philippine military history essay 500 words

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Army — Significance and Role of Military History in the Armed Forces of the Philippines 

Significance and Role of Military History in The Armed Forces of The Philippines 

• Categories: Army

About this sample

Words: 1354 |

Published: Feb 9, 2022

Words: 1354 | Pages: 3 | 7 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Government & Politics

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 477 words

2 pages / 715 words

5 pages / 2062 words

2 pages / 952 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Army

SHARP is a program that helps prevent incidents of sexual harassment and sexual assault. The mission of every soldier in the Army is to ensure that everyone respects everyone at all times under any circumstances. SHARP is also a [...]

Accountability is one of the key factors in any organization that is presentable, successful and dependable. Without proper accountability time is often spent inefficiently and the mission is often either delayed or unachieved. [...]

Schwartzman, R. (2003). Lifelong learning for the Army: The Future Army Training and Leader Development Panel (ATLDP) final report. United States Army War College.Wyche, W. L. (2013). Army lifelong learning: A look at [...]

Questia. (n.d.). Transforming Leader Development through Lifelong Learning. Retrieved from https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-411111911/transforming-leader-development-through-lifelong-learning

The Roman army was one of the most powerful and successful armies of all time. The size of the Roman army allowed it to conquer much of what is known as Europe today. When compared to other ancient armies, the Roman army was [...]

Veterans Day is a time to honor all who have served in the United States Armed Forces: those who put their lives on the line and those who paid the ultimate price as well share a bond few others understand. Military service [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

THE PHILIPPINE ARMY HISTORY

Battles before colonization.

The beginnings of the Filipino land forces dates back before the Spanish and American colonial period. In that time, clans and barangays from different regions form their own armed groups primarily composed of hunters and land fighters. They served as defenders of the tribes or as warriors sent on strike missions against other barangays. On occasions, some clan forces would form alliances to attack more powerful opponents. Conventional weaponry during the pre‐colonial era includes Kris and Kampilan, Blowguns, and Lantaka. War-fare instruments of the Filipino forces continued to develop over time.

The Forces’ First Test (1521)

On April 27, 1521, the Filipino land forces were put to test. The Spaniards’ arrival in the 16 th century in Mactan, Cebu ignited the Battle of Mactan as Lapu-Lapu defied to render loyalty to Magellan. The incident demonstrated the combined might of Filipino land forces complemented by early naval elements. Lapu-Lapu’s force was not “formally organized” as a Filipino Army during that time but the present‐day Philippine Army traces its beginnings to this brave and proud force of warriors of the Philippine Islands.

The Fight for Freedom (1892-1898)

The three century rule of the Spaniards led the Filipino warriors to form resistance movements to fight for their freedom. The Filipino people were clamoring for reforms and an end to the foreign rule because of the growing restiveness in the colony. On July 7, 1892, Andres Bonifacio founded the Samahang Kataastaasan, Kagalanggalang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan, or simply “Katipunan” to muster freedom loving Filipinos for armed revolt. The Katipunan formed the nucleus of the Revolutionary Philippine Army.

Almost a year after the outbreak of war between the members of the Katipunan and the Spanish troops, another freedom fighter from a prominent clan ‒ Emilio Aguinaldo ‒ was elected President of the Philippine Revolutionary Government at the Tejeros Convention on March 22, 1897 in Tejeros, San Francisco de Malabon in Cavite. Artemio Ricarte, a Katipunan leader of numerous Filipino battles against Spain was also elected as Captain General of the Ejercito en la Republica de las Islas Filipinas or the Army of the Philippine Republic.

After years of fighting for freedom, of On June 12, 1898, the Filipino people achieved their awaited freedom as General Emilio Aguinaldo declared the Philippine’s Independence from Spain.

Philippine Army’s Rebirth (1898-1935)

The Filipino troops were to enjoy only a brief sense of victory and respite from combat when American forces came in to establish rule in the islands by virtue of the Treaty of Paris, which Spain co-signed with America on December 10, 1898. The treaty ceded the Philippines to the United States.

The Filipino-American War erupted on February 4, 1899. Due to the superiority of American arms, the Filipinos fell from one position to another until they were forced to disband. Even after the official cessation of hostilities and as the Americans have established government in 1901, the Filipino revolutionaries continued their struggle for freedom.

Aguinaldo was captured by American forces on March 23, 1901. The surrender of one of the most prominent leaders of the Philippine Revolution, General Miguel Malvar, on April 16, 1902 marked the official end of the “Philippine insurrection.” When the Philippines was established as a Commonwealth Republic of the United States of America on 15 November 1935, its President, Manuel Luis Quezon signed Commonwealth Act No.1, popularly known as the National Defense Act, which paved way for the birth of the new Philippine Army.

In World War II (1941-1945)

The onset of World War II in 1941 tested the might of the Commonwealth Philippine Army. Its two regular and ten reserve divisions undertook the defense of the Philippines. These divisions were incorporated into the United States Armed Forces in the Far East (USAFFE) under the command of General Douglas McArthur. Four military areas were activated after the war. The National Defense Forces organized under the National Defense Act was reorganized into the Armed Forces of the Philippines along which came the birth of four major services.

