American Suppression

of Filipino Nationalism
Act No’s. 277, 292, 518, 1696
1. How close was the author to the event being studies?
Philippine Commission passed these acts after the
establishment of the civil government under William H.
Taft.
2. When was the account made?
-Libel Law or Act No. 277 was enacted on October 24,
1901
-Sedition Law or Act No. 292 was enacted on November
04, 1901
-Brigandage Law or Act No. 518 was enacted on
November 12, 1902
-Flag Law or Act No. 1696 was enacted on August 23,
1907
3. Who was the recipient of the account?
- For the Filipinos, because Americans created these
laws to suppress the nationalism of Filipinos.
4. Is there a bias to be accounted for?
- For Americans, because they want to suppress the
nationalism of the Filipinos and to make the country under
the sovereignty United States.
5. Does informed common sense make the account probable?
- Yes, because the laws are implemented and adhered
by the people.
6. Is the account corroborated by other account?
- Yes, it is corroborated with other laws that enacted by
Philippine Commission under the civil government under
William Taft.
 Act No. 277 or the Libel
Law of 1901
AN ACT DEFINING THE LAW OF LIBEL AND THREATS TO
PUBLISH A LIBEL, MAKING LIBEL AND THREATS TO
PUBLISH A LIBEL MISDEMEANORS, GIVING A RIGHT OF
CIVIL ACTION THEREFOR, AND MAKING OBSCENE OR
INDECENT PUBLICATIONS MISDEMEANORS.
SECTION 1. A libel is a malicious defamation, expressed either
in writing, printing, or by signs or pictures, or the like, or
public theatrical exhibitions, tending to blacken the memory of
one who is dead or to impeach the honesty, virtue, or
reputation, or publish the alleged or natural defects of one
who is alive, and thereby expose him to public hatred,
contempt, or ridicule.
SECTION 2. Every person who willfully and with a malicious
intent to injure another publishes or procures to be published
any libel shall be punished by a fine of not exceeding two
thousand dollars or imprisonment for not exceeding one year,
or both.
SECTION 3. An injurious publication is presumed to have been
malicious if no justifiable motive for making it is shown.
SECTION 4. In all criminal prosecutions for libel the truth may be given in
evidence to the court, and if it appears to the court that the matter
charged as libelous is true and was published with good motives and for
justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; otherwise lie shall be
convicted; but to establish this defense, not only must the truth of the
matter so charged be proven, but also that it was published with good
motives and for justifiable ends.
SECTION 5. To sustain a charge of publishing a libel it is not needful that
the words or things complained of should have been read or seen by
another. It is enough that the accused knowingly parted with the immediate
custody of the libel under circumstances which exposed it to be read or
seen by any other person than himself.
SECTION 6. Every author, editor, or proprietor of any book, newspaper, or
serial publication is chargeable with the publication of any words contained
in any part of such book or number of each newspaper or serial as fully as if
he were the author of the same.
SECTION 7. No reporter, editor, or proprietor of any newspaper is liable
to any prosecution for a fair and true report of any judicial, legislative,
or other public official proceedings, or of any statement, speech,
argument, or debate in the course of the same, except upon proof of
malice in making such report, which shall not be implied from the
mere fact of publication.
SECTION 9. A private communication made by any person to another, in
good faith, in the performance of any duty, whether legal, moral, or
social, solely with the fair and reasonable purpose of protecting the
interests of the person making the communication or the interests of
the person to whom the communication is made, is a privileged
communication, and the person making the same shall not be guilty of
libel nor be within the provisions of this Act.
SECTION 10. Every person who threatens another to publish a libel
concerning him, or any parent, husband, wife, or child of such person, or
any member of his family, and every person who offers to prevent the
publication of any libel upon another person, with intent to extort any
money or other valuable consideration from any person, shall be punished by
a fine of not exceeding one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not
exceeding six months, or both.
