limited territory and people of
the islands simplified Spanish colonization by allowing its conquistadors to effectively employ a
strategy of divide and conquer for rapid conquest.

Spanish settlement and rule (15651898)


Main article: History of the Philippines (15211898)
Early Spanish expeditions and conquests
Main article: Spanish-Moro Conflict

Ferdinand Magellan arrived in the Philippines in 1521.

Parts of the Philippine Islands were known to Europeans before the 1521 Spanish expedition
around the world led by Portuguese-born Spanish explorer Ferdinand Magellan, who were not
the first Europeans in the Philippines.[clarification needed] Magellan landed on the island called
Homonhon, claiming the islands he saw for Spain, and naming them Islas de San Lzaro.[65] He
established friendly relations with some of the local leaders especially with Rajah Humabon and
converted some of them to Roman Catholicism.[65] In the Philippines, they explored many islands
including the island of Mactan. However, Magellan was killed during the Battle of Mactan
against the datu Lapu-Lapu.
Over the next several decades, other Spanish expeditions were dispatched to the islands. In 1543,
Ruy Lpez de Villalobos led an expedition to the islands and gave the name Las Islas Filipinas
(after Philip II of Spain) to the islands of Samar and Leyte.[66] The name was extended to the
entire archipelago in the twentieth century.

A late 17th-century manuscript by Gaspar de San Agustin from the Archive of the
Indies, depicting Lpez de Legazpi's conquest of the Philippines

European colonization began in earnest when Spanish explorer Miguel Lpez de Legazpi arrived
from Mexico in 1565 and formed the first European settlements in Cebu. Beginning with just
five ships and five hundred men accompanied by Augustinian monks, and further strengthened in
1567 by two hundred soldiers, he was able to repel the Portuguese and create the foundations for
the colonization of the Archipelago. In 1571, the Spanish occupied the kingdoms of Maynila and
Tondo and established Manila as the capital of the Spanish East Indies.[67][68]
Legazpi built a fort in Maynila and made overtures of friendship to Rajah Lakandula of Tondo,
who accepted. However, Maynila's former ruler, Rajah Sulaiman, refused to submit to Legazpi,
but failed to get the support of Lakandula or of the Pampangan and Pangasinan settlements to the
north. When Sulaiman and a force of Filipino warriors attacked the Spaniards in the battle of
Bangcusay, he was finally defeated and killed.
In 1587, Magat Salamat, one of the children of Lakan Dula, Lakan Dula's nephew, and the lords
of the neighboring areas of Tondo, Pandacan, Marikina, Candaba, Navotas and Bulacan were
executed when the Tondo Conspiracy of 15871588 failed[69] in which a planned grand alliance
with the Japanese admiral Gayo, Butuan's last rajah and Brunei's Sultan Bolkieh, would have
restored the old aristocracy. Its failure resulted in the hanging of Agustn de Legazpi (great
grandson of Miguel Lopez de Legazpi and the initiator of the plot) and the execution of Magat
Salamat (the crown-prince of Tondo).[70]
Spanish power was further consolidated after Miguel Lpez de Legazpi's conquest of the
Confederation of Madya-as, his subjugation of Rajah Tupas, the King of Cebu and Juan de

Salcedo's conquest of the provinces of Zambales, La Union, Ilocos, the coast of Cagayan, and the
ransacking of the Chinese warlord Limahong's pirate kingdom in Pangasinan.
The Spanish and the Moros also waged many wars over hundreds of years in the Spanish-Moro
Conflict, not until the 19th century did Spain succeed in defeating the Sulu Sultanate and taking
Mindanao under nominal suzerainty.
Spanish settlement during the 16th and 17th centuries
It has been suggested that End of Dutch threat in the Philippines be merged
into this article. (Discuss) Proposed since May 2011.

The "Memoria de las Encomiendas en las Islas" of 1591, just twenty years after the conquest of
Luzon, reveals a remarkable[according to whom?] progress in the work of colonization and the spread of
Christianity. In the city of Manila was built a cathedral with an episcopal palace, Augustinian,
Dominican and Franciscan monasteries and a Jesuit house. The king maintained a hospital for the
Spanish settlers and there was another hospital for the natives run by the Franciscans. The
garrison was composed of roughly two hundred soldiers. In the suburb of Tondo there was a
convent run by Franciscan friars and other by the Dominicans that offered Christian education to
the Chinese converted to Christianity. The same report reveals that in and around Manila were
collected nine thousand four hundred and ten tributes, indicating a population of about thirty
thousand and six hundred forty souls who were under the instruction of thirteen missionaries
(ministers of doctrine), apart from the monks in monasteries. In the former province of
Pampanga the population estimate was 74,700 and twenty-eight missionaries. In Pangasinan
2,400 people with eight missionaries. In Cagayan and islands Babuyanes 96,000 souls but not
missionaries. In La Laguna 48,400 souls with twenty-seven missionaries. In Bicol and
Camarines Catanduanes islands 86,640 souls with fifteen missionaries. The total was 667,612
souls under the care of one hundred forty missionaries, of which seventy-nine were
Augustinians, nine Dominicans and forty-two Franciscans.[71]
The fragmented nature of the islands made it easy for Spanish colonization. The Spanish then
brought political unification to most of the Philippine archipelago via the conquest of the various
states although they were unable to fully incorporate parts of the sultanates of Mindanao and the
areas where tribes and highland plutocracy of the Ifugao of Northern Luzon were established.
The Spanish introduced elements of western civilization such as the code of law, western
printing and the Gregorian calendar alongside new food resources such as maize, pineapple and
chocolate from Latin America.[72]

Library of the University of Santo Toms in Manila, 1887

Education played a major role in the socioeconomic transformation of the archipelago. The
oldest universities, colleges, and vocational schools and the first modern public education system
in Asia were all created during the Spanish colonial period, and by the time Spain was replaced
by the United States as the colonial power, Filipinos were among the most educated subjects in
all of Asia.[73] The Jesuits founded the Colegio de Manila in 1590, which later became the
Universidad de San Ignacio, a royal and pontifical university. They also founded the Colegio de
San Ildefonso on August 1, 1595. After the expulsion of the Society of Jesus in 1768, the
management of the Jesuit schools passed to other parties. On April 28, 1611, through the
initiative of Bishop Miguel de Benavides, the University of Santo Tomas was founded in Manila.
The Jesuits also founded the Colegio de San Jos (1601) and took over the Escuela Municipal,
later to be called the Ateneo de Manila University (1859). All institutions offered courses
included not only religious topics but also science subjects such as physics, chemistry, natural
history and mathematics. The University of Santo Toms, for example, started by teaching
theology, philosophy and humanities and during the 18th century, the Faculty of Jurisprudence
and Canonical Law, together with the schools of medicine and pharmacy were opened.
Outside the tertiary institutions, the efforts of missionaries were in no way limited to religious
instruction but also geared towards promoting social and economic advancement of the islands.
They cultivated into the natives their innate[citation needed] taste for music and taught Spanish
language to children.[74] They also introduced advances in rice agriculture, brought from America
corn and cocoa and developed the farming of indigo, coffee and sugar cane. The only
commercial plant introduced by a government agency was the plant of tobacco.
Church and state were inseparably linked in Spanish policy, with the state assuming
responsibility for religious establishments.[75] One of Spain's objectives in colonizing the
Philippines was the conversion of the local population to Roman Catholicism. The work of
conversion was facilitated by the absence of other organized religions, except for Islam, which
was still predominant in the southwest. The pageantry of the church had a wide appeal,