The post‐WWII Philippine Army was to be seen fulfilling the Philippine government’s commitment as a member of the United Nations to help bring peace in war‐ torn neighbor states. The Philippine Army spared five battalions which formed the Philippine Expeditionary Forces to Korea (PEFTOK) to carry out the campaign for democracy. The Philippine Civic Action Group to Vietnam (PhilCAGV) was sent to South Vietnam on a mission of peace, where army engineers helped build communities and army doctors and nurses provided medical services to the people.

Building the Headquarters; Expanding Horizons (1957- Early 70’s)

On July 10, 1957, the Philippine Army established its headquarters under the leadership of Brigadier General Leoncio S. Tan. The onset of the sixties ushered an expansion of the army's roles, which include participation in the socio-economic programs of the country, among others. To achieve greater flexibility and effectiveness, infantry divisions took the place of the military areas in the seventies.

The Army as a Nation Builder (1972-1986)

On September 21, 1972, the Martial Law era began. During the decade, military operations supported by civic action blocked the escalation of insurgency. The 1980s saw the Philippine Army in increasing peace and development roles and in a period of transition after the EDSA‐People Power Revolution, which spurred various initiatives toward transformation and reforms in internal security operations. The Philippine Army became more cognizant of its role not only as protector of the Filipino people, but also a partner in nation building.

Continued Sacrifice, Bravery and Patriotism (2000s)

On September 9, 2013, the Philippine Army prevented members of the Moro National Liberation Front to take over Zamboanga City which led to three-week fight. Twenty five government soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice in order to save innocent civilians and regain peace in the city.

On May 2017 to October 2017, a five-month long siege brought casualties and displaced individuals from their homes in Marawi, Lanao del Sur. The Battle of Marawi was one of the largest and longest urban warfare of the Philippine Army. One hundred sixty five government forces lost their lives to liberate the city from conflict. The Philippine Army continue play an important role in rebuilding the city.

The Philippine Army Today

Today, the Philippine Army supports the government’s whole-of-nation approach against insurgency led by the National Task Force to End the Local Communist Armed Conflict. The Army provides efficient instrument and structure for the employment of the whole-of-nation approach and also assists in the implementation of the Enhanced Comprehensive Local Integration Program offered to former rebels. These efforts complement the Army’s sustained anti-terrorism operations on the ground.

Moreover, the Philippine Army’s mandate led to a breakthrough with the framing of the Army Transformation Roadmap 2028, which was implemented in 2010. Capability upgrades, modernization initiatives, and campaigns for good governance and performance excellence in the transformation program ushered the Philippine Army to welcome paradigm shifts and optimistic milestones, which continue to fire up the enthusiasm of members of the force to fulfil the Army’s purpose to serve the nation and secure our people and territory. With continuing and steady successes in its strategic initiatives and base camps, the Philippine Army is confident that it will realize its 2028 vision to be a world class Army that is a source of national pride.

• COMMANDING GENERAL
• VICE COMMANDER
• CHIEF OF STAFF
• PRESS RELEASE
• FEATURED STORIES
• PHILIPPINE ARMY UNITS
• TRANSPARENCY SEAL
• JOIN THE ARMY
• DOWNLOADABLES
• PA PHYSICAL READINESS TRAINING VIDEOS
• KWENTONG Ka-Army
• ARMY RECRUITMENT VIDEOS
• TEAM ARMY VLOG
• PHILIPPINE ARMY CAPABILITIES

MilitaryHistoryNow.com

The Premier Online Military History Magazine

The Philippine Resistance – How WW2’s Forgotten Guerrilla Movement Helped Bring Down Japan

“ Guerrillas endured pervasive exhaustion, disease, and malnourishment. They engaged in irregular warfare, espionage, prison raids and sabotage.”

By James Kelly Morningstar

WHAT IF I told you that one of the most important campaigns of World War II – the Philippine Resistance — has been ignored?

Even the official U.S. Army history pronounced the “struggle for control” of the islands ended with the surrender of Corregidor in May 1942 and was not renewed until MacArthur returned in October 1944. [1]

Yet in that time Filipino guerrillas waged a war that denied Japan its strategic goals, altered U.S. grand strategy and helped transform America’s greatest military defeat into Japan’s greatest military disaster. Their fight also laid the foundation for a free and independent nation vital to the post-war order.

In my new book War and Resistance in the Philippines , 1942-1945 , I show how the interactions between the Japanese, Filipinos and Americans produced these historic outcomes.

