Philippines-Marianas Relations

in History: Some Notes on

Filipino Exiles in Guam*

Atoy M. Navarro
University of the Philippines

This article situates the nature of the exile of Filipinos to the Marianas in the
shared history of the Philippines and the Marianas. The links between the
two can be traced to as far back as the voyages and travels of the Austronesians
and Nusantao from the Philippines to the Marianas. The nature of exile was
different before and after the arrival of the colonizers. The Marianas became
a place of exile for Filipinos who opposed or criticized the Spanish and
American colonial governments. A discussion is devoted to Apolinario
Mabini, considered to be the most prominent exile at the time of the
American rule in the Philippines.

In the continuing efforts towards the formation of Bagong Kasaysayan (New

History), one field of study that has not been given much attention is area
studies or the study of pangkabanwaan (pertaining to community) (Navarro,
Rodriguez, Villan, 1997; Aquino, 1992a, b, c; Bolinao, 1993). The study of
history as a meaningful account of the past does not only entail self-
reporting or reporting about our own civilization, but also reporting about
related or other civilizations. It is important to draw the Filipino experience
in history in the study of the latter. The connections can be sought by explo-
ring a period or phase in history when and where the links between the
Philippines and other histories were forged. In periods where points of
convergence cannot be ascertained, comparisons and finding similarities
based on our own experience may help widen our worldview.

* Translated from Pilipino.

Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, Vol. 8, Nos. 1-2, 1999 117

Downloaded from amj.sagepub.com at IOWA TESTING PROGRAMS on March 18, 2015

118 ASIAN AND PACIFIC MIGRATION JOURNAL

In an attempt to trace the Philippines-Marianas relations in history, we

shall give emphasis on the connections between the two at different periods
in our history, and cite similarities in their historical experiences. 1 In this
paper, we shall highlight the experience of Filipinos exiled in Guam, Maria-
nas, before and during the Philippine Revolution in 1896 and the Philippine-
American War in 1899 as a path towards a clearer understanding of the
Philippines-Marianas relations. One notable exile was Apolinario Mabini,
who pursued a peaceful movement for independence outside his Mother-
land. The exiles refer to those who voluntarily or involuntarily left the
country (Salazar, 1999).

Philippines-Marianas Relations in History

Studies in the social sciences, particularly in the fields of archaeology and

linguistics, suggest that the Philippines-Marianas relations can be traced
back to the period of ancient culture and civilization. These ties were rooted
in the history of free voyages and travels by Austronesians or Nusantao
from the Philippines to the Marianas around 2000 – 1000 BC (Bellwood,
1985:121). Some of these travels may be related to the banishment, expul-
sion or exile of those who violated the laws of their communities regarding
taboos against sexual relations and marriage among blood-relatives and
kin (Salazar, 1999), and as a result, these exiles may have settled or become
part of places such as the Marianas. Artifacts like shell beads and bracelets,
Tridacna shell adzes, stone adzes of Duff type 2A and stone adzes with
circular cross-sections or Duff type 6 attest to the Philippines-Marianas
relations (Bellwood, 1979: 281, 283; Duff, 1970:16). Evidence of the use of
betel nut (called pugua in Tinian, Marianas), both in the Marianas and
Philippines, and the possibility that rice in Guam, Marianas may have come
from the Philippines further suggest of the age-old ties between the two
(Abella, 1962:3; Bellwood, 1979:282, 285).
Archaeological studies have unearthed some remains that strengthen
evidence about the Philippine-Marianas relations. It is said that the pottery
called Marianas Red of Guam, Saipan and Tinian may have originated from
central Philippines about 1500 BC. Marianas Red pottery shows a lot of
similarities to the pots made in Masbate. In addition, many remains of
undecorated pots were found both in the Philippines and the Marianas
(Bellwood, 1979:282; Solheim II, 1981:36; Spoehr, 1957:174, 1973:274;
Takayama, 1984:4-5).

1.
Earlier attempts to study the Philippines-Marianas relations were initiated by Abella
(1962), but it seems there were no subsequent efforts to broaden the inquiry in the field of area
studies.