reinforced by the incorporation of indigenous social customs into religious observances.[75] The
eventual outcome was a new Roman Catholic majority, from which the Muslims of western
Mindanao and the upland tribal peoples of Luzon remained detached and alienated (such as the
Ifugaos of the Cordillera region and the Mangyans of Mindoro).[75]
At the lower levels of administration, the Spanish built on traditional village organization by coopting local leaders. This system of indirect rule helped create an indigenous upper class, called
the principala, who had local wealth, high status, and other privileges. This perpetuated an
oligarchic system of local control. Among the most significant changes under Spanish rule was
that the indigenous idea of communal use and ownership of land was replaced with the concept
of private ownership and the conferring of titles on members of the principalia.[75]
Around 1608 William Adams, an English navigator contacted the interim governor of the
Philippines, Rodrigo de Vivero y Velasco on behalf of Tokugawa Ieyasu, who wished to establish
direct trade contacts with New Spain. Friendly letters were exchanged, officially starting
relations between Japan and New Spain. From 1565 to 1821, the Philippines was governed as a
territory of the Viceroyalty of New Spain from Mexico, via the Royal Audiencia of Manila, and
administered directly from Spain from 1821 after the Mexican revolution,[76] until 1898.

The chico (sapodilla) is a popular fruit in the Philippines indigenous to Aztec


America.

Many of the Aztec and Mayan warriors that Lpez de Legazpi brought with him eventually
settled in Mexico, Pampanga where traces of Aztec and Mayan influence can still be found in the
many chico plantations in the area (chico is a fruit indigenous only to Mexico) and also by the
name of the province itself.[77]

Location of the "Capitana General de las Filipinas"

The Manila galleons which linked Manila to Acapulco traveled once or twice a year between the
16th and 19th centuries. The Spanish military fought off various indigenous revolts and several
external colonial challenges, especially from the British, Chinese pirates, Dutch, and Portuguese.
Roman Catholic missionaries converted most of the lowland inhabitants to Christianity and
founded schools, universities, and hospitals. In 1863 a Spanish decree introduced education,
establishing public schooling in Spanish.[78]

Coat of arms of Manila were at the corners of the Cross of Burgundy in the SpanishFilipino battle standard.

In 1646, a series of five naval actions known as the Battles of La Naval de Manila was fought
between the forces of Spain and the Dutch Republic, as part of the Eighty Years' War. Although
the Spanish forces consisted of just two Manila galleons and a galley with crews composed
mainly of Filipino volunteers, against three separate Dutch squadrons, totaling eighteen ships,
the Dutch squadrons were severely defeated in all fronts by the Spanish-Filipino forces, forcing
the Dutch to abandon their plans for an invasion of the Philippines.
Spanish rule during the 18th century

Colonial income derived mainly from entrept trade: The Manila Galleons sailing from the Fort
of Manila to the Fort of Acapulco on the west coast of Mexico brought shipments of silver
bullion, and minted coin that were exchanged for return cargoes of Asian, and Pacific products. A

total of 110 Manila galleons set sail in the 250 years of the Manila-Acapulco galleon trade (1565
to 1815). There was no direct trade with Spain until 1766.[75]
The Philippines was never profitable as a colony during Spanish rule, and the long war against
the Dutch in the 17th century together with the intermittent conflict with the Muslims in the
South nearly bankrupted the colonial treasury.[75] The Royal Fiscal of Manila wrote a letter to
King Charles III of Spain, in which he advises to abandon the colony.
The Philippines survived on an annual subsidy paid by the Spanish Crown, and the 200-year-old
fortifications at Manila had not been improved much since first built by the early Spanish
colonizers.[79] This was one of the circumstances that made possible the brief British occupation
of Manila between 1762 and 1764.
British invasion (17621764)
Main article: British occupation of Manila

Sign in Fort Santiago Manila, next to the departure point of Simn de Anda.

Britain declared war against Spain on January 4, 1762 and on September 24, 1762 a force of
British Army regulars and British East India Company soldiers, supported by the ships and men
of the East Indies Squadron of the British Royal Navy, sailed into Manila Bay from Madras,
India.[80] Manila fell to the British on October 4, 1762.
The British forces were confined to Manila and the nearby port of Cavite by the resistance
organised by the provisional Spanish coloinial government. Suffering a breakdown of command
and troop desertions as a result of their failure to secure control of the Philippines, the British
ended their occupation of Manila by sailing away in April 1764 as agreed to in the peace
negotiations in Europe. The Spaniards then persecuted the Binondo Chinese community for its
role in aiding the British.
Spanish rule in the second part of the 18th century

The Cross of Burgundy served as the flag of the Viceroyalty of New Spain (15351821)

In 1766 was established direct communication with Spain and trade with Europe through a
national ship based on Spain. Those expeditions were administered since 1785 by the Real
Compaa Filipina, which was granted a monopoly of trade between Spain and the islands that
lasted until 1834, when the company was terminated by the Spanish crown due to poor
management and financial losses.
In 1781, Governor-General Jos Basco y Vargas established the Economic Society of the Friends
of the Country.[81] The Philippines was administered from the Viceroyalty of New Spain until the
grant of independence to Mexico in 1821 necessitated the direct rule from Spain of the
Philippines from that year.
Spanish rule during the 19th century

During the 19th century Spain invested heavily in education and infrastructure. Through the
Education Decree of December 20, 1863, Queen Isabella II of Spain decreed the establishment of
a free public school system that used Spanish as the language of instruction, leading to increasing
numbers of educated Filipinos.[82] Additionally, the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 cut travel
time to Spain, which facilitated the rise of the ilustrados, an enlightened class of Filipinos that
had been able to expand their studies in Spain and Europe.