Spurred by Germany’s success in Europe , the Japanese rushed their initial attack on the Philippines under the assumption that cooperation with native elites coupled with the military domination of the general population would pacify the country. [2] But as Tokyo’s planned 50-day campaign to subdue the islands turned into a 153-day slog, Japan’s troops encountered groups of determined guerrillas. Indeed, attempts to bully Filipinos by beatings, starvation and torture only motivated whole families to join the resistance. [3]

Japan’s efforts to have its army ‘live off the land’ and to expropriate Philippine resources further hurt the local economy and increased hardships. [4] The price of rice in Manila during the period rose two thousand percent. [5] Black markets thrived. People starved. Many women were forced into prostitution to support their families while many more were outright abducted by Japanese soldiers to serve as “ comfort women .” [6]

Not surprisingly, Japanese propaganda directed at Filipinos that emphasized Asian brotherhood failed to gain traction in population centers. Similarly, military action in remote areas failed to crush guerrillas. When Tokyo decided to make the Philippines the decisive battleground of the Pacific war in mid-1944, the guerrillas remained positioned to play a major role in that fight.

The war between Japan and the U.S. caught the Philippines in transition to national independence and riven by social and political divisions. Many Filipinos agreed to collaborate with the Japanese, often under instructions from the exiled government, in hopes of securing independence or protecting the people. Meanwhile, hundreds of others, like Wenceslao Q. Vinzons , Marcos V. “Marking” Augustin and Macario Peralta took up arms and organized resistance.

In time, up to 1.3 million Filipinos may have supported more than 1,000 guerrilla units. The U.S. Army would recognize 260,715 guerrilla in 277 units. [7] An estimated 33,000 guerrillas lost their lives. [8]

Guerrillas units independently chose whether or not to invite refugee U.S. soldiers into their movements. Many Filipinos, separated by pre-war rivalries, agreed to unite behind Americans who were likely to attract General Douglas MacArthur ’s support; others, like Peralta, chose to sideline Americans to safeguard their independence. [9]

Through clashes with rival factions, guerrilla leaders consolidated local power and created new basis for post-war government. Meanwhile, MacArthur’s promised return freed the guerrillas from having to defeat the Japanese occupation forces; they only had to prepare for the return of American conventional military forces.

MacArthur had taken tentative steps to organize guerrilla resistance by sending officers like Lieutenant Colonel John Horan to marshal insurgents on Luzon and ordering commanders on other islands to prepare their own irregular campaigns. His removal to Australia combined with Japanese threats against the 12,000 U.S. and 66,000 Filipino POWs undermined this effort.

Still Americans like Robert Lapham , Edwin Ramsey , Russell Volckmann and Wendell Fertig refused to surrender or escaped prison camps and became key guerrilla leaders in their own rights.

After sporadic radio traffic alerted MacArthur of the rise of Philippine guerrillas, he established the Allied Intelligence Bureau and the Philippines Regional Section to validate the resistance and develop it under his command.

In January 1943 the U.S. military inserted a team of Filipino soldiers under Major Jesus Villamor into Negros to coordinate the resistance. This was the first of 43 submarine missions that delivered supplies and agents over the next two years.

MacArthur tailored this support so as to develop reliable guerrilla groups and prevent any one leader from challenging his authority. He also isolated and checked groups deemed unreliable, like the “People’s Army to Fight the Japanese,” also known as the Hukbalaháp or Huks , which sought a Communist revolution in the Philippines and opposed the return of the exiled government. [10]

The Philippine resistance is a heroic tale of overcoming oppression and immense environmental challenges. Guerrillas endured pervasive exhaustion, disease, and malnourishment. They engaged in irregular warfare, espionage, prison raids and sabotage. They supported warfare on land, air, sea and undersea. Women played a large and dynamic role in the struggle, often as frontline fighters.

The scale of the resistance helped MacArthur convince President Roosevelt to approve his return to the Islands. [11]

Guerrillas would capture Japanese plans, conduct pre-invasion operations, guide invasion forces, and even serve as regular army combat units. With their support, MacArthur destroyed an army of 381,550 troops and nearly all of Japan’s remaining combat aircraft and naval vessels. [12]   He also captured 115,755 Japanese prisoners – more than twice the number who surrendered on all other fronts during the entire war. [13]

Because of the guerrillas MacArthur got to return to the Philippines and Japan got the decisive battle it sought – just not with the outcome they desired.

[1] Louis Morton, The Fall of the Philippines, The War In the Pacific (United States Army in World War II) (Washington, D.C.: The U.S. Army Center of Military History, 1989), 582.

[2] Yuki Tanaka, Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II (Boulder, Colorado: WestviewPress, 1996), 204.

[3] See Alfred McCoy’s study of Filipino kinship networks. Alfred W. McCoy, “‘An Anarchy of Families’: The Historiography of State and Family in the Philippines,” An Anarchy of Families: State and Family in the Philippines , ed. Alfred W. McCoy (Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Center for Southeast Asian Studies, 1993), 1, 10.

[4] Gene Z. Hanrahan, Japanese Operations Against Guerrilla Forces (Chevy Chase, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University, Operations Research Office, 1954), 5.

[5] Lizzie Collingham, The Taste of War: World War II and the Battle for Food. (New York: The Penguin Press, 2012), 243.

[6] Wallace Edwards, Comfort Women: A History of Japanese Forced Prostitution During the Second World War (North Charleston, South Carolina; Absolute Crime Books, 2013), 77-78.