SECTION 12. Any person who writes, composes, stereotypes, prints,
publishes, sells, or keeps for sale, distributes, or exhibits any obscene or
indecent writing, paper, hook, or other matter, or who designs, copies,
draws, engraves, paints, or otherwise prepares any obscene picture or print,
or who moulds, cuts, casts, or otherwise makes any obscene or indecent
figure, or who writes, composes, or prints any notice or advertisement of
any such writing, paper, book, print, or figure shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and punished by a fine of not exceeding one thousand dollars
or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both.
 1. How close was the author to the
event being studies?
Lipang Kalabaw had been
circulated in the Philippines during the
period 1907-1909 inclined with the
year issued about Worcester and El
Renacimiento
2. When was the account made? 1908
3. Who was the recipient of the
account?
Americans and Filipinos,
because on the left side of the picture
shows the warning of the Filipino to
Worcester while in the right side of the
picture shows the hidden agenda of
Worcester reading about the issue
published.
4. Is there a bias to be accounted for?
For the Filipinos, because it
shows what the Filipinos trying to
provide with other Filipinos and message
to the Americans
5. Does informed common sense make
the account probable?
Yes, because it shows the
nationalism of the Filipinos.
6. Is the account corroborated by other
account?
Yes, and other newspaper
published in the Philippines.
EL RENACIMIENTO
 EL RENACIMIENTO was founded in 1901 by Rafael Palma
and was replaced by Martin Ocampo in 1903.
 leading voice of oppositionists
 Aves de Rapiña ~ editorial by Fidel Reyes
AVES DE RAPIÑA
 an editorial in El Renacimiento that was published on October 30,
1908 and was written by Fidel Reyes
 most famous libel case Aves de Rapiña
 It denounced an American official for exploiting the resources of
the country for his personal gain.
 He compared the American official to an Aves de Rapiña or a Bird of
Prey for it ascends the mountains of Benguet, Mindanao and
Mindoro to look for gold deposits
• Although the editorial did not mention names, Dean Conant
Worcester, Secretary of Interior, felt that he was the public
official being referred to, so he filed a libel suit to Martin
Ocampo, Teodoro Kalaw and Fidel Reyes
• Ocampo, Reyes and Kalaw were found guilty and sentenced for
imprisonment plus a fine payment.
• The libel case dragged for six years but the case was later argued
in the US Supreme Court and the decision was affirmed in 1914
• Still not satisfied with the verdict, Worcester filed a civil suit
against the newspaper that put it out of business including its
sister newspaper, Muling Pagsilang
1. How close was the author to the event being studies?
Martin Ocampo, Fidel Reyes and Teodoro Kalaw
were nationalist writer who have seen the injustice of
the Americans and they are the defendants of libel
case inihain ni worcester
2. When was the account made?
El Renacimiento was founded in 1901 until 1941.
3. Who was the recipient of the account?
The Filipinos, to awake the nationalism of every
Filipino.
4. Is there a bias to be accounted for?
For the Filipinos, because El Renacimiento is
anti-American and exposes the abuse of power of
government.
5. Does informed common sense make the account
probable?
Yes, because the newspaper showed the
nationalism of the Filipinos and the wrongdoings of
the Americans.
6. Is the account corroborated by other account?
Yes, like Muling Pagsilang
1. How close was the author to the event being studies?
The author Fidel Reyes was in the Philippines where he created
the Aves de Rapina and he red some articles how Dean C. Worcester
used his power to his personal gain
2. When was the account made?
October 30, 1908
3. Who was the recipient of the account?
Filipinos and Americans
4. Is there a bias to be accounted for?
For the Filipinos,
5. Does informed common sense make the account probable?
Yes, because it shows the injustice of the Americans specifically
Worcester.
6. Is the account corroborated by other account?
Yes, because it is reported in Muling Pagsilang the Libel case of
El Renacimiento due to the Aves De Rapina article.
 Act No. 292 or the
Sedition Law of 1902
AN ACT DEFINING THE CRIMES OF TREASON, INSURRECTION, SEDITION,
CONSPIRACIES TO COMMIT SUCH CRIMES, SEDITIOUS UTTERANCES,
WHETHER WRITTEN OR SPOKEN, THE FORMATION OF SECRET
POLITICAL SOCIETIES, THE ADMINISTERING OR TAKING OF OATHS TO
COMMIT CRIMES, OR TO PREVENT THE DISCOVERING OF THE SAME,
AND THE VIOLATION OF OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE, AND PRESCRIBING THE
PUNISHMENT THEREFOR.
SECTION 1. Every person, resident in the Philippine Islands, owing
allegiance to the United States or the Government of the Philippine
Islands, who levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving
them aid and comfort within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere, is guilty
of treason, and, upon conviction, shall suffer death or, at the discretion of
the court, shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than five years and
lined not less than ten thousand dollars.
SECTION 2. Every person, owing allegiance to the United States or the
Government of the Philippine Islands, and having knowledge of any treason
against them or either of them, who conceals and does not, as soon as may
be, disclose and make known the same to the provincial governor in the
province in which he resides or to the Civil Governor of the Islands, or to
some judge of a court of record, is guilty of misprison of treason and shall
be imprisoned not more than seven years and be fined not more than one
thousand dollars.
SECTION 3. Every person who incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or
insurrection against the authority of the United States or of the Government of the Philippine
Islands, or the laws thereof, or who gives aid or comfort to anyone so engaging in such rebellion
or insurrection, shall, upon conviction, be imprisoned for not more than ten years and he lined
not more than ten thousand dollars.
SECTION 4. If two or more persons conspire to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the
Government of the United States in the Philippine Islands or the Government of the Philippine
Islands, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States or
of the Philippine Islands, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States
or of the Government of the Philippine Islands, contrary to the authority thereof, each of such
persons shall be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars and by imprisonment,
with or without hard labor, for a period not more than six years.
SECTION 5. All persons who rise publicly and tumultuously in order to attain by force or outside
of legal methods any of the following objects arc guilty of sedition:
1. To prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the free holding of any
popular election.
2. To prevent the Insular Government, or any provincial or municipal government or any
public official, from freely exercising its or his duties or the due execution of any judicial or
administrative order.
 3. To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or
property of any official or agent of the Insular Government or of a
provincial or municipal government.
4. To inflict, with a political or social object, any act of hate or
revenge upon individuals or upon any class of individuals in the
Islands.
5. To despoil, with a political or social object, any class of
persons, natural or artificial, a municipality, a province, or the
Insular Government, or the Government of the United States, or any
part of its property.
SECTION. 6. Any person guilty of sedition as defined in section five
hereof shall be punished by a fine of not exceeding five thousand
dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding ten years, or both.
SECTION. 7. All persons conspiring to commit the crime of sedition
shall be punished by a fine of not exceeding one thousand dollars or
by imprisonment not exceeding five years, or both.
SECTION 8. Every person who shall utter seditious words or speeches,
write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government of the
United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, or which
tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing his office, or
which tend to instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful
purposes, or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or
which tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb
the peace of the community, the safety and order of the Government, or
who shall knowingly conceal such evil practices, shall be punished by a fine
not exceeding two thousand dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding two
years, or both, in the discretion of the court.
SECTION 9. All persons who shall meet together for the purpose of forming
or who shall form any secret society or who shall, after the passage of this
Act, continue membership in a society already formed, having for its
object, in whole or in part, the promotion of treason, rebellion, or sedition,
or the promulgation of any political opinion or policy, shall be punished by a
fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding
one year, or both.
SECTION 10. Until it has been officially proclaimed that a state of
war or insurrection against the authority or sovereignty of the United
States no longer exists in the Philippine Islands it shall be unlawful
for any person to advocate, orally or by writing or printing, or like
methods, the independence of the Philippine Islands or their
separation from the United States, whether by peaceable or forcible
means, or to print, publish, or circulate any handbill, newspaper, or
other publication advocating such independence or separation.
SECTION 17. A foreigner, residing in the Philippine Islands, who shall
commit any of the crimes specified in the preceding sections of this
Act, except those specified in sections one and two, shall be
punished in the same way and with the same penalty as that
prescribed for the particular crime therein.
 The Sedition Law effectively suppressed several aspects in society that the Filipinos may
use for their expressions of independence and nationalism:
a) The theatre and other art expressions
b) Political parties
c) Publications
d) Political movements

The theater was a form of entertainment for many Filipinos during the Spanish times. In
the period of suppressed nationalism, it became the means to express the anti-American
sentiments of the nationalists.
• In 1902, the seditious theater was born.
• In the seditious theater, playwrights spoke up onstage, disguising their anti-Spanish and
anti-American sentiments in the costumes, manner sand scenography of traditional theater.
When they were discovered by American authorities, the cast and crew, sometimes the
audience were arrested.
1. How close was the author to the event being
studied?
 The picture came from Jersey City Journal, a
journal company from United States
2.When was the account made?
 1918
3. Who was the recipient of the account?
 For the Americans
4. Is there a bias to be accounted for?
 Yes
5. Does informed common sense make the
account probable?
Yes
6. Is the account corroborated by other accounts?
Yes
 4. Is there a bias to be accounted for?
1. How close was the author to the event It shows how Gen. Jacob Smith
being studied? merciless kill the children in the
Davenport, Homer the creator of this cartoon. And the Press that time want to
political cartoon was in the America. They expose the massacre.
did cartoon when U.S Senate investigating 5. Does informed common sense make
the case of the Samar Campaign. the account probable?
Yes, because this cartoon depicts the
2.When was the account made?
scene where Gen. Smith ordered his
May 05, 1902 soldiers and turn Samar into ‘Howling
Wilderness’ that led to Smith’s court0-
3. Who was the recipient of the account?
martial and his punishment of
The Americans because the New York admonishment.
Evening Journal is a newspaper in United 6. Is the account corroborated by other
States. accounts?
Yes, in other articles wherein the
balangiga massacre is a topic.
 Act no. 1696 or the
Flag Law of 1907
AN ACT TO PROHIBIT THE DISPLAY OF FLAGS, BANNERS,
EMBLEMS, OR DEVICES USED IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
FOR THE PURPOSE OF REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
AGAINST THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES AND
THE DISPLAY OF KATIPUNAN FLAGS, BANNERS,
EMBLEMS, OR DEVICES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
 SECTION 1. Any person who shall expose, or cause or permit to be
exposed, to public view on his own premises, or who shall expose, or cause
to be exposed, to public view, either on his own premises or elsewhere,
any flag, banner, emblem, or device used during the late insurrection in
the Philippine Islands to designate or identify f those in armed rebellion
against the United States, or any flag, banner, emblem, or device used or
adopted at any time by the public enemies of the United States in the
Philippine Islands for the purposes of public disorder or of rebellion or
insurrection against the authority of the United States in the Philippine
Islands, or any flag, banner, emblem, or device of the Katipunan Society, or
which is commonly known as such, shall be punished by a fine of not less
than five hundred pesos nor more than five thousand pesos, or by
imprisonment for not less than three months nor more than five years, or
by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion I of the court.
Violations, penalty.
SECTION. 2. Any person or persons having charge of any banquet,
violations, entertainment, public meeting, or reunion, or any parade,
procession, or review, who shall display, or cause or permit to be
displayed, at such banquet, public entertainment, public meeting,
reunion, or in such parade, procession, or review, or who shall expose
or cause to be exposed, to public view any flag, banner, emblem, or
device used during the late insurrection in the Philippine Islands to
designate or identify those in armed rebellion against the United States,
or any flag, banner, emblem, or device used or adopted at any time by
the public enemies of the United States in the Philippine Islands for the
purposes of public disorder or of rebellion or insurrection against the
authority of the United States in the Philippine Islands, or any flag,
banner, emblem, or of the Katipunan Society, or which is commonly
known as such, shall be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred
pesos nor more than five thousand pesos, or by imprisonment for not
less than three months nor more than five years, or by both such fine
and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.
