Professional Documents
Culture Documents
William Guéraiche*
Introduction
Manuel Quezon, the first president of the Philippine Commonwealth (1935‐1944), remains in
the collective memory a nationalist hero whose name is often associated with independence.
The concept of a ʺnationʺ, understood in the Western sense, includes independence and the
existence of a nation‐state. Since the pioneering work of Benedict Anderson in 1983,1
academics have questioned the idea of the nation, which is an ʺimagined communityʺ, a
mental representation. It is a human grouping, linked by a common vision, as well as
outward signs such as language, religion and other cultural practices, that expresses the
* William Guéraiche is an historian. After defending his doctorate, he taught colonial
history at the Sorbonne and Geopolitics at the University of Marne la Vallée. He
spent three years in Manila where he worked on Manuel Quezonʹs archives and
published Manuel Quezon. Les Philippines de la décolonisation à la démocratisation (Paris:
Maisonneuve et Larose) in 2004. He also edited Les structures politiques traditionnelles à
l’épreuve de la démocratie en Asie du Sud‐est, a special issue of Péninsule (Paris: Olizane)
in 2004.
1 ANDERSON, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and
Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
desire to live together in a common territory. If Quezon emerged as a major nationalist leader
in the same manner as Mahatma Gandhi or Sukarno, it was because he not only advocated
independence for his country but also participated in the elaboration of the Philippine nation.
The revolution of 1896 is taken as evidence of the existence of a Philippine nation before the
arrival of the Americans. While it is clear that the awareness of some kind of identity had
spread among the ilustrados during the century, it remains to be seen whether the rest of the
population, notably the lowest classes, shared their vision. In the 1970S, historians such as
John Schumacher examined the roots of nationalism among the Philippine elite2. The next
generation gave more emphasis to history ʺfrom belowʺ: Reynaldo Ileto attempted to
interpret the revolution as popular movement,3 but his conclusions are far from definitive.
Glenn Anthony May, for instance, has questioned the essence of this nationalism and
proposed that the ʺrevolt of the massesʺ consisted of little more than peasants fighting on
behalf of their landlords within the framework of patron/client ties. According to May, it is
questionable whether the masses indeed ʺhad a common commitment to independence and a
shared sense of a Filipino nation….ʺ4 The celebration of the revolution (and the controversy
between May and Ileto about Bonifacio)5 showed that Philippine nationalism is still a point at
issue. Taking Mayʹs position as a starting point, it is clear that the Philippine nation was still
under construction during American colonisation. This assertion is based on Andersonʹs
studies as well as on European historiansʹ work.6 It is now agreed, for example that the
French nation appeared at the end of the nineteenth century, even if an independent state
existed for many centuries before then.
Quezonʹs style of nationalism cannot be reduced to the call for immediate independence, and
an analysis of his position on the independence process is not sufficient. What kind of nation
did he want to build within the framework of the Philippine state ?
2 See his thesis: SCHUMACHER, John N. 1973. The Propaganda Movement, 1880‐1895: The
Creators of a Filipino Consciousness, the Makers of Revolution. Manila: Solidaridad Pub.
House. (revised edition 1997. The Propaganda Movement, 1880‐1895. Quezon City:
ADMU Press) and his essays: 1991. The Making of a Nation. Essay on the Nineteenth‐
Century Filipino Nationalism. Quezon City: ADMU Press.
3 ILETO, Reynaldo C. 1979. Pasyon and Revolution. Popular Movements in the Philippines,
1840‐1910. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
4 MAY, Glenn Anthony. 1987. A Past Recovered. Quezon City: New Day Publisher, p. 19
and p. 145 on patron/clients ties during the revolution.
5 See MAY, Glenn Anthony. 1996. Inventing a Hero. The Posthumous Re‐creation of A.
Bonifacio. Madison: University of Wisconsin; ILETO, Reynaldo C. 1998. Filipinos and
Their Revolution. Event, Discourse, and Historiography. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila
University Press, pp. 203‐237; and CHURCHILL, Benardita Reyes (ed). 1997.
Determining the Truth. The Story of Andres Bonifacio, Manila: Manila Studies
Association, National Commission for Culture and the Arts, Philippine National
Historical Society.
6 For a general introduction to the question, cf. the synthesis of CABANEL, Patrick.
1996. La question nationale au XI s. Paris: La Découverte.
Nationalist or opportunist ?
Quezon was a politician with considerable ambition. It is not unlikely that he saw himself at
the head of the state apparatus as soon as he entered politics. As a politician, he was adept at
double language. In public he maintained that his only wish was American withdrawal, but
behind the scenes he never acted to hasten the independence process when he did not
personally benefit. His mandate as resident commissioner illustrates the discrepancy between
discourse and reality.
From the time that Quezon arrived in Washington in 1909, the 31‐year old appeared to be
riding a hard anti‐imperialist line. Quezon was unyielding on what he called ʺthe sacred
causeʺ. The denunciation of American colonial policy had its intellectual roots in the anti‐
imperialist ideology. When he arrived in Washington, Quezon sought the support of the Anti‐
Imperialist League, created at the time of annexation of the Spanish colonies in 1898.7 The
young Commissioner had maintained a correspondence with Erving Winslow, its Secretary
General. Winslow, a retired businessman, gave complete support to the Philippine cause, to
the extent that his young protégé ran for the nacionalista party, in favour of immediate
independence for the archipelago. In a letter dated 25 March 1911, Winslow offered Quezon
his help in drafting his speeches.8 In the first years of their collaboration it would appear as
though the positions of the two men were completely interchangeable.