Puente de Claveria (Quezon Bridge)

A great deal of infrastructure projects were undertaken during the 19th century that put the
Philippine economy and standard of living ahead of most of its Asian neighbors and even many
European countries at that time. Among them were a railway system for Luzon, a tramcar
network for Manila, and the Puente Colgante (now known as the Quezon Bridge), Asia's first
steel suspension bridge.[83] On August 1, 1851 the Banco Espaol-Filipino de Isabel II was
established to attend the needs of the rapid economic boom, that had greatly increased its pace
since 1840 as a result of a new economy based on a rational exploitation of the agricultural
resources of the islands. The increase in textile fiber crops such as abac, oil products derived
from the coconut, indigo, that was growing in demand, etc., generated an increase in money
supply that led to the creation of the bank. Banco Espaol-Filipino was also granted the power to
print a Philippine-specific currency (the Philippine peso) for the first time (before 1851, many
currencies were used, mostly the pieces of eight).
Spanish Manila was seen in the 19th century as a model of colonial governance that effectively
put the interests of the original inhabitants of the islands before those of the colonial power. As
John Crawfurd put it in its History of the Indian Archipelago, in all of Asia the "Philippines alone
did improve in civilization, wealth, and populousness under the colonial rule" of a foreign power.
[84]
John Bowring, Governor General of British Hong Kong from 1856 to 1860, wrote after his
trip to Manila:
Credit is certainly due to Spain for having bettered the condition of a people who, though
comparatively highly civilized, yet being continually distracted by petty wars, had sunk into a
disordered and uncultivated state.
The inhabitants of these beautiful Islands upon the whole, may well be considered
to have lived as comfortably during the last hundred years, protected form all
external enemies and governed by mild laws vis-a-vis those from any other tropical
country under native or European sway, owing in some measure, to the frequently
discussed peculiar (Spanish) circumstances which protect the interests of the
natives.[85]

In The inhabitants of the Philippines, Frederick Henry Sawyer wrote:


Until an inept bureaucracy was substituted for the old paternal rule, and the
revenue quadrupled by increased taxation, the Filipinos were as happy a community
as could be found in any colony. The population greatly multiplied; they lived in
competence, if not in affluence; cultivation was extended, and the exports steadily
increased. Let us be just; what British, French, or Dutch colony, populated by
natives can compare with the Philippines as they were until 1895?." [86]

The first official census in the Philippines was carried out in 1878. The colony's population as of
December 31, 1877, was recorded at 5,567,685 persons.[87] This was followed by the 1887 census
that yielded a count of 6,984,727,[88] while that of 1898 yielded 7,832,719 inhabitants .[89]
The estimated GDP per capita for the Philippines in 1900, the year Spain left, was of $1,033.00.
That made it the second richest place in all of Asia, just a little behind Japan ($1,135.00), and far
ahead of China ($652.00) or India ($625.00).[90]
Philippine Revolution
Main article: Philippine Revolution

Revolutionary sentiments arose in 1872 after three Filipino priests, Mariano Gmez, Jos
Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, known as Gomburza, were accused of sedition by colonial
authorities and executed. This would inspire the Propaganda Movement in Spain, organized by
Marcelo H. del Pilar, Jos Rizal, Graciano Lpez Jaena, and Mariano Ponce, that clamored for
adequate representation to the Spanish Cortes and later for independence. Jos Rizal, the most
celebrated intellectual and radical ilustrado of the era, wrote the novels "Noli Me Tngere", and
"El filibusterismo", which greatly inspired the movement for independence.[91] The Katipunan, a
secret society whose primary purpose was that of overthrowing Spanish rule in the Philippines,
was founded by Andrs Bonifacio who became its Supremo (leader).

An early flag of the Filipino revolutionaries

The Philippine Revolution began in 1896. Rizal was wrongly implicated in the outbreak of the
revolution and executed for treason in 1896. The Katipunan in Cavite split into two groups,
Magdiwang, led by Mariano lvarez (a relative of Bonifacio's by marriage), and Magdalo, led
by Emilio Aguinaldo. Leadership conflicts between Bonifacio and Aguinaldo culminated in the
execution or assassination of the former by the latter's soldiers. Aguinaldo agreed to a truce with
the Pact of Biak-na-Bato and Aguinaldo and his fellow revolutionaries were exiled to Hong
Kong. Not all the revolutionary generals complied with the agreement. One, General Francisco
Makabulos, established a Central Executive Committee to serve as the interim government until
a more suitable one was created. Armed conflicts resumed, this time coming from almost every
province in Spanish-governed Philippines.

Revolutionaries gather during the Malolos congress of the First Philippine Republic.

In 1898, as conflicts continued in the Philippines, the USS Maine, having been sent to Cuba
because of U.S. concerns for the safety of its citizens during an ongoing Cuban revolution,
exploded and sank in Havana harbor. This event precipitated the SpanishAmerican War.[92] After
Commodore George Dewey defeated the Spanish squadron at Manila, a German squadron
arrived in Manila and engaged in maneuvers which Dewey, seeing this as obstruction of his
blockade, offered warafter which the Germans backed down.[93] The German Emperor
expected an American defeat, with Spain left in a sufficiently weak position for the
revolutionaries to capture Manilaleaving the Philippines ripe for German picking.[94]
The U.S. invited Aguinaldo to return to the Philippines in the hope he would rally Filipinos
against the Spanish colonial government. Aguinaldo arrived on May 19, 1898, via transport
provided by Dewey. By the time U.S. land forces had arrived, the Filipinos had taken control of
the entire island of Luzon, except for the walled city of Intramuros. On June 12, 1898, Aguinaldo
declared the independence of the Philippines in Kawit, Cavite, establishing the First Philippine
Republic under Asia's first democratic constitution.[91]
In the Battle of Manila, the United States captured the city from the Spanish. This battle marked
an end of Filipino-American collaboration, as Filipino forces were prevented from entering the
captured city of Manila, an action deeply resented by the Filipinos.[95] Spain and the United
States sent commissioners to Paris to draw up the terms of the Treaty of Paris which ended the
SpanishAmerican War. The Filipino representative, Felipe Agoncillo, was excluded from
sessions as the revolutionary government was not recognized by the family of nations.[95]
Although there was substantial domestic opposition, the United States decided to annex the
Philippines. In addition to Guam and Puerto Rico, Spain was forced in the negotiations to hand
over the Philippines to the U.S. in exchange for US$20,000,000.00.[96] U.S. President McKinley
justified the annexation of the Philippines by saying that it was "a gift from the gods" and that
since "they were unfit for self-government, ... there was nothing left for us to do but to take them
all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them",[97][98] in spite of
the Philippines having been already Christianized by the Spanish over the course of several
centuries. It is also in spite of the Spanish having created the first public education system in

Asia (public education decree of 1863) and the first universities in the continent: University of
Santo Tomas in 1611, and University of San Carlos (Cebu) in 1595. It was also clearly a
misrepresentation to state that the Philippines needed to be "civilized". The archipelago saw rap
id growth and development during Spanish rule thanks to the introduction of many
elements of Western civilization, including irrigation, the plow and the wheel, new construction
and engineering methods, factories, modern hospitals, the telephone and the telegraph, railroads
and public lighting. By 1898 the Philippines was one of the most advanced countries in Asia,
producing great statesmen, writers and scientists such as national hero Jos Rizal.
The first Philippine Republic resisted the U.S. occupation, resulting in the PhilippineAmerican
War (18991913).