Display of flags or banners prohibited by executive order.
SECTION. 3. It shall be unlawful for any person to expose, or cause or permit
to be exposed, to public view on his own premises, or to expose, or cause to
be exposed, to public view either on his own premises or elsewhere, or to
display or cause to be displayed at any banquet, public entertainment,
meeting, or reunion, or in any parade, procession, or review, or for any person
having charge of such banquet, public entertainment, meeting, or reunion, or
of such parade, procession, or review, to permit to be displayed or exposed:
to public view any flag or banner the use or display of which is prohibited by
executive order of the Governor-General. Any person who shall violate the
provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than five
hundred pesos nor more than five thousand pesos, or by imprisonment for not
less than three months nor more than five years, or by both such fine and
imprisonment, in the discretion of the court: Provided, however, That nothing
in this section contained shall be construed to authorize the Governor-General
to permit the use or display of any flag, banner, emblem, or device whose
use, display, or exposition to public view is prohibited by the preceding
sections of this Act.
 Prohibited dress or uniforms
SECTION. 4. Any person who shall wear, use, or expose to public view in any
parade, procession, or review any uniform or dress, or part thereof, adopted
or used during the late insurrection in the Philippine Islands to designate or
identify those in armed rebellion against the United States, or any uniform
or dress, or part thereof, adopted or used at any time by the public enemies
of the United States in the Philippine Islands for the purposes of public
disorder or of rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United
States in the Philippine Islands, shall be punished by a fine of not less than
five hundred pesos nor more than five thousand pesos, or by imprisonment
for not less than three months nor more than five years, or by both such fine
and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.

Source: Supreme Court Library

https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1907/08/23/act-no-1696-s-1907/
1. How close was the author to the event
being studies?
Manila Times issued an article about
the implementation of Flag Law of
1907 or Act. 1696 of 1907
2. When was the account made?
August 23, 1907
3. Who was the recipient of the account?
Americans and Filipinos
4. Is there a bias to be accounted for? For
americans
5. Does informed common sense make the
account probable?
Yes, because it shows
6. Is the account corroborated by other
account?
Yes, newspapers and magazine
published in America like Los Angeles
Herald
1.How close was the author to the event being studies?
The south bend news-times was the current
publisher during the American suppression in the Filipinos
2.When was the account made?
May 26 1914
3.Who was the recipient of the account?
-This article published in south bend news time in
Indiana U.S for showcasing the story of Fred Funston to
the Americans.
4.Is there a bias to be accounted for?
-The bias is for Americans specially for Fred Funston
because this represent the heroic act of Fred Funston in
oppressing the Filipino
5.Does informed common sense make the account
probable?
Yes, because this article represents the victorious
fight of Fred Funston against the KKK in Caloocan during
after the enactment of flag law.
6.Is the account corroborated by other account?
Yes, other news where the topic is Victorious fight of
Fred to KKK.
1. How close was the author to the event being studies?
The picture was taken during the presentation of
the Philippine flag after the repeal of the flag law.
2. When was the account made?
October 30, 1919
3. Who was the recipient of the account?
The Filipinos
4. Is there a bias to be accounted for?
The bias is in Filipinos, because it shows the
successful repeal of the flag law in Malacanang
5. Does informed common sense make the account
probable?
Yes, because, it shows defeat of the Americans
when the flag law was repealed.
6. Is the account corroborated by other account?
Yes, in the Act No. 2871 an act to repeal the Act
No. 1696
 Act No. 518 or
Brigandage Act of 1902
AN ACT DEFINING HIGHWAY ROBBERY OR
BRIGANDAGE, AND PROVIDING FOR THE PUNISHMENT
THEREFOR.