Downloaded from amj.sagepub.com at IOWA TESTING PROGRAMS on March 18, 2015

PHILIPPINES-MARIANAS RELATIONS IN HISTORY 119

Studies in the field of linguistics indicate that the Chamorro language of

Marianas may be a Philippine language which, if not related to Ilocano and
Tagalog, it could have come from the Southern Philippines (Blust, 1988:56;
Topping, 1973:3). This claim is strengthened by studies suggesting that
Chamorro, like Philippine languages, is part of Western Austronesian or
Western Malay-Polynesian, a sub-group of the Austronesian language
(Bellwood, 1985:104).
Several studies on the ancient civilization of Marianas point to a few
more evidences of its links with the Philippines. Being Austronesians, it is
not surprising that the people of Marianas were skilled in boat-making and
navigation (Beardsley, 1964:71-76). Like in the Philippines, perhaps this is
the root of the ancient settlement and community of the Cha-morros, the
indigenous ethnic group in the Marianas (Abella, 1962:2). In general, the
Marianas and the Philippines have a matrilineal society. The social classes
in the Marianas were composed of matua, archaot and manachang which
corresponded with the maguinoo (nobles), maharlika (freemen), and alipin
(slaves) in the Philippines. The Chamorro leaders called magat-lake in
Marianas are equivalent to the datus in the Philippines (Carano and Sanchez,
1964:20-22; Thompson, 1947:49-50). Faith played a major role in society led
by the makahnas of Marianas that are equivalent to catalonan or babaylan in
the Philippines. Belief in the aniti and taotaomona in Marianas is similar to the
belief in anito and bayani in the Philippines (Beardsley, 1964:88-101; Carano
and Sanchez, 1964:23-25).
Chronicles and historical records show the relationship between the
Philippines and the Marianas in time of crisis in the ancient civilization.
This was in the face of continuing linkages deriving from the free voyages
and travels or banishment, exile and expulsion.
In their journey to the Philippines, the Spaniards first landed in the
Marianas. Upon their arrival, as in the Philippines, the natives resisted the
Spaniards and fought the Spaniards on several occasions to protect their
freedom (Beardsley, 1964:105-120; Carano and Sanchez, 1964:39-53). But
unlike in the Philippines, it took a long time before the Marianas was
conquered in the name of Spain and the Catholic Church. From 1565 to
1668, the Marianas served as a temporary port of the Spanish galleons and
other seafaring vessels. The conquest of the Marianas began only with the
arrival of a Jesuit priest, Diego Luis Sanvitores, five other Jesuits, and a few
Filipino missionaries. Captain Juan de Santa Cruz was immediately ap-
pointed as Military Commandant of the Archipelago. In 1676, the Viceroy
of Mexico, where the overall administration of the Marianas emanated,
appointed Captain Francisco de Irrisari y Viñar as the first Spanish Gover-
nor of the Archipelago. Other governors succeeded him under the admin-
istration of the Viceroy of Mexico and the continuing coordination with the