American rule (18981946)


Main article: History of the Philippines (1898-1946)

1898 political cartoon showing U.S. President McKinley with a native child. Here,
returning the Philippines to Spain is compared to throwing the child off a cliff.

Filipinos initially saw their relationship with the United States as that of two nations joined in a
common struggle against Spain.[99] However, the United States later distanced itself from the
interests of the Filipino insurgents. Emilio Aguinaldo was unhappy that the United States would
not commit to paper a statement of support for Philippine independence.[100] Relations
deteriorated and tensions heightened as it became clear that the Americans were in the islands to
stay.[100]
PhilippineAmerican War
Main article: PhilippineAmerican War

Hostilities broke out on February 4, 1899, after two American privates on patrol killed three
Filipino soldiers in San Juan, a Manila suburb.[101] This incident sparked the Philippine
American War, which would cost far more money and took far more lives than the Spanish
American War.[91] Some 126,000 American soldiers would be committed to the conflict; 4,234
Americans died, as did 12,00020,000 Filipino soldiers who were part of a nationwide guerrilla
movement of indeterminate numbers.[101]
The general population, caught between Americans and rebels, suffered significantly. At least
200,000 Filipino civilians lost their lives as a direct result of the war mostly as a result of the
cholera epidemic at the war's end.[102] Estimates for total civilians deaths reach 1 million.[12][13]
Atrocities were committed by both sides.[101]
The poorly equipped Filipino troops were easily overpowered by American troops in open
combat, but they were formidable opponents in guerrilla warfare.[101] Malolos, the revolutionary
capital, was captured on March 31, 1899. Aguinaldo and his government escaped, however,
establishing a new capital at San Isidro, Nueva Ecija. On June 5, 1899, Antonio Luna,
Aguinaldo's most capable military commander, was killed by Aguinaldo's guards in an apparent
assassination while visiting Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija to meet with Aguinaldo.[103] With his best
commander dead and his troops suffering continued defeats as American forces pushed into
northern Luzon, Aguinaldo dissolved the regular army on November 13 and ordered the
establishment of decentralized guerrilla commands in each of several military zones.[104] Another
key general, Gregorio del Pilar, was killed on December 2, 1899 in the Battle of Tirad Passa
rear guard action to delay the Americans while Aguinaldo made good his escape through the
mountains.
Aguinaldo was captured at Palanan, Isabela on March 23, 1901 and was brought to Manila.
Convinced of the futility of further resistance, he swore allegiance to the United States and
issued a proclamation calling on his compatriots to lay down their arms, officially bringing an
end to the war.[101] However, sporadic insurgent resistance continued in various parts of the
Philippines, especially in the Muslim south, until 1913.[105]
In 1900, President McKinley sent the Taft Commission, to the Philippines, with a mandate to
legislate laws and re-engineer the political system.[106] On July 1, 1901, William Howard Taft, the
head of the commission, was inaugurated as Civil Governor, with limited executive powers.[107]
The authority of the Military Governor was continued in those areas where the insurrection
persisted.[108] The Taft Commission passed laws to set up the fundamentals of the new
government, including a judicial system, civil service, and local government. A Philippine
Constabulary was organized to deal with the remnants of the insurgent movement and gradually
assume the responsibilities of the United States Army.[109]

Insular Government (19021935)

Flag of the United States, 18961908.

The Philippine Organic Act was a constitution for the Insular Government, so called because
Philippine civil administration was under the authority of the U.S. Bureau of Insular Affairs. This
government saw its mission as one of tutelage, preparing the Philippines for eventual
independence.[110] On July 4, 1902 the office of Military Governor was abolished and full
executive power passed from Adna Chaffee, the last military governor, to Taft, who became the
first U.S. Governor-General of the Philippines.[111]

William Howard Taft addressing the audience at the Philippine Assembly.

United States policies towards the Philippines shifted with changing administrations.[91] During
the early years of territorial administration, the Americans were reluctant to delegate authority to
the Filipinos, but an elected Philippine Assembly was inaugurated in 1907, as the lower house of
a bicameral legislature, with the appointive Philippine Commission becoming the upper house.
When Woodrow Wilson became U.S. President in 1913, a new policy was adopted to put into
motion a process that would gradually lead to Philippine independence. The Jones Act, passed by
the U.S. Congress in 1916 to serve as the new organic law in the Philippines, promised eventual
independence and instituted an elected Philippine senate.
In socio-economic terms, the Philippines made solid progress in this period. Foreign trade had
amounted to 62 million pesos in 1895, 13% of which was with the United States. By 1920, it had
increased to 601 million pesos, 66% of which was with the United States.[112] A health care
system was established which, by 1930, reduced the mortality rate from all causes, including

various tropical diseases, to a level similar to that of the United States itself. The practices of
slavery, piracy and headhunting were suppressed but not entirely extinguished.
A new educational system was established with English as the medium of instruction, eventually
becoming a lingua franca of the Islands. The 1920s saw alternating periods of cooperation and
confrontation with American governors-general, depending on how intent the incumbent was on
exercising his powers vis--vis the Philippine legislature. Members to the elected legislature
lobbied for immediate and complete independence from the United States. Several independence
missions were sent to Washington, D.C. A civil service was formed and was gradually taken over
by Filipinos, who had effectively gained control by 1918.
Philippine politics during the American territorial era was dominated by the Nacionalista Party,
which was founded in 1907. Although the party's platform called for "immediate independence",
their policy toward the Americans was highly accommodating.[113] Within the political
establishment, the call for independence was spearheaded by Manuel L. Quezon, who served
continuously as Senate president from 1916 until 1935.
World War I gave the Philippines the opportunity to pledge assistance to the US war effort. This
took the form of an offer to supply a division of troops, as well as providing funding for the
construction of two warships. A locally recruited national guard was created and significant
numbers of Filipinos volunteered for service in the US Navy and army.[114]
Frank Murphy was the last Governor-General of the Philippines (193335), and the first U.S.
High Commissioner of the Philippines (193536). The change in form was more than symbolic:
it was intended as a manifestation of the transition to independence.
Commonwealth
Main article: Commonwealth of the Philippines

Commonwealth President Manuel L. Quezon with United States President Franklin D.


Roosevelt in Washington, D.C.

