Philippines' Campaign for Independence

Topic #1 “COMMISSION OF INDEPENDENCE”
THE COMMISSION OF INDEPENDENCE – For the purpose of studying all matters related to the negotiation and organization of the Independence of the Philippines.
November 1918 – The Philippine Legislature created the “Commission of Independence”.
The Commission of Independence was composed of 11 SENATORS and 40 CONGRESSMEN. The membership was expanded to include all the Philippine Legislature members regardless of the party affiliation.
The most important undertaking of THE COMMISSION OF INDEPENDENCE was the dispatch of INDEPENDENCE MISSIONS to the United States and the directions for the campaign for Independence.
The missions presented a set of arguments to recognize Philippine Independence as soon as a stable government had been established. That is managed and supported by us the Filipinos, maintained by an independent Philippine government. And lastly, to fulfill the promise of the United States which is to give us the Philippine Independence.
They also conducted a publicity campaign in the United States through the Philippine Press Bureau (Washington, 1919). The publicity campaign was aimed at developing the interest in congress and the American public to compel consideration of the Philippine questions. A press bulletin was circulated in the United States until 1924, American writers and publicist were hired to “Advertise an entire people”. An extravagant of 1 MILLION Pesos annually is needed to finance all this activities.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topic #2 “THE INDEPENDENCE MISSION”
1919 – The First Parliamentary Mission was sent in the United States. This was led by Senate President Quezon and Senator Rafael Palma, and consisted of 40 leading Filipinos. The mission came at “Bad Time” – the World War 1 has just ended and officials in Washington were more concern with the problems resulting from the World War 1, Philippine Independence was farthest from their minds. The one who received the mission was NEWTON D. BAKER, the Secretary of War. Some congressional committees concerned with the Philippines graciously heard the mission’s petition for our Independence, but the republican leaders were not convinced that the Filipinos were ready for Independence and they announced postponement of the question of the Philippine Independence.
Wood-Forbes Mission – Fact finding commission sent to Philippines by the newly elected U.S President Warren Haring in March 1921, which conducted Filipinos were not ready for the Independence from the United States.
April 1922 – The Second parliamentary mission present to Washington led by Osmena and Roxas. Like the first mission, the second mission achieved nothing.
In the succeeding years particularly in 1922-1928 and 1930, the Philippine Independence Missions were a failure.
The OS-ROX Mission(Last Topic) - It was instructed by the Legislature to work for the early grant of the Philippine Independence. There are 3 American groups that were favorable to Philippine Independence. They were:
1. The American Farm Group 2. American Labor Leaders 3. The Isolationist

Hare-Hawes Cutting Law – The Hare-Hawes Cutting Law was the first US Law for the decolonization of the Philippines. It was the result of the Os-Rox Mission.

When Manuel Quezon was informed about the Hare-Hawes Cutting Law, He thought that it was not a good law. He was therefore obligated to work against the approval by the Legislature. He Work hard for the law to be rejected by the Philippine Legislature, so Manuel Quezon reorganized the Legislature to weed out the supporters of the Hare-Hawes Law, who also happened to the supporters of Osmena and Roxas. It separated the Philippine Legislature in two camps, the “ANTIS” and the “PROS”. The PROS were led by Osmena and Roxas, while the ANTIS were led by Manuel Quezon due to its “Objectionable features”. He also believed that the act did not truly grant the Philippines Independence, aside from that, Hare-Hawes Cutting Act also reserved military bases from the US and let American goods into the country for free. These provisions were seen as controversial.

The Philippine Legislature ended up rejecting the Os-Rox Mission’s work for the following reasons.

1. The provisions affecting the trade relations between US and Philippines would seriously imperil the economic, social and political institutions of the country and might defeat the avowed purpose to secure independence for the Philippines at the end of the transition period.
2. The immigration clause was objectionable and offensive to Filipino people.
3. The powers of the High Commissioner were too indefinite.
4. The military, naval and other reservation provided by the act was inconsistent with true independence.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topic #3 “THE FAIRFIELD BILL”
Fairfield Bill - An administration alternative to the Independence measures, though it was never debated in congress, it for a time seemed to pass.
In 1924, sentiments were strong in Congress to come to a solution to the Philippine problem. The congressional hearings revealed that there was a growing feeling that the Filipinos should be given what they said they wanted – “immediate independence” at any cost.
The Bill proposed a 30 year period of autonomy in which the Philippines would have control the insular affairs, with an elective Governor-General for the “Commonwealth of the Philippines”. The Fairfield bill provided for absolute independence for the Philippines in 1944, after a 20 year commonwealth period.
In Washington, Quezon and Osmena supported the Fairfield bill as the most reasonable legislation they could get from the Congress. At Recto’s request, the mission submitted a report signed by the majority leaders, which maintained that they had declined to accept the Fairfield bill and had protested the approval by Washington of Governor Wood’s administration in the Philippines. But after the report was read, Recto denounced the report, declaring that the majority leaders had done was actually the opposite, they supported the Fairfield bill and promised cooperation with Governor Wood upon their return.
Recto’s charges seriously embarrassed the majority leaders, who said that they did not accept the Fairfield bill and had demanded immediate independence.

Topic #4 “THE SUPREME NATIONAL COUNCIL”
While Osmena was in Washington, Quezon launched the Supreme National Council, uniting all political parties and all segments of Filipino society for an ostensibly more effective and vigorous fight for the Philippine Independence.
A closer look would reveal that Supreme National Council was really the Independent Commission under a different name.
From 1926 to 1927, concurrently with the formation and period of major activity of the Supreme National Council, fresh controversies arose between Governor Wood and the Filipino leaders. By June 27, the general impression was that the council had little vitality left and by 1928 it had completely faded away.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topic #5 “THE PLEBISCITE BILL”
Another major disagreement between Governor Wood and the Filipino Leaders concerned on Independence Plebiscite Bill. The Philippine Legislature initially passed the Independence Plebiscite Bill, providing immediate independence in early November 1925. It’s purpose was to Counter-Act the anti-independence campaign for the Philippines in the US.
But the bill was refused to accept by the Governor-General Wood in December 1925. The bill was reintroduced and approved by the Philippine Legislature in July 1926, Governor Wood again vetoed the bill, but the Legislature reconsidered and re-passed the measure with the concurrence of more than two-thirds if it’s members. It then went to President Coolage for final decision.
In April 1927, president Coolage sustained the Governor General’s Veto of the plebiscite bill in a long message in which he stressed the need for greater economic and political progress before such matters holding of an independence plebiscite. President Coolage reviewed the various advantages resulting from the relationship of the Philippines to the US, at the same time pointing out the difficulties and problems which would be encountered by an independent Philippine Government.