His speeches leave no doubt that Quezon was unyielding on the issue of independence. But
from the beginning there were inconsistencies between Quezonʹs discourse and his political
decisions. On 6 February 1910, the progresistas addressed a petition to president William Taft
asking for a declaration according to which the United States would agree to grant Philippine
independence. Quezon believed that autonomy, through the institution of a Philippine senate,
would have been a compromise acceptable to the Republican administration, and he wrote to
the President in this spirit on 29 March 1910.9 But Benito Legarda, the second Resident
Commissioner, refused to support his colleague in this undertaking. Quezon decided to align
himself with the independent‐ist stance in the following month. In his first speech to
Congress, he added a proposition on the neutralisation of the archipelago. Through the
correspondence that he maintained with Winslow, it is apparent that Quezonʹs public
position regarding immediate independence was more nuanced in private. In the early part of
1911, Quezon let it be known in Congress that a status of autonomy for the colony was a
solution that might be entertained. Winslow, worried about these rumours, wrote Quezon
about them on 28 February,10 but did not receive a reply. He wrote again on 4 March, asking
7 TOMPKINS, E. Berkeley. 1970. Anti‐imperialism in the United States: The Great Debate
1890‐1920. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
8 The National Library of Manila (N.L.), Quezon presidential papers (Q.P.), Anti‐
Imperialist League, Box (B.) 5.
9 Cited by GRIPALDO, Rolando M. 1994 – The Quezon‐Winslow Correspondence and
Other Essays, Manila : De La Salle University, p. 9. Gripaldo has compiled a selection
from general correspondence and presidential archives.
10
These letters are in the presidential archives (N.L.), in the series on General Correspondence
ordered chronologically.
Quezon to clarify his position. The Commissioner assured him that his position was
unchanged, but one senses that he was open to compromises with the Democrat
administration.
After the shift in the majority in Congress and the election of Wilson in 1912, Quezon
constantly lobbied democrats on the issue of independence, as Wilsonʹs party had promoted
itself as the champion of the right to self‐governance on the Democrat platform. The young
representative from the colonies requested that the Democrat administration transform its
promises into reality. This new situation encouraged Quezon to distance himself from the
anti‐imperialist positions of the League. He preferred negotiation to confrontation. After
meeting Wilson, Quezon wrote to Winslow on 19 January 1914, saying that the president did
not favour independence for the Philippines. He had adapted his actions to the new situation.
It was necessary to obtain as many concessions as possible under the Democrat
administration and to postpone independence. With this perspective, the ultimate goal was
merely a final destination not yet in sight. During discussions for the second draft of the Jones
bill, the Resident Commissioner temporarily abandoned his previous requirements to
support the creation of a Senate. Winslow was in the end frustrated by the constant changes
in the of the Philippine leaderʹs position. In 1915, just before the final falling‐out between the
two men, Quezon nonetheless managed to secure the backing of the League by seeking the
direct support of its president. Winslow accused Quezon of being a traitor,11 which Quezon
found unacceptable. The politician regretted that the humanist maintained this firm position,
but hoped that the League would nonetheless continue to support him. All things considered,
the Resident Commissioner showed on many occasions between 1909 and 1916 that he was
not an advocate of independence at any price. The same ambiguity surfaced in the succeeding
period, when he was president of the Philippine Senate and then the Commonwealth.
The newly elected President of the Senate always represented himself as a fierce champion of
independence after 1916. But in the Philippines, his position was less definite than it was in
the United States. Quezon co‐operated with Harrison and expected to be appointed Governor
General after his friendʹs term had ended. At the same time he needed to defeat Sergio
Osmeña, to appear to the American administration as the only alternative.12 After he took
control of the Nacionalista party, Quezon could confidently push the independence movement
forward, as he knew that he would benefit from it. But after 1923‐1924, his speeches confused
different notions of independence and the right to self‐government. At least since 1928, he
was in favour of some form of dominion. Inasmuch as he was involved in every aspect of
politics, he could cope with a foreign presence. Quezon worked to modify the ʺimmediate
independenceʺ motto. The crisis of 1929 gave him a good pretext to slow down the
independence process. Although the effects of the Great Depression were less pronounced in
the archipelago than they were in America, the Filipino elite showed less enthusiasm to be
freed of its colonial tutelage, and with the return of the Democrat administration,
independence again became a possibility. The Hare‐Hawes Cutting bill and the Tydings‐
McDuffie law envisioned independence in the short term. But once the principle was
11 N.L.‐Q.P., Subject files (series. VII), Quezon to Storey, 26 March 1919.
12. I stretched this hypothesis in the first part of my book: ʺLe prestidigateur politiqueʺ in
2004. Manuel Quezon. Les Philippines de la décolonisation à la démocratisation. Paris:
Maisonneuve et Larose, pp. 15‐89.
accepted the President seemed to procrastinate. This lowest common denominator among the
ilustrados was called into question. After the Japanese invasion of China in 1937 confirmed
Japanʹs Asian ambitions, Quezon officially maintained his position on independence beyond
the transition period, but organized in the meantime a ʺretentionistʺ opposition.13
Throughout his political career, from his time in Congress in the 1910s to his exile to the
American capital during the Second World War, there was no doubt that Quezon was adept
at a double discourse. A committed, even extreme independantist in public, his position was
in reality more nuanced and subject to compromise. Despite what he said, Quezon did not
want independence at any price. Much depended on politics. Quezonʹs interpretation of
independence came closest to the concept of kalayaan. Like the ilustrados of the nineteenth
century, the term came closer to ʺpolitical autonomy’ than the rupture with the colonial ruler.