The Great Depression in the early thirties hastened the progress of the Philippines towards
independence. In the United States it was mainly the sugar industry and labor unions that had a
stake in loosening the U.S. ties to the Philippines since they could not compete with the
Philippine cheap sugar (and other commodities) which could freely enter the U.S. market.
Therefore, they agitated in favor of granting independence to the Philippines so that its cheap
products and labor could be shut out of the United States.[115] In 1933, the United States Congress
passed the HareHawesCutting Act as a Philippine Independence Act over President Herbert
Hoover's veto.[116] Though the bill had been drafted with the aid of a commission from the
Philippines, it was opposed by Philippine Senate President Manuel L. Quezon, partially because
of provisions leaving the United States in control of naval bases. Under his influence, the
Philippine legislature rejected the bill.[117] The following year, a revised act known as the
TydingsMcDuffie Act was finally passed. The act provided for the establishment of the
Commonwealth of the Philippines with a ten-year period of peaceful transitions to full
independence. The commonwealth would have its own constitution and be self-governing,
though foreign policy would be the responsibility of the United States, and certain legislation
required approval of the United States president.[117] The Act stipulated that the date of
independence would be on the July 4 following the tenth anniversary of the establishment of the
Commonwealth.
A Constitutional Convention was convened in Manila on July 30, 1934. On February 8, 1935, the
1935 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines was approved by the convention by a vote
of 177 to 1. The constitution was approved by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 23,
1935 and ratified by popular vote on May 14, 1935.[118][119]
On September 17, 1935,[120] presidential elections were held. Candidates included former
president Emilio Aguinaldo, the Iglesia Filipina Independiente leader Gregorio Aglipay, and
others. Manuel L. Quezon and Sergio Osmea of the Nacionalista Party were proclaimed the
winners, winning the seats of president and vice-president, respectively.[121]
The Commonwealth Government was inaugurated on the morning of November 15, 1935, in
ceremonies held on the steps of the Legislative Building in Manila. The event was attended by a
crowd of around 300,000 people.[120] Under the TydingsMcDuffie Act this meant that the date of
full independence for the Philippines was set for July 4, 1946, a timetable which was followed
after the passage of almost eleven very eventful years.
World War II and Japanese occupation
Main articles: Japanese occupation of the Philippines and Second Philippine Republic

As many as 10,000 people died in the Bataan Death March

Japan launched a surprise attack on the Clark Air Base in Pampanga on December 8, 1941, just
ten hours after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Aerial bombardment was followed by landings of
ground troops on Luzon. The defending Philippine and United States troops were under the
command of General Douglas MacArthur. Under the pressure of superior numbers, the
defending forces withdrew to the Bataan Peninsula and to the island of Corregidor at the
entrance to Manila Bay.
On January 2, 1942, General MacArthur declared the capital city, Manila, an open city to prevent
its destruction.[122] The Philippine defense continued until the final surrender of United StatesPhilippine forces on the Bataan Peninsula in April 1942 and on Corregidor in May of the same
year. Most of the 80,000 prisoners of war captured by the Japanese at Bataan were forced to
undertake the infamous Bataan Death March to a prison camp 105 kilometers to the north. It is
estimated that about 10,000 Filipinos and 1,200 Americans died before reaching their
destination.[123]
President Quezon and Osmea had accompanied the troops to Corregidor and later left for the
United States, where they set up a government in exile.[124] MacArthur was ordered to Australia,
where he started to plan for a return to the Philippines.
The Japanese military authorities immediately began organizing a new government structure in
the Philippines and established the Philippine Executive Commission. They initially organized a
Council of State, through which they directed civil affairs until October 1943, when they
declared the Philippines an independent republic. The Japanese-sponsored republic headed by
President Jos P. Laurel proved to be unpopular.[125]
Japanese occupation of the Philippines was opposed by large-scale underground and guerrilla
activity. The Philippine Army, as well as remnants of the U.S. Army Forces Far East,[126][127]
continued to fight the Japanese in a guerrilla war and was considered an auxiliary unit of the
United States Army.[128] Their effectiveness was such that by the end of the war, Japan controlled
only twelve of the forty-eight provinces.[125] One element of resistance in the Central Luzon area

was furnished by the Hukbalahap, which armed some 30,000 people and extended their control
over much of Luzon.[125]
The occupation of the Philippines by Japan ended at the war's conclusion. The American army
had been fighting the Philippines Campaign since October 1944, when MacArthur's Sixth United
States Army landed on Leyte. Landings in other parts of the country had followed, and the Allies,
with the Philippine Commonwealth troops, pushed toward Manila. However, fighting continued
until Japan's formal surrender on September 2, 1945. The Philippines suffered great loss of life
and tremendous physical destruction, specially during the Battle of Manila. An estimated 1
million Filipinos had been killed, a large portion during the final months of the war, and Manila
had been extensively damaged.[125]

Independent Philippines and the Third Republic (19461975)


Main article: History of the Philippines (19461965)
Administration of Manuel Roxas (19461948)

Manuel Roxas, President from 1946 until 1948.

Elections were held in April 1946, with Manuel Roxas becoming the first president of the
independent Republic of the Philippines. The United States ceded its sovereignty over the
Philippines on July 4, 1946, as scheduled.[91][129] However, the Philippine economy remained
highly dependent on United States markets more dependent, according to United States high
commissioner Paul McNutt, than any single U.S. state was dependent on the rest of the country.
[130]
The Philippine Trade Act, passed as a precondition for receiving war rehabilitation grants
from the United States,[131] exacerbated the dependency with provisions further tying the

economies of the two countries. A military assistance pact was signed in 1947 granting the
United States a 99-year lease on designated military bases in the country.
Administration of Elpidio Quirino (19481953)

Elpidio Quirino, president from 1948 until 1953.

The Roxas administration granted general amnesty to those who had collaborated with the
Japanese in World War II, except for those who had committed violent crimes. Roxas died
suddenly of a heart attack in April 1948, and the vice president, Elpidio Quirino, was elevated to
the presidency. He ran for president in his own right in 1949, defeating Jos P. Laurel and
winning a four-year term.
World War II had left the Philippines demoralized and severely damaged. The task of
reconstruction was complicated by the activities of the Communist-supported Hukbalahap
guerrillas (known as "Huks"), who had evolved into a violent resistance force against the new
Philippine government. Government policy towards the Huks alternated between gestures of
negotiation and harsh suppression. Secretary of Defense Ramon Magsaysay initiated a campaign
to defeat the insurgents militarily and at the same time win popular support for the government.
The Huk movement had waned in the early 1950s, finally ending with the unconditional
surrender of Huk leader Luis Taruc in May 1954.
Administration of Ramon Magsaysay (19531957)

President and Mrs. Magsaysay with Eleanor Roosevelt at the Malacaan Palace.