[7] Larry S. Schmidt, American Involvement in the Filipino Resistance Movement on Mindanao During the Japanese Occupation , Master of Military Arts and Science Thesis, US Army Command and General Staff College, 5.

[8] This number comes from the Hunters’ guerrilla leader Colonel Eleuterio ‘Terry’ Adevoso who became head of the Philippine Veterans Legion after the war. A.V.H. Hartendorp, The Japanese Occupation of the Philippines,  Vol. II. (Manila: Bookmark, 1967), 610.

[9] Russell W. Volckmann, We Remained: Three Years Behind the Enemy Lines in the Philippines (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1954), 5.

[10] Benedict J. Kerkvliet, The Huk Rebellion: A Study of Peasant Revolt in the Philippines (Berkeley: The University of California Press, 1977), 12.

[11] Most early American guerrilla leaders fell to disease and exhaustion and were replaced by a second wave of leaders who had spent the first year of the war sidelined by illness. Robert Lapham and Bernard Norling, Lapham’s Raiders: Guerrillas in the Philippines, 1942-1945. (Lexington, Kentucky: The University of Kentucky Press, 1996), 43.

[12] 255,795 of 381,550 were killed or died — nearly twenty percent of all Japanese soldiers who died during the war. Robert Ross Smith, Triumph in the Philippines (The United States Army in World War II: The War in the Pacific) (Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, 1933), 694,

[13] A total of 1,140,429 Japanese military personnel died in combat between 1937 and 1945; 485,000 against U.S. forces. John W. Dower, War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War, (New York: Pantheon Books, 1986), 218.

Help spread the word. Share this article with your friends.

• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

4 thoughts on “ The Philippine Resistance – How WW2’s Forgotten Guerrilla Movement Helped Bring Down Japan ”

• Pingback: Special Operations News Update - Monday, May 24, 2021 | SOF News
• Pingback: Not Your Grandfather’s Resistance: The Unavoidable Truths about Small States’ Best Defense Against Aggression – Modern War Institute | SWCS Soldier

My great uncle was shot down over the Philippines..twice. The second time he was unable to be rescued but instead fought with a resistance band until the return of US forces. He said they were the O Nine. Called that because they used 1909 Filipino pesos as their identification to each other. If detained the Japanese wouldn’t likely question why a Filipino had a coin in his pocket. I now have his coin.

My uncle, Lt. Zosimo Torrecampo of the Philippine Air Force and the rest of the airmen fled to Corregidor after their planes were razed to the ground by Japanese Zeros, but he joined the guerrillas. He survived the infamous Death March along with his cousin carlos Torrecampo of the Philippine Scouts

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

From the MHN Archives

Top Posts & Pages

© COPYRIGHT MilitaryHistoryNow.com

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Sustainability
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

The Philippines, the US, and a century of military alliance

Press contact :, media download.

*Terms of Use:

Images for download on the MIT News office website are made available to non-commercial entities, press and the general public under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives license . You may not alter the images provided, other than to crop them to size. A credit line must be used when reproducing images; if one is not provided below, credit the images to "MIT."

Previous image Next image

For a few nights in late 1991, a 74-year-old army veteran, newly arrived in Los Angeles and looking for family members, needed to sleep outside. Pastor Amarillento was a recently naturalized Filipino American, based on a 1990 law granting citizenship to Philippine Army soldiers from World War II. Amarillento had fought at Bataan. But after being naturalized in San Francisco, his money had been stolen on the bus down to Los Angeles.

Thus Amarillento had “marched under General Douglas MacArthur, only to find himself, 50 years later, sleeping in MacArthur Park,” writes MIT historian Christopher Capozzola in a new book about the unique relationship between the Philippines and the United States.

Amarillento soon found relatives in Orange County, thanks to help from a shelter in the Filipinotown neighborhood, near downtown Los Angeles. Still, this episode symbolizes some contours of the larger Filipino American experience. Filipinos have long been staunch U.S. military soldiers, sailors, and servicemembers while receiving modest, belated rewards for their efforts. The countries’ ties have led to extensive immigration — there are 4 million Filipino-Americans in the U.S. — but even for decorated veterans, entry into U.S. society has not always been easy.

Capozzola’s new book, “Bound by War: How the United States and Philippines Built America’s First Pacific Century,” published by Basic Books, details both the military relationship between the countries, from the U.S. conquest of the Philippines in 1898 onward, and the way that military engagement shaped social connections between the nations.

“This is not a book about foreign policy, but foreign relations,” Capozzola says. “Not just what generals and presidents were doing, but what ordinary soldiers and immigrants were doing.”

New beginnings

After winning the Spanish-American War in 1898, the U.S. was granted control of the Philippines, a long-time Spanish possession. Then it squelched a Philippine independence movement, in what Capozzola calls a “very intense and brutal war.” It was a huge imperial leap across the Pacific for the U.S., which eventually installed over 20 military bases in the Philippines and ruled the land as a colony until 1946.

“This is really the heart of the relationship between these two countries,” Capozzola says.

Before long, Filipinos started enlisting in the U.S. army and navy, and Filipinos soon had new immigration opportunities as well. For a spell after 1924, the Philippines was the only country in Asia from which the U.S. allowed immigration. The number of Filipinos in the U.S. swelled from 5,600 in 1920 to about 56,000 in 1930, with substantial Filipino-American communities springing up near San Diego, in the Bay Area, and around Norfolk and Virginia Beach — close to Navy bases.

But while many Filipinos had come to the U.S. hoping to acquire more education and better work, they often landed on farms, in fisheries, or in service jobs, as Capozzola documents.

“When Filipinos migrated to the United States in the early 20th century, they faced the same forms of discrimination that most Asian immigrants did: restrictions on housing and education and the professions, [while] being relegated to low-status, low-paying jobs,” Capozzola says. “It could have been otherwise. And that’s a running theme throughout the book as well. There is a series of broken promises.”

Still, as Capozzola writes, the military service of many Filipino men gave their familes “a language of patriotism and sacrifice — and therefore of equality.” That sense of belonging helped spur battles for civic justice. It was Filipino grape pickers who initiated what became famous as the United Farm Workers strike of the 1960s.

In the sphere of veteran’s rights, 64,000 of the 76,000 prisoners on the Bataan Death March had been Filipinos, fighting for the U.S. — yet they did not receive equitable military benefits. Only after a concerted effort, including a year-long vigil in MacArthur Park in the 1990s, was compensation folded into the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Only about 12,400 Filipino veterans realized those payments, leading one advocate for Filipino veterans to call the settlement “yet another beginning” in the battle for Filipino-American rights and benefits. There may be similar fights for inclusion in the future: In the Iraq War, about 31,000 U.S. troops were not citizens, and 20 percent of those were Filipino.

“The book is a way to think about who serves in and with and for our armed forces, [and] to ask what we owe them in return,” Capozzola says. “If we really want to understand big forces like war and globalization, we need to look at that full frame.”

With or without the U.S.?

While it explores immigration and social integration, “Bound by War” also examines politics in both countries after 1946, when the Philippines gained independence but remained in the U.S. sphere of influence.

“In many ways the Philippines enters the community of nations on the back foot,” Capozzola observes. “It’s devastated by the war, its economy is destroyed, and there is an emerging Cold War threat. This requires Philippine politicians to maintain ties to the U.S. in order to protect their country.”

But many voices have criticized that arrangement, Capozzola notes: “If there’s one central question in Philippine foreign policy that’s consistent from 1946 to the present, it is this: Are we better off with the Americans, or without them?”

President Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law in the Philippines in 1972 and ruled over a police state until the “People Power” movement ousted him in 1986 — with the U.S. only belatedly grasping the strength of opposition leader Corazon Aquino. Yet despite solid U.S. backing, Marcos actually made rhetorical overtures to China in the 1970s, perhaps trying to play off the two powers against each other. In 2016, President Rodrigo Duterte surprised the U.S. by announcing the Philippines would “realign” with China, but has not followed through on the idea.

On the ground, the U.S.-Philippines relationship evolved again in 1965 when U.S. immigration law allowed Asians back into the country — especially white-collar workers. In the 1970s, Filipinos were the second-largest group immigrating to the U.S., behind only Mexicans.

Today Filipino emigration is worldwide, with workers settling in the Gulf States, elsewhere in Asia, and some parts of Europe. Overall, Filipino immigrants sent an estimated $10 billion in remittances back home in 2005.

“The core aspects of the U.S.-Philippine military relationship are remarkably unchanged from the early 20th century to today,” Capozzola says. “What has changed is the power of Filipinos themselves. The economy is substantially different and not as tied to the United States. Filipino migrations are global, and the United States is not by any means the largest recipient country. Through their everyday choices, the relationship is being remade. And I think ultimately that will shift the U.S.-Philippine military relationship.”

So while it is important to know formal military history, Capozzola thinks, it is also vital to regard military history as something more than wars and strategies.

“To understand 20th-century America, you need to understand the U.S. military,” Capozzola says. “Not only as a [fighting] force, although of course that’s what it was designed for, but also a generative force that transforms social relationships, immigration patterns, ideas about race and culture. This book is a way to bring that to the center of the story.”

Share this news article on:

Press mentions, good day la.

Prof. Christopher Capozzola speaks with Bob DeCastro of Good Day LA about the campaign to name a U.S. Navy Warship after Fireman 2nd Class Telesforo Trinidad, the only American national of Asian and Filipino descent to have received a Congressional Medal of Honor. “I think in some ways, there’s no better tribute to the century of work that Filipinos sailors did to keep the ship going than to name one of our ships after one of the most heroic Filipino sailors that we know,” says Capozzola.

Previous item Next item

Related Links

• Book: “Bound by War: How the United States and Philippines Built America’s First Pacific Century”
• Christopher Capozzola
• MIT History

Related Topics

• Social sciences
• Security studies and military
• Immigration
• School of Humanities Arts and Social Sciences

Related Articles

Four professors named 2018 MacVicar Fellows

3 Questions: Christopher Capozzola on the history of chemical-weapons bans

More mit news.

Alex Shalek named director of the Institute for Medical Engineering and Science

Read full story →

New tool empowers pavement life-cycle decision-making while reducing data collection burden

A new model offers robots precise pick-and-place solutions

With sustainable cement, startup aims to eliminate gigatons of CO₂

3 Questions: Preparing students in MIT’s naval ROTC program

Going Dutch on climate

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

• COVID-19 Full Coverage
• Cover Stories
• Ulat Filipino
• Special Reports
• Personal Finance
• Other sports
• Pinoy Achievers
• Immigration Guide
• Science and Research
• Technology, Gadgets and Gaming
• Chika Minute
• Showbiz Abroad
• Family and Relationships
• Art and Culture
• Health and Wellness
• Shopping and Fashion
• Hobbies and Activities
• News Hardcore
• Walang Pasok
• Transportation
• Missing Persons
• Community Bulletin Board
• GMA Public Affairs
• State of the Nation
• Unang Balita
• Balitanghali
• News TV Live

The Philippine Military’s History: Forming the Institution’s Ethos

Analysts say the military’s historical orientation--that of being manipulated by the political elite’s interest--exposed the men in uniform to the civilian government’s weaknesses and emboldened the thinking that it should be part of the political process to address these flaws. The military’s historical lack of independence and objective professionalism as an institution resulted in its failure to develop its own ethos. REFERENCE: De Castro, Renato Cruz Dr.: “The Dilemma Between Democratic Control versus Military Reforms: The Case of the AFP Modernisation Program, 1991-2004;"Journal of Security Sector Management, March 2005 issue; UK Wikipedia and Answer.com websites

03 Feb The Battle of Manila: A Reflection and A Hope

By mark anthony cabigas, 3rd prize winner, battle of manila essay writing contest 2019.

The Battle of Manila of 1945 is one of the many bloody encounters between the American forces and the Japanese Army during the World War II in the Philippines. It lasted for 29 days and it devastated the City of Manila that cost 100,000 innocent lives and millions of pesos of invaluable heritage structures. Hence, it is considered to be the most brutal conflagration in the history of the Philippines. Nonetheless, despite the bad memories it left to millions of Filipinos, this battle is an important battle in Philippine History because this paved way to the attainment of actual independence. After the victory of the Americans in the Battle of Manila, the Commonwealth was eventually revived back in control of the Philippines. The revival of the Commonwealth was essential in the fulfillment of the transitory provisions of the Tydings-McDuffie Law – the concession law recognising Philippine Independence on 1946. Meaning to say, without the Battle of Manila, Philippines could have still been an exclave of the Japanese empire and Filipinos could have not able to establish their own de jure republic. Thus, the Battle of Manila was the key event that opened the opportunity for the Filipinos to finally actualize their dreams of independence and sovereignty from foreign control and even dependence.

However, despite its importance in our history, the Battle of Manila; the World War 2 and the rest of wars in Philippine history are taught in class apathetically — i.e., usually in knowing who were the leaders and whether who won and who lost in the battlefield. I claim because I experienced it myself. Textbook are even on that context. The leaders of war are the focus of the study but little empathy is given to every child’s broken future, to every woman who shattered their dignity, to every father who lost their moment to say even a farewell to their families. The people’s stories of pain, their stories of loss, their stories of eternal trauma are what more valuable than the leaders themselves, than the dates they fought, than the buildings they burnt. Indeed, I may know who Tomoyuki Yamashita, Sanji Iwabuchi and Douglas McArthur, but it is only today that I came to know the story of Julia Lopez who had her breasts sliced off and raped by the Japanese soldiers and had her hair set on fire; the story of the Manila Martyrs — Rev. Peter Fallon, Rev. John Heneghan, Rev. Patrick Kelly, and Rev. Joseph Monaghan, who were kidnapped and killed by the Japanese army; and of all the other terrible stories of loss and suffering during the infamous Manila Massacre and Rape.

Personally, it is important to me because this war is a reminder that I shall foster and cherish my freedom; protect the State’s security from invasion and from its downfall from corruption; and help in sustaining the Republic that our veterans of war have fought for before. Without the Battle of Manila and the eventual recapitulation of the city from the Japanese, I may be suffering the same way other Filipinos had experienced up until today. Moreover, as a future social science teacher, this battle is important to me because this urges me to teach and inspire my future students to love their country more than themselves, to protect and foster their independence and democracy but this time in a way that is diplomatic than through arms and ammunition. I also want to promote the ending of the culture of war and violence as an advocacy and rather promote diplomacy in any form of conflict. The Battle of Manila reminds us that in war, there is no winner, all become losers. And lastly I want to teach history to my future students with empathy and depth to the real victims of war. Today, we are commemorating this unpleasant history through monuments, shrines and markers. But memorares and markers of the Battle of Manila will remain concrete and steel markers and monuments respectively unless we are able to express our empathy and support to the victims and veterans of the war and to realize the fact that wars fruit no good to anyone.

No Comments

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Snapsolve any problem by taking a picture. Try it in the Numerade app?

• AsianStudies.org
• Annual Conference
• EAA Articles
• 2025 Annual Conference March 13-16, 2025
• AAS Community Forum Log In and Participate

Education About Asia: Online Archives

A brief essay on my key issues book: the philippines: from earliest times to the present.

My AAS Key Issues in Asian Studies book— The Philippines: From Earliest Times to the Present —is intended to introduce readers to a nation originally named after a European prince. The people of the archipelago that now constitutes the Philippines had a long history before any European contact occurred. Since the latter part of the nineteenth century, Filipinos have experienced a wide range of encounters with the US. The Philippines was Asia’s first republic and then became a US colony after an American war of conquest and pacification, which some argue resulted in the deaths of 10 percent of the population. Almost a million Filipino soldiers and civilians, and approximately 23,000 American military, died in the war against Imperial Japanese forces.

There are at least two ideas that drive this book. The first is that the Philippines was not some isolated archipelago that was accidentally “discovered” by Ferdinand Magellan in 1521. Some residents of the Philippines had contact with “the outside world” long before European contact through trade with other Southeast Asian polities and Imperial China.

The second and more important theme is that vibrant cultures existed before outsiders arrived, and they have continued throughout the history of the Philippines, though perhaps not seen or simply ignored by historians and other scholars. The intrusion by the Spaniards might be seen to have changed almost everything, as did the American incursion, and to a lesser extent the Japanese occupation. This is not the case. But if one does not know what was there before, the focus may be upon the intruders—their religion, culture, economies, and the impact they had on the local population—rather than on Filipinos, the local inhabitants. While acknowledging the impact and influence of foreign occupations, I sought in the book to focus on Filipinos and to see them as not merely, or even primarily, reactive.

Beginning with the pre-Hispanic period, The Philippines: From Earliest Times to the Present seeks to present, briefly, the reality of an advanced indigenous culture certainly influenced but not erased by more than three centuries of Spanish occupation. The second half of the nineteenth century saw the emergence on two levels—peasants and elite—of organized resistance to that presence, culminating in what some call a revolution and finally a republic. But this development was cut short by the Americans. When a commonwealth was put in place during the fourth decade of American rule, this was interrupted by World War II and the Japanese occupation. After World War II, the Philippines once again became an independent republic with the growing pains of a newly evolving democracy and its share of ups and down, including the Marcos dictatorship.

The Philippines has emerged in the twenty-first century with a robust and expanding economy, and as an important member of ASEAN. And it has its issues. On November 7, 2013, the most powerful Philippine typhoon on record hit the central part of the archipelago, resulting in more than 6,000 deaths. President Rodrigo Duterte, elected in 2016, has caught the eye of human rights advocates as he has dealt harshly with a drug problem that is far more significant than most realized. Then there is the ongoing conflict with China over islands in the South China Sea. The Philippines has been and will continue to be in the news.

The Philippines: From Earliest Times to the Present depicts Filipinos as not passive or merely the recipients of foreign influences. Contrary to the title of Stanley Karnow’s 1989 book, In Our Image: America’s Empire in the Philippines, the Philippines is not made in anyone’s, including America’s, image. Teachers and students should find this book helpful, not only in dealing with the history of the Philippines but also in recognizing that often the histories of developing countries fail to seriously take into account the local population—their culture, their actions, their vision of the world. The Philippines is perhaps best known today in the West as a place with beautiful beaches and as a wonderful place to vacation. This book will show it to be much more than that.

Share this:

• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Latest News
• Join or Renew
• Education About Asia
• Education About Asia Articles
• Asia Shorts Book Series
• Asia Past & Present
• Key Issues in Asian Studies
• Journal of Asian Studies
• The Bibliography of Asian Studies
• AAS-Gale Fellowship
• Council Grants
• Book Prizes
• Graduate Student Paper Prizes
• Distinguished Contributions to Asian Studies Award
• First Book Subvention Program
• External Grants & Fellowships
• AAS Career Center
• Asian Studies Programs & Centers
• Study Abroad Programs
• Language Database
• Conferences & Events
• #AsiaNow Blog

Read The Diplomat , Know The Asia-Pacific

• Central Asia
• Southeast Asia

Environment

Asia defense.

• China Power
• Crossroads Asia
• Flashpoints
• Pacific Money
• Tokyo Report
• Trans-Pacific View
• Photo Essays
• Write for Us
• Subscriptions

US Announces $500 Million in Military Funding for the Philippines

Recent features.

First Known Survivor of China’s Forced Organ Harvesting Speaks Out 

Nuclear Shadows Over South Asia: Strategic Instabilities in the China-India-Pakistan Triad

Securing America’s Critical Minerals: A Policy Priority Conundrum

The Geopolitics of Cambodia’s Funan Techo Canal

The Killing of Dawa Khan Menapal and the Fall of Afghanistan’s Republic

How Bangladesh’s Quota Reform Protest Turned Into a Mass Uprising Against a ‘Killer Government’  

Jammu and Kashmir: Five Years After the Abrogation of Its Autonomy

A Grand Coalition and a New Era in Mongolia

Dealing With China Should Be a Key Priority for the New EU Leadership

The US CHIPS Act, 2 Years Later

Understanding China’s Approach to Nuclear Deterrence

Fear Not? The Economic Impact of Vietnam’s Political Churn

Asia defense  |  security  |  southeast asia.

The announcement caps off two years that have seen a considerable strategic convergence between the two long-standing allies.

U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Antony Blinken pose for a photograph with Philippine Foreign Secretary Enrique Manalo and Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro in Manila, Philippines, July 30, 2024.

The United States has announced $500 million in new military funding for the Philippines, aimed at boosting the country’s external defense capacity at a time of growing friction with China, particularly in the South China Sea.

While the funding was announced by the Department of Defense earlier in the week, it was made official by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin following a 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue with their Philippine counterparts, Enrique Manalo and Gilberto Teodoro.

In a joint news conference yesterday, the four officials said that the $500 million, an amount that Austin described as “unprecedented,” would be used to “boost security collaboration with our oldest treaty ally in this region.” Blinken said the “once-in-a-generation investment” would be used to help modernize both the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine Coast Guard. The two sides also announced progress on a proposed military intelligence-sharing pact that is intended to allow both sides to exchange more sophisticated military intelligence.

At a meeting with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Austin and Blinken “reaffirmed US support for the Philippines in defending its sovereign rights,” and “discussed the importance of preserving the rights of all nations to fly, sail, and operate – safely and responsibly – wherever international law allows,” according to a statement from the U.S. Defense Department. The leaders also discussed the involvement of other “like-minded nations,” like Australia and Japan, “to strengthen shared principles, including the rule of law, freedom of the seas, and respect for territorial sovereignty.”

Philippine Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro hailed the infusion of funds, saying that “every peso or dollar spent on hardening Philippine capabilities to defend itself and to deter unlawful aggression will be a plus against any threat actor, whether it be China or anyone.”

The announcement is the latest instance of the deepening defense cooperation between the two allies. Last year, the  Marcos administration expanded U.S. access to Philippine military facilities under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement first signed in 2014. Since late last year, the U.S. has also taken part in joint maritime patrols of the South China Sea.

This cooperation has grown out of shared concerns about China’s growing maritime power and assertive behavior in the South China Sea, particularly in areas of the waterway claimed by the Philippines. In response, Beijing has intensified its pressure campaign against the Philippines in the South China Sea, particularly at Second Thomas Shoal in the Spratly Islands.

“Both of us share concerns and many other countries in the region share concerns, as well, about some of the actions that the People’s Republic of China has taken, escalatory actions in the South China Sea, the East China Sea, and elsewhere,” Blinken said during the news conference . He also made reference to China’s “coercive methods” in contested waters.

The visit came not long after the Philippines and China reached a temporary arrangement to prevent clashes around the Philippine-occupied Second Thomas Shoal and allow Manila to resupply the garrison aboard the BRP Sierra Madre, a grounded warship that serves as its outpost on the shoal. The “provisional” arrangement was negotiated after a violent incident on June 17, in which the China Coast Guard (CCG) blocked a resupply mission to the Sierra Madre, injuring eight Filipino sailors, one seriously.

While Beijing and Manila have come to an arrangement, albeit while disagreeing publicly on the scope of the deal, the underlying dispute remains unresolved and remains a potentially combustive issue in China-Philippines relations. The funding is a strong message from the U.S. government that it will continue to back the Philippines in the South China Sea. While this alone is unlikely to significantly shift the course of Chinese policy, looming behind the funding announcement is the question of whether the U.S. might intervene directly under the terms of the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty.

Speaking yesterday, Austin said that he and Blinken had “reaffirmed” Washington’s commitment to the terms of the treaty, which oblige it to come to the Philippines’ aid in the event of an “armed attack” on the Philippines or on its “on its armed forces, public vessels, or aircraft in the Pacific.” Austin also repeated the assurance that the Mutual Defense Treaty “applies to armed attacks on either of our armed forces, aircraft, or public vessels anywhere in the South China Sea.”

US, Philippines Announce Further Upgrades to Security Ties

By sebastian strangio.

Philippines to Probe Recording of Alleged South China Sea Agreement

US, Philippines to Kick Off ‘Expansive’ Balikatan Exercise

President Marcos to Meet US Secretary of State Amid South China Sea Tensions

By Mehedi Hasan Marof

International Airlines Leave China, Despite Beijing’s Urging 

By bonnie girard.

The Silent Winner of Myanmar’s Northern Conflict

By amara thiha.

The Intensifying Impacts of Upstream Dams on the Mekong

By nguyen minh quang, nguyen phuong nguyen, le minh hieu, and james borton.

By Tasnim Nazeer

By Shawn Rostker

By Ansel Bayly and Sarah Tzinieris

By Nguyen Minh Quang and James Borton