In addition, as Ileto has shown, kalayaan at the time of the Revolution included kasaganaan,
prosperity for the entire people, as well.14 With regard to his position on independence,
Quezon was the heir of the Spanish period.
Quezon was, before all else, a politician driven by ambition. He used the issue of
independence to further his political career. But his success was not merely based on political
legerdemain. He had a vision, although sometimes unclear, of a Philippine destiny, of which
one component was a broad definition of the Filipino people.
Bayan, or the nation writ large
Quezon regarded the Philippine nation as the sum of all the islandsʹ inhabitants, including
the ordinary man (sic) and the large aristocratic families. In keeping with the image that he
sought for himself, Quezon constantly sought a balance between his humble origins and his
membership in a certain aristocracy. He had little difficulty then in affirming the unity of the
nation of which he could claim to be a symbol. Throughout his career, Quezon attempted to
pass legislation favourable to the least privileged members of Philippine society, but it was
not until 1935 that he had sufficient latitude to put his policies into practice. For the
representatives and senators loyal or belonging to the large aristocratic families whose co‐
operation Quezon needed to strip Osmeña of his leadership, the ʺpeopleʺ did not exist, and
certainly did not deserve any attention. The idea of social justice is written into the 1935
constitution. In Article II Section 5, it is stipulated that ʺthe promotion of social justice to
ensure the well‐being and economic security of all the people should the concern of the State.ʺ
The president explained his interpretation of the constitution several times. A speech from the
19th of August 1938 sums up his ideas on the subject. His ambition is to provide the
opportunity to secure the fundamentals–food, shelter and clothing–as well as a reasonable
level of comfort and free time for all Filipinos. Quezon opposed the National Assembly, many
of whose members represented the sugar lobby, which was not inclined to pass legislation
favourable to the peasants. In this struggle Quezon could use nothing but the power of the
state–or more simply his own–against the large landowners, but his margin of manoeuvre
was small as most of the politicos came from the landed aristocracy attached to its privileges.
13 French Ministry of Foreign Affairs (M.F.A.), Asia 1930‐1940: General files 1930‐1940,
Philippines, file 18, 3 September 1939.
14 Ileto, Reynaldo C. 1979. Pasyon and Revolution. Popular Movements in the Philippines,
1840‐1910. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, p. 87+.
Parallel to this essential question of land, Quezon favoured the passage of social legislation
for workers. In November 1936 the Philippine Assembly passed a law instituting a minimum
wage for public works employees, for example. Strongly influenced by American social
legislation, Quezon attempted to advance workersʹ rights (a five‐day week, working
conditions, the prohibition of child labour, etc.), but he again encountered resistance from the
dominant class that had no desire to surrender the benefits from its exploitation of cheap
labour. Although the president assumed the role of the defender of social justice from time to
time, he did not pass certain limits. In a letter dated 6 January 1936, he gave a lesson in
political realism to Ramon Torres, Minister of Labour. The government will not build social
housing as this would create a distinction between the families living in the lodgings and the
others. Other means, less costly for the State, such as paternalism, should be encouraged.15
This policy of social justice, the unity of the bayan, the people, stemmed from a sincere desire
to improve the lot of the Filipinos. It also served Quezonʹs political interests. It helped keep
the recurrent agrarian question, which could have fed communism, at bay. It also increased
his popularity with the masses.
The nation, according to Quezonʹs definition, could not be split along social or religious
boundaries. Quezon kept a wary eye on the Muslim population, on whom he received regular
reports.16 While he had no particular affection for the Moros, he tried to facilitate their
integration. On this issue, he reacted as a politician, and not as a supporter of the Christian
church: his duty as nationalist leader was to maintain unity within the country. He supported
the application of a single law within the territory, suppressing Koranic regulations.
Nevertheless, like many officials of his time, Quezon could overlook differences–age at
marriage, polygamy etc–in the area of family life as long as national unity was not put at risk.
Conversely he never yielded on the sensitive question of education because local rulers were
reluctant to send their children to school. Quezon had only a weak grasp on the situation but
always required his Muslim colleagues in the senate to use their influence to make sure that
the law was respected. Quezon excelled in interpersonal dealings and used this quality to
make his colleagues listen to reason‐‐even if bad faith arguments were used on all sides.
Despite the constant quarrels, Quezonʹs first trip after his inauguration as head of the
Commonwealth was to the South. But as Harrison describes well in his diary,17 the president
failed to find a satisfying solution to separatism. In this regard Quezon was an exception
15 N.L.‐Q.P., Land B. 178. Quezon added: ʺMoreover, we will be only exposing the
Government to the criticism that the families which have found accommodation are
only families of the political leaders…ʺ
16 Quezonʹs secretaries received correspondence and reports from civil servants and
politicians. For instance, Jose G. Sanvictores, one of his former secretaries, had been
nominated Director of the Non Christian Tribes in 1920, before Harrison left: N.L.‐
Q.P., Moros B. 250 ; Non Christian Tribes B. 277 ; Department of Sulu and Mindanao
B. 248.
17 Harrison, Francis Burton. 1974. Origins of the Philippine Republic: Extracts from the
Diaries and Records of F. B. Harrison. Annoted by Michael Onorato. Ithica, N.Y.,
Southeast Asia Program, Cornell University; pp. 69‐74 and p. 216.
among the Philippine elite, which was inclined to use force against the Muslims. If Quezon
wanted to connect to the Filipinos, he also dreamed of building a real nation.