Supported by the United States, Magsaysay was elected president in 1953 on a populist platform.
He promised sweeping economic reform, and made progress in land reform by promoting the
resettlement of poor people in the Catholic north into traditionally Muslim areas. Though this
relieved population pressure in the north, it heightened religious hostilities.[132] Nevertheless, he
was extremely popular with the common people, and his death in an airplane crash in March
1957 dealt a serious blow to national morale.[133]
Administration of Carlos P. Garcia (19571961)

Carlos P. Garcia, president of the Philippines from 1957 until 1961.

Carlos P. Garcia succeeded to the presidency after Magsaysay's death, and was elected to a fouryear term in the election of November that same year. His administration emphasized the
nationalist theme of "Filipino first", arguing that the Filipino people should be given the chances
to improve the country's economy.[134] Garcia successfully negotiated for the United States'
relinquishment of large military land reservations. However, his administration lost popularity on
issues of government corruption as his term advanced.[135]

Administration of Diosdado Macapagal (19611965)

Diosdado Macapagal, president of the Philippines from 1961 until 1965.

In the presidential elections held on November 14, 1963, Vice President Diosdado Macapagal
defeated re-electionist President Carlos P. Garcia and Emmanuel Pelaez as a Vice President.
President Macapagal was the President of the Philippines that changed the independence day of
the Philippines from July 4 to June 12.
Land Reform Code
Main article: Agricultural Land Reform Code

The Agricultural Land Reform Code (RA 3844) was a major Philippine land reform law
enacted in 1963 under President Diosdado Macapagal.[136]
The code declared that it was State policy
1. To establish owner-cultivatorship and the economic family-size farm as the
basis of Philippine agriculture and, as a consequence, divert landlord capital
in agriculture to industrial development;
2. To achieve a dignified existence for the small farmers free from pernicious
institutional restraints and practices;

3. To create a truly viable social and economic structure in agriculture conducive


to greater productivity and higher farm incomes;
4. To apply all labor laws equally and without discrimination to both industrial
and agricultural wage earners;
5. To provide a more vigorous and systematic land resettlement program and
public land distribution; and
6. To make the small farmers more independent, self-reliant and responsible
citizens, and a source of genuine strength in our democratic society.

and, in pursuance of those policies, established the following


1. An agricultural leasehold system to replace all existing share tenancy
systems in agriculture;
2. A declaration of rights for agricultural labor;
3. An authority for the acquisition and equitable distribution of agricultural land;
4. An institution to finance the acquisition and distribution of agricultural land;
5. A machinery to extend credit and similar assistance to agriculture;
6. A machinery to provide marketing, management, and other technical services
to agriculture;
7. A unified administration for formulating and implementing projects of land
reform;
8. An expanded program of land capability survey, classification, and
registration; and
9. A judicial system to decide issues arising under this Code and other related
laws and regulations.
MAPHILINDO
Main article: MAPHILINDO

Maphilindo was a proposed nonpolitical confederation of Malaya, the Philippines, and Indonesia.
It was based on concepts developed during the Commonwealth government in the Philippines by
Wenceslao Vinzons and by Eduardo L. Martelino in his 1959 book Someday, Malaysia".[137]
In July 1963, President Diosdado Macapagal of the Philippines convened a summit meeting in
Manila. Maphilindo was proposed as a realization of Jos Rizal's dream of bringing together the

Malay peoples. However, this was perceived as a tactic on the parts of Jakarta and Manila to
delay or prevent the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. The plan failed when Indonesian
President Sukarno adopted his plan of Konfrontasi with Malaysia.[138]

Marcos era and martial law (19651986)


Main article: History of the Philippines (19651986)

The leaders of the SEATO nations in front of the Congress Building in Manila, hosted
by Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos on October 24, 1966. (L-R:) Prime Minister
Nguyen Cao Ky (South Vietnam), Prime Minister Harold Holt (Australia), President
Park Chung-hee (South Korea), President Ferdinand Marcos (Philippines), Prime
Minister Keith Holyoake (New Zealand), Lt. Gen. Nguyn Vn Thiu (South Vietnam),
Prime Minister Thanom Kittikachorn (Thailand), President Lyndon B. Johnson (United
States)

Macapagal ran for re-election in 1965, but was defeated by his former party-mate, Senate
President Ferdinand Marcos, who had switched to the Nacionalista Party. Early in his presidency,
Marcos initiated ambitious public works projects and intensified tax collection which brought the
country economic prosperity throughout the 1970s. His administration built more roads
(including a substantial portion of the Pan-Philippine Highway) than all his predecessors
combined, and more schools than any previous administration.[139] Marcos was re-elected
president in 1969, becoming the first president of the independent Philippines to achieve a
second term.
The Philippine Legislature was corrupt and impotent. Opponents of Marcos blocked the
necessary legislation to implement his ambitious plans. Because of this, optimism faded early in
his second term and economic growth slowed.[140] Crime and civil disobedience increased. The
Communist Party of the Philippines formed the New People's Army. The Moro National
Liberation Front continued to fight for an independent Muslim nation in Mindanao. An explosion
during the proclamation rally of the senatorial slate of the Liberal Party on August 21, 1971

prompted Marcos to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, which he restored on January 11, 1972
after public protests.
Martial law

Amidst the rising wave of lawlessness and the threat of a Communist insurgency, Marcos
declared martial law on September 21, 1972 by virtue of Proclamation No. 1081. Marcos, ruling
by decree, curtailed press freedom and other civil liberties, closed down Congress and media
establishments, and ordered the arrest of opposition leaders and militant activists, including his
staunchest critics senators Benigno Aquino, Jr., Jovito Salonga and Jose Diokno.[141] The
declaration of martial law was initially well received, given the social turmoil the Philippines
was experiencing.[142] Crime rates plunged dramatically after a curfew was implemented.[143]
Many political opponents were forced to go into exile.[citation needed]
A constitutional convention, which had been called for in 1970 to replace the colonial 1935
Constitution, continued the work of framing a new constitution after the declaration of martial
law. The new constitution went into effect in early 1973, changing the form of government from
presidential to parliamentary and allowing Marcos to stay in power beyond 1973.
Marcos claimed that martial law was the prelude to creating a "New Society" based on new
social and political values.[144] The economy during the 1970s was robust, with budgetary and
trade surpluses. The Gross National Product rose from P55 billion in 1972 to P193 billion in
1980. Tourism rose, contributing to the economy's growth. However, Marcos, his cronies, and his
wife, Imelda Romualdez-Marcos, willfully engaged in rampant corruption.[145]
Fourth Republic

Appeasing the Roman Catholic Church,[146] Marcos officially lifted martial law on January 17,
1981. However, he retained much of the government's power for arrest and detention. Corruption
and nepotism as well as civil unrest contributed to a serious decline in economic growth and
development under Marcos, whose health declined due to lupus.
The political opposition boycotted the 1981 presidential elections, which pitted Marcos against
retired general Alejo Santos.[141] Marcos won by a margin of over 16 million votes, which
constitutionally allowed him to have another six-year term. Finance Minister Cesar Virata was
appointed as Prime Minister by Marcos.[147]
In 1983, opposition leader Benigno Aquino, Jr. was assassinated at the Manila International
Airport upon his return to the Philippines after a long period of exile. This coalesced popular
dissatisfaction with Marcos and began a succession of events, including pressure from the United
States, that culminated in a snap presidential election in February 1986.[148] The opposition united
under Aquino's widow, Corazon Aquino.