Downloaded from amj.sagepub.com at IOWA TESTING PROGRAMS on March 18, 2015

120 ASIAN AND PACIFIC MIGRATION JOURNAL

Governor-General in Manila (Beardsley, 1964:121-135; Carano and Sanchez,

1964:61-73, 162-163; Thompson, 1947:58). The Chamorros struggled, fought
and waged battles to protect their freedom, especially during the time of the
expanded implementation of reduccion in the Marianas, similar to what
happened in the Philippines (Abella, 1962:9-40; Carano and Sanchez,
1964:73-87; Hezel, 1989). Several Filipino soldiers were part of the colonial
forces sent to quell the social movements in Guam. There were about 19
Filipinos who fought in the struggle of 1671, and about 20 in the struggle of
1684-85 (Abella, 1962:48).
Intermarriages between Chamorros and Filipinos would rise in subse-
quent periods. In fact, in 1783, 648 Filipinos were registered in the Marianas,
including their clans but excluding the 151 soldiers, a large number consi-
dering that the total population was 3,231. It became difficult to distinguish
a native Chamorro from a Chamorro-Filipino. Besides the connectedness of
heritage and civilization, the Chamorro-Filipinos chose to be enlisted as
natives to enjoy tax exemptions (Thompson, 1947:35).
It was around 1812, due to the revolutions in America, that the political
order in the Marianas began to change. In the last phase of the galleon’s
voyage from Acapulco in 1815, the administration of the Marianas was
completely transferred from Mexico to the Philippines. In accordance with
the royal decree, the Marianas became a province under the audiencia of
Manila, i.e., under the direct control of the Governor-General in the
Philippines (Carano and Sanchez, 1964:144; Thompson, 1947:60). With this
arrangement, the links between the Philippines became stronger, particu-
larly in the political and economic realms. Thus, it is not surprising that in
1819, the number of Filipinos in Marianas reached a total of 1,774, more than
the Spaniards who numbered about 865 (Thompson, 1947:36). But life in
the Marianas was difficult due to the lack of natural resources that could
sustain the basic needs of the Chamorros. In the midst of economic diffi-
culties, there were also epidemics like chicken pox, and calamities wrought
by typhoons and earthquakes brought widespread hunger among the
people (Carano and Sanchez, 1964:121; Thompson, 1947:205). Such condi-
tions prompted the Spanish government to implement the exile of Filipinos
to the islands.

Filipino Exiles in Guam

Epidemics, calamities, and the abuses of Spanish officials wore down the
Chamorros, and many of them returned to their traditional way of life and
refused to take part in the labor system organized by the Spaniards, parti-
cularly in agriculture (Beardsley, 1964:176-177).The islands were in great
need of labor. Consequently, in 1848, under the administration of the new
governor, Pablo Perez, the government in Manila was requested to send

Downloaded from amj.sagepub.com at IOWA TESTING PROGRAMS on March 18, 2015

PHILIPPINES-MARIANAS RELATIONS IN HISTORY 121

convicted prisoners to provide labor in the Marianas, particularly in Guam.

The request of Governor Perez was granted in 1851 with the arrival from the
Philippines of the ship Calavelino, bringing 65 prisoners whose death
sentence was pardoned in exchange for labor in Guam (Beardsley, 1964:180-
181; Carano and Sanchez, 1964:151-153; Thompson, 1947:111). The con-
victed prisoners can be considered as the first sizeable group of Filipino
exiles in Guam. It should be made clear that the nature of exile of this group
of Filipinos was different from that exile migration before the colonization
of the Philippines and the Marianas. Rather, these exiles were expelled by
the Spaniards to a place still under their jurisdiction but outside or in the
margins of their central colonial power in Manila. Likewise, it must be
made clear that there were varying reasons why these exiles were impris-
oned. There were some who violated colonial laws and ordinances like
failure to pay taxes or lack of proper documents. Others openly opposed and
criticized the Spanish Government in the Philippines (National Archives of
the Philippines; Cook, 1980).2 As the journey was difficult, two Filipinos
died before reaching the Marianas; there were others who died due to
sickness, and almost all the others suffered from different illnesses like
ulcer, skin disorders and even venereal diseases. After a month, 50 of the
exiles recovered and were ready to work as farmers and laborers. They
were sent to the different districts of Guam to work. The Spaniards were
very careful and implemented harsh punishments to anyone who at-
tempted to escape and violate the rules. These caused many sufferings to
the Filipino exiles. Under these conditions, the exiles planned to stage a
rebellion and to escape, a plan which was discovered by the authorities.
The leader of the exiles was captured, one died in the fight, and two were
injured. The others were able to escape to the mountain ranges and forests
of Guam but in one week all the Filipino exiles were located and captured.
The incident convinced the Spaniards of the error of using convicted
prisoners to serve the government as farmers and laborers. Thus, Governor
Perez decided to send the Filipino exiles back to their prison cells in Manila
(Beardsley, 1964:182-183; Carano and Sanchez, 1964:153-154; Thompson,
1947:111).
However, after only one decade, under the administration of Governor
Felipe de la Corte, the policy of using convicted prisoners as farmers and
laborers was revived. One hundred convicted prisoners were sent to Guam
from Philippines. This time, the Spaniards offered an incentive to the
prisoners by giving them land and providing them with necessities if they

2.
Files of documents in the National Archives of the Philippines under Presos and Sediciones
y Rebelliones throw light on the charges against the prisoners. A general overview of the exiles
in the Marianas is discussed in Cook (1980).

Downloaded from amj.sagepub.com at IOWA TESTING PROGRAMS on March 18, 2015

122 ASIAN AND PACIFIC MIGRATION JOURNAL

could improve the land assigned to them. This approach seemed successful
as there was no disorder and rebellion among the Filipino exiles during this
time (Beardsley, 1964:184; Thompson, 1947:111).
Around 1861, the penal facilities in Guam and the entire Marianas were
expanded to house political prisoners from the Philippines (Bankoff,
1996:158-159). Around 1872, 21 Filipinos, including a number of prominent
members of Comite de Reformadores generally composed of Indio priests and
creole and mestizo lawyers and traders, said to be involved in the rebellion in
Cavite, were exiled to the Marianas. The exiles, also referred to as deportados,
included Agustin Mendoza, Jose Guevara, Miguel Laza, Feliciano Gomez,
Anacleto Desiderio, Vicente del Rosario, Toribio del Pilar, Mariano Sevilla,
Justo Guason, Pedro Dandan, Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma.
Regidor, Mauricio de Leon, Jose Basa Enriquez, Pedro Carillo, Gervasio
Sanchez, Balbino Mauricio, Jose Ma. Baan, Pio Basa, Maximo Paterno and
Ramon Maurente. The only woman among the exiles in Marianas was
Gertrudes Gorricho, wife of Joaquin Pardo de Tavera. The sentence meted
on the exiles varied. Jose Basa Enriquez was meted 10 years while the
shortest was two years. Deportation was considered as a heavy penalty. It
was expected that a deportado could not return to his homeland. As an
incomunicado (i.e., unable to communicate), he was also cut off from his own
country and loved ones. In addition, deportation put the family members
and relatives left behind “in great shame and persecution.” However, once
deportados asked for pardon and authorities become convinced of their
silence and submission, i.e., they were no longer a threat to Spain, they could
be pardoned. The exiles were allowed to leave the Marianas on the condition
that they will not return to their birthplace. Consequently, many of the
exiles, mainly creole and mestizos, chose to live in foreign lands while the
Indios tried hard and succeeded in returning to the Philippines (Bankoff,
1996:187; Boncan, 1995; Carano and Sanchez, 1964:160; Manuel, 1970a:316,
1970b:48-49; Schumacher, 1981:23-32). Deportation, thus, was a new form of
exile. The Spaniards used it as a political weapon, as a penalty to silence
those who opposed the colonial order in the Philippines. However, just like
the Filipino convicts previously exiled in Guam, the deportados were also
expelled by the Spaniards within their colonial jurisdiction but outside or in
the margins of the center of colonial power in Manila.
More Filipinos were exiled in the Marianas in later years. In 1886, there
were 99; in 1888, there were 104; and in 1891, there were three Filipino
prisoners (Bankoff, 1996:158). At the outbreak of the Philippine Revolution
of 1896, following the crackdown of the Spanish authorities, there were
about a thousand Anak ng Bayan or ANB (Children of the Motherland), who
were involved in the fight for kalayaan (freedom) and kasarinlan (indepen-
dence/self-determination) of Inang Bayan (Motherland), who were exiled to

Downloaded from amj.sagepub.com at IOWA TESTING PROGRAMS on March 18, 2015

PHILIPPINES-MARIANAS RELATIONS IN HISTORY 123

different places like Palawan, Jolo and Mindanao in the Philippines, the
Marianas, and Fernando Po in Africa. Melchora Aquino (Tandang Sora) and
Segunda Puentes Santiago were among the 57 Filipinos exiled to Guam.
These women charged with sedition and rebellion by the Spanish govern-
ment and exiled on September 2, 1896. It may be recalled that Tandang Sora
played a big role in the cry for kalayaan in Balintawak, when the tearing of
the cedula signified the start of the revolution. Segunda Puentes Santiago, on
the other hand, actively took part in the armed encounter in Pinaglabanan
on August 29-30, 1896. In Guam, the male deportees were imprisoned in the
presidio while Aquino and Puentes Santiago were handed to the care of Justo
Dungca, a rich Filipino, i.e., under house arrest (Bankoff, 1996:187; Medina,
1995a:13; 1995b:82).
Around December 1896, the ship Venus brought some 120 exiles from
the Philippines to Guam. The deportados were imprisoned in buildings that
served as marine post. It was Christmas Eve when one of the Filipino
soldiers of the colonial forces loyal to the Spaniards discovered a plan by the
deportados to rebel. They planned to kill the guards, kill Governor Jacob
Marina of Guam, free and conquer the whole archipelago. This plan can be
considered as connected to the Philippine Revolution. Possibly, they saw
Guam as part of the Inang Bayang Filipinas, that they wanted to free. The
Spaniards were able to confirm the plan and strictly monitored the depor-
tados. When one of the guards noticed some strange movements, they took
it as the start of the rebellion, and the guards immediately fired their guns.
Forty prisoners died while all the others were injured. Probably due to their
fear that another rebellion may occur, the Spaniards sent the surviving
deportados back to the Philippines in the same ship that brought them to
Guam (Carano and Sanchez, 1964:161).
On June 20-22, 1898, there was a major change in the political order of
Guam brought about by the conquest of the archipelago by America
through the leadership of Captain Henry Glass. When the Spaniards surren-
dered, Guam was left in the administration of some Chamorros, Filipinos,
Spanish mestizos and one American who moved to secure the political
control of the island. The status of Guam was settled only through the
signing of the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898, the treaty that ceded the
Philippines as well as Puerto Rico and Guam to the United States (US).
Guam was to be considered separate from the Philippines. Once the status
of Guam was clarified, Commandant Edward Taussig arrived on January
23, 1899 to administer the island. He believed that in order to strengthen
Guam and make it self-reliant, the exiles should be sent back to the
Philippines (Beardsley, 1964:191-195; Carano and Sanchez, 1964:171-181).
However, he was not able to fully implement this rule. Many Filipinos were
unable to return back due to lack of money (Kalaw, 1930:330). In addition,
with the outbreak of the Philippine-American War on February 4, 1899,

Downloaded from amj.sagepub.com at IOWA TESTING PROGRAMS on March 18, 2015

124 ASIAN AND PACIFIC MIGRATION JOURNAL

Guam would again become a place of exile for the ANB who would fight
for the kalayaan and kasarinlan of the Inang Bayan.
When Taussig left, Don Joaquin Perez became the general administra-
tor in Guam until the arrival of Major Louis Kaiser on March 24, 1889.
During Kaiser’s administration, he implemented a curfew from 9:00 p.m. to
5:00 a.m. He also prohibited involvement in religious celebrations among
the indigenous soldiers. American authorities imposed these measures to
avoid the “disorder” that the Filipino prisoners in the island might sow
(Beardsley, 1964:195; Carano and Sanchez, 1964:182-183).
With the establishment of the naval force in Guam, Captain Richard
Leary replaced Kaiser as American governor in Guam beginning on August
7, 1899. Leary was replaced by Commandant Seaton Schroeder on July 9,
1900 (Beardsley, 1964:196-206; Carano and Sanchez, 1964:184-196). It was
during Schroeder’s administration when Apolinario Mabini was exiled to
Guam.

Apolinario Mabini in Guam

To strengthen the pacification efforts in the Philippines in the face of the

continuing revolution by the ANB, the Americans implemented various
ways to quell the resistance. Exile was one of the means they implemented
to punish, silence and force to submit those who refused to pledge loyalty
to the US. Apolinario Mabini was the principal exile at this time. He was the
first Prime Minister of the Philippines during the revolution and the start of
the Philippine-American War (Kalaw, 1930:321-322; Majul, 1960: Navarro,
1997:2-3). Governor William Howard Taft considered Mabini as the most
notable Filipino who refused to compromise. General Arthur MacArthur
reasoned that Mabini was the most active advocate who staunchly refused
amnesty and instead continued to relate with revolutionaries while living in
Manila under the protection of the US (Kalaw, 1930:322, 352; Majul, 1960:384).
Thus, on January 15, 1901, the ship Rosecrans left for Guam, carrying Mabini,
his brother Prudencio, and other exiles, namely, Artemio Ricarte, Pio del
Pilar, Maximo Hizon, Mariano Llanera and Julian Gerona, (Kalaw, 1930:322;
Mabini, 1931a:225; Majul, 1960:384; Ricarte, 1992:xviii).
In Guam, the American wardens headed by Captain Melville Jones
Shaw, treated the exiles well. They were allowed to communicate with their
relatives in the Philippines through writing, although the American au-
thorities must first examine the contents of the letters. Mabini took the
chance to write to his relatives and friends, especially his brother Alejandro
(Kalaw, 1930:323; Mabini, 1931:227-228). The exiles were also allowed to
organize in order to smoothly implement programs for the welfare of the
prisoners. They even had an election presided by Mabini where Pio del Pilar

Downloaded from amj.sagepub.com at IOWA TESTING PROGRAMS on March 18, 2015

PHILIPPINES-MARIANAS RELATIONS IN HISTORY 125

was elected President and Julian Gerona as Vice-President (Kalaw, 1930:327-

328; Mabini, 1931:234). Some requests were also granted for the well-being
of the prisoners. The prisoners complained about the frequent serving of
canned goods. Thus, they were allowed to leave the jail in groups of five so
they could choose the food they liked to eat and also to have a chance to walk
around. Mabini could not leave his cell due to his handicap and was
contented in requesting his companions to buy food for him (Kalaw,
1930:328, 335-336, 339-340; Mabini, 1931:241-246).
The exiles were said to be most grateful to the American wardens for
teaching them the English language in exchange for lessons in the Spanish
language. This sentiment is reflected in the writings of Mabini that tell about
his admiration for Captain Shaw. Mabini admired the captain for his ability
to fulfill his responsibilities as commandant without neglecting their En-
glish language lessons. Mabini and his companions would not also forget
Mrs. Schroeder, who was described as a living example of a good American
woman (Mabini, 1931:237; Perez, 1965:14). As a result, during his stay in
Guam, Mabini was able to translate from Tagalog to English such works as
Florante at Laura which he entitled A Copy of the Poetry Written in Tagalog by
the Filipino Francisco Baltazar. He was also able to translate pieces written in
Spanish language such as Ernestina, A Nose, Fragments of the Drama “The
Troubadour,” On the Death of the Famous Cuban Poet, Mr. Jose Ma. de Herede,
Monologue of Sancho Panza, The Farmer Invited by a Noble Man, and Spanish
Proverbs. He even translated his own work concerning his views about the
great Philippine revolution. Originally written in Spanish, he translated La
Revolucion Filipina into The Philippine Revolution (Perez, 1965:14).
In Guam, outside his birthplace, Mabini continued his peaceful cam-
paign for independence through his correspondence with American offi-
cials concerning their administration in the Philippines (Salazar, 1998:11-92;
Miranda, 1997:1).3 On one occasion, Mabini also received a letter dated
December 21, 1901 from the captured General Emilio Aguinaldo. In the
letter, Aguinaldo had hoped for Mabini's help in promoting the welfare of
the people and in restoring peace, thus he said that many were working for
the exile's return to the Philippines (Kalaw, 1930:333-334; Majul, 1960:385).
Such efforts probably made possible the return of Segunda Puentes to the
country at around 1902 (Kalaw, 1930:330; Medina, 1995b:82).

3.
Concerning the distinction of independensya (independence) from kalayaan (freedom) and
kasarinlan (autonomy, independence, self-determination), see Salazar (1998) and Miranda
(1997). For Salazar, independensya is rooted in the campaign of the elite hero, which they derived
from their framework of nación-revolucion-republica-progreso, which is different from the
framework of the people. For Miranda, independensya is “inauthentic freedom in the frame-
work of the neocolonial order” (translated from Pilipino).