Filipinos in the United States: a microcosm of Philippine nation
Quezon, because of his broad conception of the nation–an entity not limited to a social group
that is supposed to represent the majority–contributed to the development of Philippine
nationhood. In the same way that Filipino students in Spain contributed to spreading the
feeling of nationalism among the ilustrados at the end of the nineteenth century, the Philippine
community in the United States played a key role in the creation of a national identity during
the first half of the following century. This community was a microcosm of Philippine society.
First‐ and second‐generation Filipinos behaved exactly as they had on the archipelago,
forgetting in the process their regional origins so that they did not perceive themselves as
anything but Filipino. There was a constant dialogue between this community and the person
considered its representative, whether he was the Resident Commissioner, the Senate
President or the President of the Commonwealth. In their correspondence (which was lacking
in the archipelago as most Filipinos were illiterate), with Quezon, expatriate Filipinos asked
themselves and their leader about their identity, as they were colonised by a foreign power
that took pains not to assimilate them.
Correspondence from Filipino first‐generation migrants to the US tells a story of disillusion.
On his arrival in Seattle, wrote Pedro Del Mondo to Quezon on September 4, 1914, ʺI found
out that the Filipinos are suffering a struggle for life which deprived them from being equal
to other strangers (sic).ʺ18 Filipinos, who Americans could not distinguish from other Asians,
were often victims of daily racism. Manual labourers faced the hostility of their foremen. In
January 1914, Manuel Quezon forwarded complaints from Filipino workers to the American
administration and to his friend F. McIntyre, chief of the Bureau of Insular Affairs. The latter
sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney General in Seattle but without result. After Quezon was
elected President of the Senate in 1916, his secretaries continued receiving complaints from
Filipino Americans. In January 1922, the Secretary of War was compelled to intervene with
the Attorney General: ʺThe complaints have been sufficiently numerous and insistent to
warrant my bringing them to the attention of your Department for possible investigation.ʺ19
The American administration did not rush to investigate the complaints because it was not in
favour of these workers, foreigners in the eyes of the law as well as in public opinion, coming
to the United States. Every effort was made to keep the cases from going to court.
In the 1910s inquiries about U.S. citizenship are frequent. A seaman, working for the Navy at
the end of WWI, wondered why he has not received ʺ…the ʹcitizenshipʹ pay since we are
governed and subject to the same law.ʺ20 A worker living in Alaska for six years attempts to
register and to vote, a student is denied his application for citizenship in Los Angeles. The
replies to such requests referred to the Act of June 29, 1906 on the naturalisation of Filipinos.
18 Filipinos in the U.S., B. 182. Dorothy Bint Fujita Rony 1996. ʺYou Got to Move like
Hellʺ: Trans‐Pacific Colonialism and Filipina/s in Seattle, 1919‐1941. PhD, Yale
University, drew a complete picture of the community in her thesis.
19 Filipinos in the U.S., B. 184.
20 Filipinos in the U.S., B. 183.
According to the law, some Philippine citizens were eligible to become naturalised citizens of
the United States, while others were not. The Supreme Court, via the Bureau of
Naturalisation, decided on all matters, which meant that the process of naturalisation was not
standardised.
The legislation, whose purpose was to protect U.S. citizens from a massive migration from the
colony, made things difficult even for those who had not asked for citizenship. The
recruitment of Filipino soldiers during WWI changed the situation, because officially only
Americans could enlist in the army. During the crisis of 1929, many demands for
naturalisation arrived in Washington and Manila. Arguments like those used by M.M. Brown
were irrefutable. While he was not American, he had served in the Navy. M.M. Brown asked
Quezon to secure legislation to admit Filipinos like himself to citizenship. In addition, under
the New Deal, only Americans were entitled to welfare, and the naturalisation service was
flooded with requests. With the birth of the Commonwealth in 1935, under which
independence would be granted within the next ten years, nationalist leaders had no interest
in facilitating these transfers of qualified workers. In January 1931, W.H. Lawrence, a San
Francisco lawyer and president of the Philippine Society, sent a resolution to M. Quezon. His
association opposed the American Congress, which wanted to exclude Filipinos from the
mainland. Nevertheless, the association suggested that ʺthe repatriation of indigent Filipinos
would not only reduce by so many the number of the unemployed of this country, but would
have the effect of discouraging the further migrations of laborers from the Philippines to the
United States....ʺ21 The President of the Senate replied that the resolution was excellent and
hoped that something could be done.
The US was unlike the idyllic representation that the migrants had before they left the
Philippines. If a large majority of ʺlegalʺ Filipinos wanted to assimilate, some had a different
point of view. On June, 24 1922, C.A Buen wrote from Chicago that mostly he found the
situation unfair. In the archipelago, most of the important positions were held by Americans
and a Filipino would ʺhave to kneel before an American before he can get a position ?ʺ22 In a
letter dated December 12, 1931, in which he describes the consequences of the Great
Depression on the Philippine community in California, Fernando T. Amis, president of the
Filipino Educational Society of America, came to the conclusion that Filipinos had to adopt a
fighting spirit to relieve the despair of their countrymen and women: ʺI believe, Mr. President,
that there is nothing that our government could do to remedy their [Filipinosʹ] positions
except to fight Uncle Sam for the immediate emancipation of our race.ʺ23
Quezon appears to have remained the unofficial head of the Filipino overseas community.