The official election canvasser, the Commission on Elections (Comelec), declared Marcos the
winner of the election. However, there was a large discrepancy between the Comelec results and
that of Namfrel, an accredited poll watcher. The allegedly fraudulent result was rejected by
Corazon Aquino and her supporters. International observers, including a U.S. delegation,
denounced the official results.[148] General Fidel Ramos and Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile
withdrew their support for Marcos. A peaceful civilian-military uprising, now popularly called
the People Power Revolution, forced Marcos into exile and installed Corazon Aquino as
president on February 25, 1986.

Fifth Republic (1986present)


Main article: History of the Philippines (1986present)
Further information: 19861987 Philippine coup attempts and 1989 Philippine coup
attempt
Administration of Corazon C. Aquino (19861992)

Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991.

Corazon Aquino immediately formed a revolutionary government to normalize the situation, and
provided for a transitional "Freedom Constitution".[149] A new permanent constitution was ratified
and enacted in February 1987.[150] The constitution crippled presidential power to declare martial
law, proposed the creation of autonomous regions in the Cordilleras and Muslim Mindanao, and
restored the presidential form of government and the bicameral Congress.[151] Progress was made
in revitalizing democratic institutions and respect for civil liberties, but Aquino's administration
was also viewed as weak and fractious, and a return to full political stability and economic
development was hampered by several attempted coups staged by disaffected members of the
Philippine military.[152]
Economic growth was additionally hampered by a series of natural disasters, including the 1991
eruption of Mount Pinatubo that left 700 dead and 200,000 homeless.[153] During the Aquino

presidency, Manila witnessed six unsuccessful coup attempts, the most serious occurring in
December 1989.[154]
In 1991, the Philippine Senate rejected a treaty that would have allowed a 10-year extension of
the U.S. military bases in the country. The United States turned over Clark Air Base in Pampanga
to the government in November, and Subic Bay Naval Base in Zambales in December 1992,
ending almost a century of U.S. military presence in the Philippines.
Administration of Fidel V. Ramos (19921998)

In the 1992 elections, Defense Secretary Fidel V. Ramos, endorsed by Aquino, won the
presidency with just 23.6% of the vote in a field of seven candidates. Early in his administration,
Ramos declared "national reconciliation" his highest priority and worked at building a coalition
to overcome the divisiveness of the Aquino years.[151] He legalized the Communist Party and laid
the groundwork for talks with communist insurgents, Muslim separatists, and military rebels,
attempting to convince them to cease their armed activities against the government. In June
1994, Ramos signed into law a general conditional amnesty covering all rebel groups, and
Philippine military and police personnel accused of crimes committed while fighting the
insurgents. In October 1995, the government signed an agreement bringing the military
insurgency to an end. A peace agreement with the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), a
major separatist group fighting for an independent homeland in Mindanao, was signed in 1996,
ending the 24-year old struggle. However, an MNLF splinter group, the Moro Islamic Liberation
Front continued the armed struggle for an Islamic state. Efforts by Ramos supporters to gain
passage of an amendment that would allow him to run for a second term were met with largescale protests, leading Ramos to declare he would not seek re-election.[155]
Administration of Joseph Estrada (19982001)

Joseph Estrada, a former movie actor who had served as Ramos' vice president, was elected
president by a landslide victory in 1998. His election campaign pledged to help the poor and
develop the country's agricultural sector. He enjoyed widespread popularity, particularly among
the poor.[156] Estrada assumed office amid the Asian Financial Crisis. The economy did, however,
recover from a low 0.6% growth in 1998 to a moderate growth of 3.4% by 1999.[157][158][159][160]
[161][162]
Like his predecessor there was a similar attempt to change the 1987 constitution. The
process is termed as CONCORD or Constitutional Correction for Development. Unlike Charter
change under Ramos and Arroyo the CONCORD proposal, according to its proponents, would
only amend the 'restrictive' economic provisions of the constitution that is considered as
impeding the entry of more foreign investments in the Philippines. However it was not
successful in amending the constitution.
On March 21, 2000 President Estrada declared an "all-out-war" against the Moro Islamic
Liberation Front (MILF) after the worsening secessionist movement in Midanao[163][164] The
government later captured 46 MILF camps including the MILF's headquarters', Camp Abubakar.

[163][165][166]

In October 2000, however, Estrada was accused of having accepted millions of pesos
in payoffs from illegal gambling businesses. He was impeached by the House of Representatives,
but his impeachment trial in the Senate broke down when the senate voted to block examination
of the president's bank records. In response, massive street protests erupted demanding Estrada's
resignation. Faced with street protests, cabinet resignations, and a withdrawal of support from the
armed forces, Estrada was forced from office on January 20, 2001.
Administration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (20012010)

Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (the daughter of the late President Diosdado
Macapagal) was sworn in as Estrada's successor on the day of his departure. Her accession to
power was further legitimized by the mid-term congressional and local elections held four
months later, when her coalition won an overwhelming victory.[145] Arroyo's initial term in office
was marked by fractious coalition politics as well as a military mutiny in Manila in July 2003
that led her to declare a month-long nationwide state of rebellion.[145]
Arroyo had declared in December 2002 that she would not run in the May 2004 presidential
election, but she reversed herself in October 2003 and decided to join the race.[145] She was reelected and sworn in for her own six-year term as president on June 30, 2004. In 2005, a tape of
a wiretapped conversation surfaced bearing the voice of Arroyo apparently asking an election
official if her margin of victory could be maintained.[167] The tape sparked protests calling for
Arroyo's resignation.[167] Arroyo admitted to inappropriately speaking to an election official, but
denied allegations of fraud and refused to step down.[167] Attempts to impeach the president failed
later that year.
Arroyo unsuccessfully attempted a controversial plan for an overhaul of the constitution to
transform the present presidential-bicameral republic into a federal parliamentary-unicameral
form of government.[168]
Administration of Benigno Aquino III
This section requires expansion. (December 2010)
Main article: Presidency of Benigno Aquino III

Benigno Aquino III began his presidency on June 30, 2010, the fifteenth President of the
Philippines. He is a bachelor and the son of former Philippines president Corazon C. Aquino.

The Philippines went through its transition from a dictatorship to an open democratic society in
1986. The road of transition has not been easy; it has not been short.
It is important to acknowledge the difficulties and the long time horizon needed for the required
reforms to take root and finally make a positive difference.