SECTION 1. Whenever three or more persons, conspiring together,
shall form a hand of robbers for the purpose of stealing carabao
or other personal property, by means of force and violence, and
shall go out upon the highway or roam over the country, armed
with deadly weapons for this purpose, they shall be deemed
highway robbers or brigands, and every person engaged in the
original formation of the band, or joining it thereafter, shall,
upon conviction thereof, be punished by death or imprisonment
for not less than twenty years, in the discretion of the court.

SECTION 2. To prove the crime described in the previous section,

it shall not be necessary to adduce evidence that any member of
the hand has in fact committed robbery or theft, but it shall be
sufficient to justify conviction thereunder if, from the
circumstances, it can be inferred beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused was a member of such an armed band as that
described in said section.
SECTION 3. Persons guilty of the crime defined in section
one may be punished therefor in the Court of First Instance
in any province; in which they may be taken or from which
they may have fled.

SECTION 4. Every person knowingly aiding or abetting such

a band of brigands as that described in section one by
giving them information of the movement of the police or
constabulary, or by securing stolen property from them, or
by procuring supplies of food, clothing, arms, or
ammunition and furnishing the same to thorn shall upon
conviction, be punished by imprisonment for not loss than
ten years and not more than twenty years.
1. How close was the author to the event being
studies?
The photo was taken on the day Col.
Faustino Guillermo was captured by Philippine
constabulary.
2. When was the account made?
June 10, 1903
3. Who was the recipient of the account?
The Filipinos and the Americans
4. Is there a bias to be accounted for?
The bias is in Americans, because it
shows how successful they enforced the law.
5. Does informed common sense make the
account probable?
Yes, because it shows the greatness of
American Imperialist.
6. Is the account corroborated by other account?
Yes, in the Act No. 518 and the G.R No.
1620

1. How close was the author to the event
being studies?
The cartoon or the article was
created months after the execution of
Macario Sakay. It was created in La
Correspondencia de Puerto-rico a
newspaper circulated in Puerto Rico
under the U.S government.
2. When was the account made?
March 7, 1908 months after
Macario Sakay and his generals hanged
to death.
3. Who was the recipient of the account?
The Puerto Ricans
4. Is there a bias to be accounted for?
The bias is in Americans, because it
shows how great they were in the
Philippines and they show it to Puerto Ricans
for them to adhere their government or
whatever they are doing in Puerto Rico that
time.
5. Does informed common sense make the
account probable?
Yes, because it shows how U.S
Soldiers great in finding bandits and teaches
everyone lesson under their rule not to
violate their orders.
6. Is the account corroborated by other
account?
Yes, newspapers like Hawaiian
gazette and other articles that talks about
the surrender of Sakay.
1. How close was the author to the event being
studied?
The photographer taken the photos early
1900’s were the bandits/ladrones are hanged at
the gallows in Tayabas, Quezon.
2.When was the account made?
Early 1900’s. After the brigandage act was
enacted.
3. Who was the recipient of the account?
-The Filipinos because it shows what will
happen to them if they violate the law.
- The Americans because it shows how
Philippine Commission under the United States
enforcing the law.
4. Is there a bias to be accounted for?
Yes, for Americans because it shows how
they successfully suppressed Filipinos by the
law and how they catch and kill the
revolutionaries in which what they called
“bandits or ladrones.”
5. Does informed common sense make the
account probable?
Yes, because it happened and the pictures
were evidence on how the law was exercised.
6. Is the account corroborated by other
accounts?
Yes, the brigandage law of 1902 and other
articles where they use it as death sentenced
like what happened to the band of Faustino
Guillermo and Macario Sakay, Lucio De Vega,
Leon Villafuerte and Julian Montalan.
 Group III
Aquino, Abrajano, Crislyn
Aquino, Inah Erica
Dela cruz, Nicole Louise
Feranco, Kim Beverly
Mendoza, bea angel Nicole
Romano, Maryjoy
Quinto, Argel