The letters that he received showed a familial attachment to him and demonstrate that
Quezon acted very much like the leader to whom each Filipino owed respect, and also who
represented the final authority among his countrymen and women. This peculiar relationship
generated all manner of personal requests. A young Filipino who asked Quezon for an official
21 Filipinos in the U.S., B. 184.
22 Filipinos in the U.S., B. 181.
23 ibid.
position also dared to involve him in an offer of marriage ! The brideʹs father, from Boston,
asked the Resident Commissioner for information on his prospective son‐in‐lawʹs
ʺage, character, profession, ability, married or single, family connections,
financial condition, standing among his people, army record and standing,
position regarding government to recent elections in Philippines (sic), vote at
that time, and in fact the information you would know regarding the man
your daughter would care to marry.ʺ24
Quezon, patron of the archipelago
The distinctive nature of the bond between Quezon and the overseas Filipinos resembled
what is called the politica de familia. The nation was perceived as a large extended family.
Social codes all follow the principle of pakikisama, a highly developed concept in the Malay
world: Quezon represented the highest authority, or more precisely the head of the family on
a national scale. To all Filipinos he was a figure whose instructions were to be obeyed and
from whom one could also obtain favours. These relations of interdependence structured
Philippine society on at least three levels. At the base, an extended family functions on the
(very Asian) principle of solidarity; it is then involved in a relationship of patronage at the
local level with the head of a village or a province as the symbolic head of a community.
Quezon, for his part, performed the functions of the patron of the archipelago. His
compatriots appealed to him as they did their provincial patron. It is primarily for this reason
that the archives concerning Filipino‐Americans are full of meaning. The distance between
the United States and the Philippines made it necessary to use written communication,
making visible a phenomenon that would have been difficult to capture in the archipelago.
In the Philippines, the relations between Quezon and his compatriots were not of a different
nature. As they operated on a more verbal level, however, they have not left any exceptional
written record. The president was known to be an honest man, sensitive to injustice. The most
unusual requests found their way to his secretaries. Twenty pigs (a fortune for an agricultural
society) were stolen at Calapan, the capital of Mindoro Occidental; the employees at
MERALCO, the national power company, collected payment but did not issue any receipts…
The grievances were at times more serious. In January 1940, a collective letter from Cagayan
(Rizal province) requested that Quezon take action against a local patron who behaved like a
tyrant. The latter killed one of his housemaids in 1932 and was sentenced to fourte14 years in
prison. ʺBecause of his moneyʺ he was not incarcerated and Felix Villafor continued to
terrorise the community. He lent money to the poorest families, and as they were often unable
to pay their debts, he took young girls ʺto reduce them to slaveryʺ with all that this implied.
Quezon was for the Filipinos a kind of ʺprince of justiceʺ, capable of helping the weak
triumph over the strong. In the course of his travels to the provinces in 1936‐1937, the
President did not hesitate to wear the robes of a judge by firing ipso facto a corrupt
government employee, or a teacher who had profited from his position at the expense of one
of his students. After 1940, the complaints addressed to Malacañang were so numerous that
Quezonʹs secretaries replied with a form document.
Whatever the circumstances, the president was always open to dialogue. Individual ties were
far more determinant than institutions. Where honour (or ʺfaceʺ) was concerned, it was a
whole network of relationships, which included intermediaries (ʺgo‐betweensʺ) rather than a
24 Filipinos in the States, B. 185.
single individual. A Filipino always depended on a solution negotiated man to man, or
among several men, rather than resorting to the courts that he suspected–with good reason–
of being influenced by local bosses, either directly or indirectly. Americans, all Westerners in
general, find it difficult to comprehend the manner in which such a system functions, based
as it is on personal relationships. Quezonʹs ability to make himself available to hear the
humblest of his compatriots made it easy for him to develop the image of the supreme leader,
the most malakas (strong, or in a position of strength) among Filipinos.
During the American period, no ilustrado could have claimed to be as close to his people as
Quezon. Not content with defeating his political enemies, Quezon made certain that they
were also in his debt. By seduction or by force, he transformed Manila high society into his
court. Everyone, in one way or another, was in his debt. The exercise of this power is seen in
the subtle exercise of writing letters of introduction and recommendation. The president of
the Commonwealth became the key player in the game of obtaining a position of power.25 At
one time or another, members of Manila high society would cross paths with the President or
one of his close allies.
The system was a coherent one. An encounter with Quezon was unavoidable. When he told
American officials that he knew his people well, Quezon implied that nothing that was
Filipino was foreign to him. And once he was the head of state, the exchange with the
growing nation was not enough for him. He wanted to shape it as well.
The unity of the nation
As with all nascent nation‐states, the awareness of belonging to a community depends on
objective criteria such as racial homogeneity, or common cultural practices in the religious
domain, for example. But the Philippines under colonial tutelage was a mosaic of peoples. To
build this nation Quezon made efforts in two areas: language, and the definition of a code of
conduct outlined in the Code of Citizenship. The religious question merits a study of its
own.26
Under American colonisation the Philippines was a Tower of Babel. In the 7000 islands
forming the archipelago, almost 200 languages were spoken. Two were used by the elite
before the signing of the Treaty of Paris: Spanish, the official language of the courts, and a
sign of recognition among Ilustrados; and Chinese, which was used mostly among members of
the Diaspora in the commercial centres like Manila or Cebu City. The American
administration allowed the setting up of English‐language primary schools at the end of
ʺpacificationʺ. Quezon, who was from Luzon, spoke Tagalog, and, because of his social
background, Spanish. He studied in Spanish and was therefore more at ease writing and
thinking in that language, as is seen in his archives. In March 1904, James G. Harbord, a
25 I made a survey on these letters in ʺSociability and Personal Bonds in the Philippines
under American Colonisationʺ in Asia‐Pacific Social Science Review, Manila, 2002, pp.
86‐104.
26 I attempted to show in my book (op. cit. pp. 141‐164) that Quezon did not consider
Christianity as a major component of the Philippine nation. He took advantage of the
religion, like Mustapha Kemal, but was no zealot.
graduate of West Point and then governor of Tayabas, suggested that he learn English.27 But it
was not until he was elected Resident Commissioner that Quezon put his mind to it. He
arrived in Washington during Christmas 1909, and gave his first speech in English on May 14
1910. The Resident Commissioner did not hide his enthusiasm for this new language. On
September 20, 1914 a Filipino businessman from New York wrote Quezon to ask for his
opinion on the future official language of the Philippines. On 17 October, his secretary replies
that ʺEnglish will ultimately be the official language of the Islands and the study of this
language should be encouraged among Filipinos.ʺ28 Back in the Philippines, Quezon
supported the use of English instead of Spanish, most notably in the courts in 1924. Cases
were still heard in the language of the former colonisers of the country, which only
strengthened the power that local patrons wielded over their clients. It is clear that for
Quezon, English was also an instrument of social justice.29
The language question resurfaced as independence drew closer. Although Quezon favoured
English, he was not opposed to the use of a language that did not convey the legacy of
colonisation. Strong public opinion supported this position in the archipelago. The issue was
resolved, with finesse, by the president of the Forensic Club in a Vigan high school. Under the
Commonwealth, young Filipinos were fond of oratorical competitions. Augusto P. Pacis wrote
to the President of the Senate to ask him for his position on the use of English. Did he believe
that, if English was adopted as the national language, that a national literature would
blossom, that ʺwill embody our tradition, customs, whims, and idiosyncrasies as a race ?ʺ30
The delegates to the constitutional convention replied less than two weeks later, on 8
February 1935. In the General Provisions of Article XIII, Section 3 of the Constitution of the
Commonwealth, it is established that the National Assembly should encourage the use of a
national language ʺbased on one of the existing native languages.ʺ Until then, English and
Spanish would continue to be the official languages. Quezon went along with this. In an
address to the National Assembly on 27 October 1936, he advocated the creation of a national
language institute, but added that English should still be taught.31 The assembly approved the
creation of the institute on 13 November. Two years later, in 1937, the same organisation
recommended to the President that Tagalog be adopted as the base for a national language,
which was put into effect by Executive Order on 30 December. The act made the teaching of
Tagalog in all schools obligatory from June 1940.
27 Cf. CULLINAME, Michael. 1979 ʺQuezon and Harry Bandholtzʺ in Manuel Quezon:
ʺThe Good Fightʺ revisited. American Historical Collection, pp. 79‐90.
28 N.L.‐Q.P., Filipinos in the United States, B. 185.
29 N.L.‐Q.P., Language and languages, B. 179.
30 N.L.‐Q.P., Clubs, associations, B. 28. Il n’y a pas de réponse.
31 Creation of an Institute of National Language, Messages of the President (Addresses,
Speeches, Messages to the National Assembly, Letters, Press Statements,
Proclamations, Executive Orders, Administrative Orders and General Orders).
Manila: Bureau of Printing. pp. 343‐344.
In the same sprit, Quezon drafted a code of citizenship and ethics (see document at the end of
the article). In the preceding year, for his 60th birthday, Quezon gave a speech before
university students at the Rizal Memorial in which he criticised ʺnationalʺ flaws. Socially, the
Filipino was a dead weight and believed that the government alone was responsible for him.
The middle class was lazy and a burden for the national economy. It was therefore necessary
to re‐create the race, to render it morally strong, virile, hardworking, refined, entrepreneurial,
persevering and with a strong sense of civic duty. To this end, the young needed a code of
ethics and personal conduct, a Philippine Bushido. Quezon belonged to the same tradition as
the Katipuneros: at the beginning of the revolution Emilio Jacinto wrote a Kartilla (from the
Spanish cartilla, an elementary school manual) consisting of 13 points that all the members of
the Katipunan were expected to live by; Bonifacio had also composed a Decalogue, the
Katungkulang Gagawin ng mga Z. Ll. B. (The Duties of the Sons of the People).32
Quezon anticipated the criticisms that could have been made of his policies. His opponents
would say that the text was a first step to totalitarianism. Filipinos are Asians and Asians are
passive, he explained, but they will refuse to be Asians of that kind.33 Gaston Willoquet,
French Consul‐General, was well informed; he indicates in his report of 31 August 1938 that
this speech was written by Carlos Romulo, a brilliant intellectual and director of the Philippine
Herald.34. Everything considered, it appears that the code was the work of the President
himself, as in parts it takes up some of his preoccupations; for example, Point 7: ʺPoverty with
honour is preferable to wealth with shame.ʺ Quezon often used this rhetorical device to
justify early independence. Despite an outwardly rational appearance, the 13 ukases betray the
disorder of Quezonʹs thoughts. Quezon was not an intellectual but a man of action.35
The revitalisation of the nation was organised around three principal axes. Article 1
commands belief in divine providence. This introduction was obligatory, put at the beginning
of the document as proof of Quezonʹs faith, so that the question did not arise again. Apart
from the sixth point that repeats the third commandment (ʺHonor thy father and thy
motherʺ) and the ninth that condemns lust, Quezon did not show the zeal of a new convert to
the faith (which in fact he was, as he officially left the freemasonry in 1930). The second axis
focused on the theme of the state and the nation. Two interpretations are possible. First, the
influence of American democracy had made itself felt. It was an obligation to love oneʹs
country and to recognise oneself in its government (2)–or at the very least to recognise the
legitimacy of the government, and to prosecute corrupt public officials (8‐5‐16). If citizenship
cannot be conceived except as a dialectic between rights and obligations (4), it gives the
impression that the idea of submission to the state takes precedence, in the style of Italian
fascism.
32 Both texts are in AGONCILLO, Teodoro A. 1960. A History of the Filipino People. Quezon
City: Garotech Publishing, 9th edition 1990, pp. 161‐163.
33 Messages..., op. cit., Vol. 4, p. 156.
34 M.F.A., Asie 1930‐1940: General Files 1930‐1940, Philippines, file 17.
35 Manuel Quezon III told that a commission examined the issue and that Laurel
considered the problem but I found no evidence for this in the archives.
The obligations of taxation or military service are veiled in the language of ʺconsentʺ rather
than obligation in democracies, but they surface in Quezonʹs text in a manner that is not
without similarities to Mussolini (to whom he paid a courtesy visit in February‐March 1933).
Love of country is associated with the supreme sacrifice (2); respecting the law also implies
vigilance to the behaviour of civil servants (3). What is implied is that citizens must be
vigilant and ready to denounce dishonest civil servants. The incitements to purchase local
products (11‐15) present a similar ambiguity: did this represent a national preference for a
democracy during a crisis or the beginnings of autarky ?
The third axis is more elusive. Underlying Quezonʹs thinking we see a Malay core, covered by
the colonial experience. Quezon blames the failings in the Filipino character on, for instance,
the lack of interest in anything beyond the family such as the country (14) and the absence of
determination, and a lack of continuity of effort. Beyond this it seems as though the writer
wants to change Filipinosʹ perception of time.
Filipinos live in the present, without looking to their glorious past (10) or to what will happen
in the future. They need to manage their natural resources for generations to come (16) and,
more concretely, they should not put off until tomorrow what can be done today (13). In
conclusion, in this vast programme, Quezon urged the people and ʺnationʺ to rise above their
shortcomings, frustrations and other negative feelings to build the nation that he wanted. A
product of the Masonic culture, the President thought that the birth of a better world (in the
Philippines) would come about by the improvement of man (sic) and society. The code
envisioned the evolution of the individual. The President for his part took on the
responsibility of changing society.
The Philippines, between East and West
A young nationʹs encounters with other countries reinforces its identity. For the Philippines,
the exclusivity of relations with the United States relegated to the background any bilateral
relations that it could have had with its ʺdirectʺ neighbours. Foreign policy was not a
dominant theme in Quezonʹs thinking. In 1936‐1937, after having visited most of the
archipelago, Quezon paid a visit to the major states in the Pacific in order to increase his
international prestige, and for recognition as head of state, which aroused fear mixed with
irritation in Washington. Western countries outside of the United States, Spain included, did
not rouse any sentimentality in Quezon. On 11 January 1936, he received a gift from the
Compañia General de Tobacos de Filipinas, an enterprise with Spanish (and French) origins36. On
this occasion Quezon discussed the common destiny of the emancipated colony and its
former coloniser. The Philippines owed the heritage of Catholicism and the principles of a
Western education to Spain. This heritage was therefore part of the ʺfoundation of our
national unity.ʺ37 The islands that Magellan discovered in 1521 had no geographic unity and
were transformed into ʺa solid nation, with its own history, its heroes, its martyrs and its own
flag, a people uplifted by a consciousness of its own personality...and inspired by a high
36 And precisely Spanish and French: DELAUNAY, Jean‐Marc. 2004. Méfiance cordiale. Les
relations franco‐espagnoles, de la fin du XIXe siècle à la première guerre mondiale. Madrid‐
Paris: Casa de Velasquez‐Publications de la Sorbonne, pp. 2217‐2220.
37 Messages..., op. cit., p. 26.
vision of its great destiny.ʺ38 His point of view on other nations was similar. If there had been
no interest–strategic for England or commercial for Mexico39–in trade in the Pacific, the
President of the Commonwealth would not have condescended to entering into diplomatic
relations with just any country. The archipelago was at the centre of Quezonʹs mental
universe and it was the other countries that gravitated around its orbit.
By claiming far and wide that the Philippines was a nation, Quezon even managed to
persuade the Filipinos of this ʺfactʺ. In this regard, he deserves the overused qualification of
ʺFather of the Nation.ʺ More precisely it was Quezon who served as its model.
This point having been made, what kind of nationalist was Manuel Quezon, asked Theodore
Friend40 in 1958. The American historian is of the opinion that he was a fervent patriot. While
this is beyond question if Friend means that Quezon contributed to the withdrawal of the
Americans, but the characterisation is inadequate to grasp the essence of Quezonʹs brand of
nationalism. For the Americans, it was clear that a Philippine nation existed; the Treaty of
Paris was proof. Article III stated that ʺSpain cedes to the United States the archipelago
known as the Philippine islands…ʺ The nation was defined by a territory, in the same manner
that Wilson defined the boundaries of the countries of central Europe after the First World
War.
Territory then, was the cornerstone of the nation. Independence presupposed the withdrawal
of American sovereignty from this geographically defined space. Quezon was largely in
agreement with the concept, but his vision of a nation rested on another principle: the nation
is composed of Filipinos: Filipinos who recognise themselves as such, whether they live on
the islands or not, notwithstanding their ethnic or regional origins. Under this definition,
expatriates in the United States were an integral part of the nation; conversely foreign
communities could settle in the archipelago but would remain marginal. Europeans (Spanish
and English mostly), Chinese and Japanese were welcomed , as were Austrian Jews escaping
from Nazism in 1939, who asked to settle in Mindanao. The nationalist leaderʹs favourable
image is not explained simply by his personal positions but also by the continuity of a Malay
heritage (perhaps Spanish as well), interrupted by the Treaty of Paris.
Philippine jurists, educated in American universities, were later strongly influenced by the
United States. In the 1935 and 1946 constitutions, the American conception of the nation
surfaced. But before then, a different model was in place. On 21 January 1899, the assembly of
representatives of the Philippine people, under the presidency of Emilio Aguinaldo,
established the constitution of the First Republic (known as of the Malolos Constitution, after
38 England and the Philippines, speech of October 12, 1936 in Messages..., op. cit. p. 139‐
140.
39 Private archives (mainly clippings) of Manuel Quezon III, on his trip from April 8 to
13 in Mexico.
40 FRIEND, Theodore. 1958. ʺWhat kind of nationalist was Manuel L Quezon ?ʺ Historical
Bulletin, reprinted in GARCIA, Mauro and Rivera, Juan F. (eds.) 1978. Quezon in
Retrospect, a Commemorative Volume Issued on the 100th Birthday of President
Manuel L. Quezon, Historical Bulletin Volume XXII, Jan‐Dec 1978, Manila, Philippine
Historical Assocʹn, pp. 86‐92.
the city where the document was drafted). In Article 1 of the first title, ʺThe Republicʺ, it is
stipulated that ʺThe political association of all the Filipinos constitutes a nation, the estate of
which is denominated Philippine Republic.ʺ The Americans then adhere to a French
conception of the nation that emphasises the right of soil, of territory, while the Filipinos
come closer to the German construction, one which gives precedence to the right of ʺblood.ʺ
But it differs from the German idea–one of the European communities that was best
integrated in the archipelago–in that Philippine nationalism was open and excluded no one.
Code of Citizenship and Ethics
Prescribed by President Manuel L. Quezon
1‐ Have faith in the Divine Providence that guides the destinies of men and nations.
2‐ Love your country for it is the home of your people, the seat of your affections, and the
source of your happiness and well‐being. Its defense is your primary duty. Be ready at all
times to sacrifice and die for it if necessary.
3‐ Respect the Constitution which is the expression of your sovereign will. The government
is your government. It has been established for your safety and welfare. Obey the laws
and see that they are observed by all and that public officials comply with their duties.
4‐ Pay your taxes willingly and promptly. Citizenship implies not only rights but also
obligations.
5‐ Safeguard the purity of suffrage and abide by the decisions of the majority.
6‐ Love and respect your parents. It is your duty to serve them gratefully and well.
7‐ Value your honor as you value your life. Poverty with honor is preferable to wealth with
dishonor.
8‐ Be truthful and be honest in thought and in action. Be just and charitable, courteous and
dignified in your dealings with your fellowmen. (sic)
9‐ Lead a clean and frugal life. Do not indulge in frivolity or pretense. Be simple in your
dress and modest in your behavior.
10‐ Live up to the noble traditions of your people. Venerate the memory of heroes. Their lives
point the way to duty and honor.
11‐ Be industrious. Be not afraid or ashamed of manual labor. Productive toil is conducive to
economic security and adds to the wealth of the nation.
12‐ Rely on your own efforts for your progress and happiness. Be not easily discouraged.
Persevere in the pursuit of your legitimate ambition.
13‐ Do your work cheerfully, thoroughly, and well. Work badly done is worse than work
undone. Do not leave for tomorrow what you can do today.
14‐ Contribute to the welfare of your community and promote social justice. You do not live
for yourselves and families alone. You are part of society to which you owe definite
responsibilities.
15‐ Cultivate the habit of using goods made in the Philippines. Patronize the products and
trades of your countrymen.
16‐ Use and develop our natural resources and conserve them for posterity. They are the
inalienable heritage of our people. Do not traffic with your citizenship.
17‐ In the great task of nation‐building, do not be a mere professional knocker. Iron out from
your face the wrinkles of frustrations and hate. Cheerful positive action will help build
the nation edifice more than negative thought.