Immediate aftermath of a dictatorship


While the major forces behind the people power revolution were united by their revulsion of a
dictatorship and their commitment to democracy, immediately below these headline ideals were
deep rifts: a few were more left-oriented, while others were more deeply committed to the
right. This division presented enormous challenges to governing and managing the transition.
A key institutionthe militarywhich had been badly corrupted by the dictatorship, and which
nonetheless played a key role in the final stage of the people power revolution, insisted on its
rights and prerogatives. It made several serious attempts at military adventurism.
In various other sectors, many important institutions were left in a failed, perilously weak state.
Key state financial institutions were bankrupt and in serious need of rehabilitation. Virtually all
segments of the economy were overregulated and tied up in bureaucratic knots. The media, long
suppressed, in the flush of the new freedom they enjoyed, insisted on rights and privileges
without the corresponding restraint from a sense of duty and social responsibility.
The underlying culture in society had been seriously flawed after a couple of decades of
dictatorship. After the euphoria of bringing back the trappings of a democratic state had died
down, distrust of government was widespread; suspicion of wrongdoing in public offices was
high; moreover, even with the new people getting into government, there were more than
enough instances to deepen the distrust and substantiate the suspicion.
Moreover, the economy was left in a poor, weak state. Public debt was high and rising. Foreign
debt felt like a millstone around the neck of the economy. Infrastructure had been left in a state
of disrepair and was woefully inadequate. Many assets were in government hands, and most of
those were in an unproductive condition, often left to rot (while the servicing of the debts behind
those assets had to continue).
The road of transition
A generally shared commitment to democracy provided the common thread behind all the many
initiatives under the transition. This provided the fundamental framework for all the strategies
and major policies that the transition government pursued in various fields. In the case of the
Philippines, we had the blessing of an icon of democracy, who headed the transition government,
and who was very broadly trusted: President Cory Aquino, who had her mind and heart in the
right place. In an open democratic society, however, there were more than a few loud critics, who
could now use the free press to ventilate their criticisms openly (and in more than enough
instances, irresponsibly).
a) In the political sector, democracy meant deep respect and due observance of the rule of law. A
new Constitution had to be written and ratified in a plebiscite. Consequently, all the branches of
governmentthe executive, legislative and judicialderived their power and legitimacy under
that Constitution, which guaranteed freedom of the press and a fundamental set of human rights.
Decentralization of executive and legislative power was secured through the effective
operationalization of local autonomy.

b) In the economic sector, democracy meant liberalization and the opening up of the economy.
Trade and tariff reforms were introduced, removing virtually all quantitative restrictions on
imports and radically slashing down protective tariffs. All unnecessary controls were removed, as
for instance in the foreign exchange segment of the economy. Privatization of a significant
percentage of assets under government control was pursued. The few state financial institutions
that had to remain in government hands were rehabilitated. Public finances were put in order,
with the public deficits eventually turned into (at least a temporary) surplus. Foreign debt was
restructured and dutifully paid under an internationally sponsored and supported program. A free
enterprise regime was made to flourish (the foreign debt of the private sector was restructured
under government-negotiated terms and conditions with foreign creditors, with virtually all of
the gains accruing to the business sector). The Philippine economy was able to eventually reenter the worlds financial markets.
c) In the social sphere, democracy meant citizen participation. Nongovernmental organizations
were encouraged and allowed to proliferate. Civil society was made to thrive without
government pulling the strings behind it. A land reform law was decreed: this broke up large
landholdings for distribution to the farmer-tillers, with due compensation to the previous
landowners. Universal education up to high school was provided for. Media were given free rein
to help shape public opinion and to assist in the fiscalization of official government actions and
programs.
All the above strategic initiatives, which helped give flesh and substance to democracy even
during the early years of transition (1986-1992), were undertaken after considerable debate, and
often with reasonable delay.
Moreover, their execution was far from fault-free; and those failings were all too often magnified
and exaggerated by sensationalism (on the part of opposition politicians and the media).
Nonetheless, under the impetus of the democratic ideal, the basic strategic directions were
clearly set and tenaciously pursued.
Fundamental challenges
a) Four presidencies have since succeeded the initial transition presidency (of Cory Aquino,
1986-1992). Fidel Ramos was elected in 1992 and served a full term until 1998. Erap Estrada
was elected in 1998 and served up to early 2001 (he was removed from office during an
impeachment proceeding in Congress). Gloria Arroyo, being vice president, became president in
2001 and was elected to a term of her own in 2004. Benigno Aquino III was elected in 2010. The
Constitutionally mandated process of succession through election (or as in the case of Arroyo, by
succession on the part of the vice president) has been dutifully observed: it looks entrenched.
b) All the basic strategic directions, already laid down and set forth during the initial period of
transition, have largely been followed by all the succeeding presidencies. Nonetheless,
fundamental challenges continue: corruption has been a perennial issue (it never seems to go
away, and from the discussion in the press, the issue keeps getting bigger); most government
institutions have remained weak, often overly constrained by limited resources and other
bureaucratic rules and regulations; infrastructure and public services continue being woefully

inadequate; poor governance remains a challenge at all levels. Comparative rankings in


competitiveness, corruption, ease of doing business, and corporate governance show the
Philippines at the bottom quartile in Asia and the world.
The transition from a dictatorship to a democracy, over 25 years, has certainly brought the
Philippines forward: it has enjoyed enormous gains from following the initial strategic directions
of the transition, inspired by the ideals of democracy. But even after 25 years of pursuing the
same strategic directions, the vestiges of corruption, bad governance and a flawed civic culture
continue to present enormous challenges, which the Philippines must now confront.
Reflections on the road ahead
Democracy sets very clear strategic directions; but these directions are not enough. They need to
be substantiated by an equally clear set of strategic priorities, which need to be pursued
vigorously and systematically every six or so years: These priorities need to be translated into,
and concretized by, a portfolio of initiatives, each of which should have measures and targets of
performance every year within each six-year period. In this manner, we bring democracy from its
ideal heights and bring it to bear upon the performance we need to deliver every year, and the
targets we need to meet every year, or even every quarter of each year. Democracy imposes a
concrete, specific, time-bound discipline of performance.
Furthermore, the deep-seated vestiges of corruption, bad governance and a flawed civic culture
would need to be confronted: the ax has to be laid at their roots. We can do so by installing and
constantly nurturing a culture of good governance and responsible citizenship. This may have to
be done one national government agency at a time; and one local government unit at a time. It
also has to be complemented by infusing that culture at all levels: at the level of every institution
(e.g. the families, the schools, the business enterprises) and of every civil society organization. In
the end, that culture must permeate down to the last individual. After all, democracy is by the
people, for the people, and of the people. It has to start with and end with individuals and all the
institutions they forge and set up.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen