Readings in

Philippines
History
REFERENCE:

Agoncillo, Teodoro A, Mangahas Fe B.

Philippine History Expanded And Updated Edition
C and E Publishing, Inc. 2010. Philippines

MEMBERS:

FELIPE, J.

FERNANDEZ, D.

FERNANDO, W.

BANGIS, M.

GUEVARRA, R.

GAMBALA, J.
CHAPTER 8: THE BEGINNINGS OF FILIPINO NATIONALISM
(MID 1700S – 1900S)

Filipino revolts were fragmented and local various and oftentimes unrelated purposes among
which are:

(1) To retake one’s lost kingdom or chiefdom

(2) To resist forced labor that separated the men for the long period from their families;
(3) To get rid of the oppressive tribute; and
(4) To return to their ancient religion, the worship of bathala and the anitos.

Certain events and developments in the 1800s to 1900s led to a further awakening of the
people’s consciousness as a nation with common grievances against Spanish colonial rule.

BRITISH INVASION AND OCCUPATION

In 1761 Spain and france entered into a treaty of alliance against england’s ambition
of supremacy. Spain has drawn into a conflict. The british sent an expedition from India, which
at that time was a colony of England, to the Philippines to occupy and seize it from spain.
Arch. Manuel Rojo was the acting governor-general when the British with 6,000 men
Including sepoys from Bombay, bombarded intramuros,malate, ermita, and bagumbayan.

On September 22, 1762 unprepared for such a decisive attack, the Spaniards with
their Filipino soldiers tried desperately to defend intramuros, particularly the rampants of
sandiego and san andres, cannons of their opponents are much superior than the weapons
of the English. Arch. Rojo surrended manila and cavite while Simon Anda, a magistrate of the
Audiencia, escaped to Pampanga to continue the resistance. The bristish took over the reins
of the government and guarantee the safety of Spaniards officials.

THE SILANG AND PALARIS REVOLTS

The Spaniards defeat in the hands of the british opened the eyes of the eyes of
the Filipinos to the impermanence of the Spanish rule in the country and to the fact that it
could challenged by force of arms. In the same year 1762, Diego Silang, an Ilocano from
Ilocos province rose in revolt. He demanded the expulsion of Spaniards from Vigan.
Circumstances happened and he was killes by an assassin. His wife, Gabriela Silang took
over the leadership and carried on the fight courageously but she was later captured and
handed, along with 100 followers.

The same year, 1762 Juan dela cruz Palaris led a widespread revolt in
Pangasinan, demanding for the end to the payment in tributes and abuses by Spaniards.
It started in Binalatongan, spread to the towns of bayambang has been inspired by the
success of the british invasion in manila. Ignoring the friars who tried to pacify him, for
more than a year palaris dominated the province. At the end palaris defeated and died in
the battle
BASCO’S ECONOMIC PLAN

In 1778, Jose Basco y Vargas who was appointed governor-general of the

Philippines, surveyed the economic condition of the colony and found out to be failing. He
found the galleon trade unproductive for the government because it was benefitting only
the few officials who monopolized it. Eventually these officials neglected to devlop the rich
agricultural potentials of the provinces. Governor Bascp, encouraged the cultivation of
crops for export like indigo,coffe,cocoa, and sugar. He also encourages the development
of mining.

For the effecting implementation of his economic plans, governor basco founded
the economic plans, he founded Economic Society Of Friend Of The Country In 1781
And Established Royal Company In 1785. The royal company failed its purpose due to
lack of cooperation of spain who preffered galleon trade.

In 1807, some 10,000 rebels in ilocos revolted because of the monopoly of a locally
produced wine called basi. The basi revolt called as the bloodiest revolt recorded at that
time.

LAISSEZ-FAIRE AND THE OPENNING OF POTS

ole rogeberg –

Policy trade-offs are central to the cannabis policy debate, but there is little
consensus on what these trade-offs are or how they should be assessed.

To compare policy regimes, we need to specify the set of important outcomes

influenced by policy, consider how these outcomes will differ across regimes, and,
evaluate the differences with a normative principle specifying the relative importance of
different outcomes. Balancing trade-offs, the “best” policy is the one that results in the best
“overall” bundle of outcomes.

Fields and disciplines differ in how they approach this task. Some restrict their
analysis to a few outcomes, for example narrow public health approaches that only
consider population mortality and morbidity. These implicitly assume that no economic or
social benefits could justify any reduction in health. Others list and discuss a bundle of
important outcomes without a strong stance on their relative importance or
comprehensiveness (e.g., Babor, 2010). Other approaches are more systematic:
Researchers or policy stakeholders may be guided through Delphic decision-making
processes, or we may develop “drug harm metrics” that assign numerical weights to
indicators of social costs, policy effectiveness, drug harms etc (Ritter, 2009).

In this article, I discuss central cannabis policy trade-offs using an economic

model, drawing on standard regulatory theory and more recent work in behavioral
economics. The analysis is similar to that underlying cost-benefit analyses used across a
broad range of policy issues, including greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, road
 congestion, and alcohol consumption. Abstracting away much detail, this aims to clarify
central trade-offs faced and identify how observable magnitudes such as tax levels and
drug prices reflect policy-relevant harms and benefits.

Trade-offs between three types of outcomes are highlighted: a) the myriad

physical, mental and social harms of drug consumption, b) the subjectively perceived
benefits of consumption, and c) the harms from illegal markets. These are largely
determined by economic factors: Taxes and regulation shape the supply side and
determine prices, availability and illegal activity. Legality, price and availability, in turn, help
determine consumption prevalence and patterns, which determine use-related harms.

Economic models are simple theoretical systems that serve as cognitive tools.
They help clarify the policy relevance and implications of an established knowledge base,
assisting reasoning when there are “adding-up constraint[s], indirect chain[s] of causation,
feedback effect[s], etc.” (Krugman, 1998). This helps avoid the human tendency to
substitute simpler substitute problems in the face of complexity (Kahneman, 2011). As
with any tools, they can – and have been – misused. In particular, economists have at
times fetishized models as alchemical machines converting a priori assumptions into fact,
in effect mistaking “beauty, clad in impressive-looking mathematics, for truth” (Krugman,
2009). For example, prominent economists have argued that addictive use is the gradual,
controlled implementation of a rational, forward-looking, welfare-maximizing plan (see
Rogeberg, 2004; Rogeberg & Melberg, 2011 for references and criticism). Such absurd
conclusions are due to bad models – often resting on an assumption that all humans are
logically omniscient, well-informed creatures that unfailingly make optimal choices. As two
economists put it, “[e]conomists will and should be ignored if we continue to insist that it
is axiomatic that constantly trading stocks or accumulating consumer debt or becoming a
heroin addict must be optimal for the people doing these things merely because they have
chosen to do it” (O’Donoghue & Rabin, 2003).

In summary, the analysis that follows aims to analyse cannabis policy within a
standard economic framework built on reasonable, well-supported assumptions regarding
cannabis use, harms and markets. The goal is to provide a “high-level” evaluation of
whether a prohibition can be justified by the regulatory principles commonly employed in
economic policy analysis, and to relate the conclusions to arguments from the ongoing
policy debate.

THE RISE OF THE FILIPINO MIDDLE CLASS

It was inevitable that with material progress social changes would follow. Somehow
the fruits of these developments in trade and commerce benefitted the mestizos
particularly the spanish and the chinese mestizos. As exports in agriculture increased
inquilinos or the tenants in the haciendas and their families began to accumulate wealth.
Together they constituted the middle class a group below the aristocratic spanish officials
families and religious orders but higher or above the masses (the poor, uneducated
Indios).
EDUCATION OF SOME FILIPINOS

The Spaniards in the Philippines founded many colleges for men and women. But
these colleges and universities were exclusively for the Spaniards. It was not until the
second half of the 19th century that these colleges admitted natives. Owing to the opening
of the doors of Spanish colleges and the universities for the filipino.

During the Spanish colonial period in the Philippines (1521–1898), the different
cultures of the archipelago experienced a gradual unification from a variety of
native Asian and Islamic customs and traditions, including animist religious practices, to
what is known today as Filipino culture, a unique hybrid of Southeast Asian and Western
culture, namely Spanish, including the Spanish language and the Catholic faith. Spanish
education played a major role in that transformation. The oldest universities, colleges,
and vocational schools, dating as far back as the late 16th century were created during
the colonial period, as well as the first modern public education system in Asia,
established in 1863. By the time Spain was replaced by the United States as the colonial
power, Filipinos were among the most educated peoples in all of Asia, boasting one of the
highest literacy rates in that continent. Simultaneously, the knowledge of Filipinos about
neighboring cultures receded.

THE OPENING OF SUEZ CANAL

The changes that took place in the second half of 19th century had far reaching
effects on the Filipinos. One of these is the opening of suez canal in 1869. This resulted
in the shorter route and travel time between the Spain and the Philippines. Later on, they
influenced some educated Filipinos and soon both were asking the government to
introduce changes in the administration of the colony. Another effect of the shorter
distance between spain and the Philippines was the influx of professive books and
periodicals to the country.

LIBERALISM IN THE PHILIPPINES

In 1868, a revolution took place in Spain. The revolutionists were against the
autocratic reign of Queen Isabel II. When the revolutionists won, Queen Isabel was forced
to flee to France. As a result of this the Republic of Spain was born. Spanish revolutionists
fough for popular suffrage and freedom of speech, the press and the religion. When
Governor-General Carlos Maria de la Torre arrived in manila, in 1869 he put into practice
the liberal principles of the revolutionists in Spain. De la Torre admin. was significant
because he abolished the censorship of the press, he abolished flogging as a punishment
and he solved the agrarian unrest in Cavite.
THE RETURN OF AUTOCRACY

The administration of Governor de la Torre was brief. The republic of Spain ended
in 1870 when the monarchy was restored and a new king assumed the Spanish throne.
Rafael de Izquierdo, who was appointed Governor-General in 1871 to replace de la Torre.
He reversed the reforms of de la Torre. He disapproved the establishment of a school of
arts and trades in Manila because he was afraid that it might be used a political club.
Those who were known to have favored to the administration of de la Torre were
considered suspects and were spied upon. Naturally, the friars and the monarchists
among the Spaniards became his staunch supporters and were happy over his reactionary
attitude.

THE CAMPAIGN FOR SECULARIZATION

Priesthood during the Spanish period was composed of two classes:

The regular priests were those who belonged to the religious orders like the Dominicans,
Recollects, Augustinians, and Franciscans. The secular priests were not members of any
religious orders. The regular priests, or simply regulars, have a mission to fulfill, i.e., to
convert non-Christian people to Christianity, they would leave and go to another area to
make convert. In the Christianized areas, churches or parishes were built which the secular
administered.

In the Philippines, the friars or members of the religious orders not only made
converts to Christianity but they also occupied parishes. As such, they were called friar-
curates. They had to administer the parishes as friar-curates because there were very few
secular during the first century of Spanish rule. When some native studied for the priesthood
and become secular, they were given subordinate position. The friar-curates refused to
vacate the parishes.

The government even went as far as giving the parishes, run by Filipino
seculars, to Spanish regulars. This led to the campaign called “secularization”. The
movement would later called “Filipinization” because of its racial overtone. The secular priest
felt that the position as parish head was being denied to them because they were not
Spaniards and thus, inferior to the regulars. Initially, the leader of the Filipino campaign to
secularize the parishes was Father Pedro Pablo Pelaez (1812-1663), A Spanish mestizo.
After his death he was succeeded by father Jose A. Burgos, another Spanish mestizo. Other
secular priests involved in the secularization movement who were either Spanish mestizo,
Chinese mestizo, or Indios included Father Jacinto Zamora, Mariano Gomez, Toribio Del
Pilar, Mariano Sevilla, Pedro Dandan, Jose Guevara, and many more.
 THE CAVITE MUTINY

The relation between the Filipino seculars and the Spanish regulars grew from
bad to worse. The Spanish regulars who continued to occupy the parishes blamed the
Filipino priests by saying that the latter were not prepared to administer parishes. This
caused greater enmity between them. On the other hand, the Filipino seculars continued
their campaign relentlessly.

At the height of the secularization controversy, the Cavite mutiny occurred on

January 20, 1872, involving a number of workers and some marine detachment. This mutiny
was caused by the revocation of the privilege of shipyard workers to be exempted from force
labor and from paying tribute by Governor-General de Izquierdo. The mutineers included
indios, mestizos, and criollos. They were led by a military sergeant named La Madrid. The
governor of Cavite province informed the governor the governor-general in Manila about the
rebellion by telegraph. Alarmed, the governor general sent an expedition to Cavite to put
down the rebellion, ordered the arrest of Filipinos and mestizos who were allegedly behind
it.. hey were sentenced to be banished to Guam, while Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora were
Sentenced to death.

REFERENCE:

Agoncillo, Teodoro A, Mangahas Fe B.

Philippine History Expanded And Updated Edition
C and E Publishing, Inc. 2010. Philippines

MEMBERS:

FELIPE, J.

FERNANDEZ, D.

FERNANDO, W.

BANGIS, M.

GUEVARRA, R.

GAMBALA, J.