Downloaded from amj.sagepub.com at IOWA TESTING PROGRAMS on March 18, 2015

126 ASIAN AND PACIFIC MIGRATION JOURNAL

In the midst of all these, President Theodore Roosevelt of the US

proclaimed on July 4, 1902 that the “insurrection” in the Philippines was
over and those who took part in the movement could be given pardon if they
would pledge loyalty to America. This proclamation of amnesty reached
Guam sometime in August 1902. Many Filipino exiles took advantage of the
amnesty and pledged loyalty to US. Only Ricarte and Mabini refused to do
so (Kalaw, 1930:345; Mabini, 1931:250; Majul, 1960:385; Perez, 1965:15;
Ricarte, 1992:xix; Villanueva, 1964:87). Mabini did not accept the amnesty
because he needed time to think about the proper action. He said that his
conscience could not accept to pledge of loyalty to the US in the absence of
information on the laws and policies carried out by the US in the Philippines.
He also wanted to clarify the plans and policies of the Americans for the
future of the Philippines. Likewise, he wanted to make sure that there would
be peace in the Philippines (Kalaw, 1930:346-349; Mabini,1931:250-252;
Majul, 1960:385; Villanueva, 1964:87-88). Mabini’s exile in Guam was ex-
tended due to his refusal to pledge loyalty to the US.
In spite of Mabini’s refusal, many American officials supported and
campaigned for his freedom. Senator George Hoar was his primary sup-
porter, and wrote to President Roosevelt that Mabini should be granted
freedom. This was in the face of the initial opposition by Governor Taft and
State Secretary Elihu Root (Kalaw, 1930:351-353; Majul, 1960:385-387; Perez,
1965:15-16; Villanueva, 1964:88-89).
After deliberating on the issue of granting freedom to Mabini, President
Roosevelt decided to allow the exile to leave Guam even if he did not pledge
loyalty. However, he would not be allowed to return to the Philippines
unless he took the oath of allegiance (Kalaw, 1930:355; Majul, 1960:387;
Perez, 1965:16, Villanueva, 1964:89). After a few more exchange of letters,
Mabini was granted freedom, and he took the oath of allegiance on the ship
that carried him back to his birthplace (Kalaw, 1930:355-357; Majul, 1960:387-
388; Perez, 1965:16; Villanueva, 1964:89-90). Thus, on February 26, 1903,
aboard the ship Thomas, Mabini took the oath of allegiance before he stepped
down in the port in Manila. Ricarte was the witness. Ricarte, who refused to
pledge loyalty, decided to be exiled to Hong Kong (Kalaw, 1930:358-361;
Majul, 1960:389; Perez, 1965:16; Ricarte, 1992:xix; Villanueva, 1964:90).
Tandang Sora also returned from exile, aboard the ship Uranus, on the same
day that Mabini’s ship arrived in Manila (Medina, 1995a:13).
Mabini said that his decision to return and to pledge loyalty to the US
was based on his decision not to oppose the desire of the people. Mabini said
that the principle of protecting one’s self was what motivated the people to
cease the armed struggle and submit themselves to the Americans. He
abided by the people’s decision and he returned to be with the people to
remind them to believe in themselves and to work for justice and for the

Downloaded from amj.sagepub.com at IOWA TESTING PROGRAMS on March 18, 2015

PHILIPPINES-MARIANAS RELATIONS IN HISTORY 127

future (Mabini, 1931b:272-273; Majul, 1960:390). With this decision, Mabini

left the revolution behind.

Conclusion

In exploring the Philippines-Marianas relations, we situated exile in the

context of the extensive and deep cultural and historical ties between the
two, rooted since the ancient times in the voyages and travels of the
Austronesians and Nusantao from the Philippines to the Marianas. These
links also resulted from various exile experiences in early Nusantao history,
many of which became part of the Marianas. Under colonial rule, exile
became a form of punishment to silence those who opposed colonial policies
and were critical of the colonial government. There were times when
banishment did silence the exiles, but there were also times when the actions
of the exiles in Guam were related to the revolution in the Philippines such
as the uprising in December 1896.
In the case of Mabini, he attempted to contribute to the advancement of
Philippine independence through peaceful means while he was in Guam.
He returned to the Philippines after taking the oath of allegiance to the US.
In the end, the Americans were successful in using exile as a political
strategy. In the case of Mabini, he was silenced in the face of the continuing
revolution. Indeed he was set aside, banished and deserted - exiled outside
the continuing struggle of the true Anak ng Bayan who continued the
revolution to attain full kalayaan and kasarinlan for the Inang Bayan.4

4.
Contrary to Mabini’s assumption, the people continued with the revolution. A discussion
on the idea of the continuing revolution can be found in Navarro (1998).

Downloaded from amj.sagepub.com at IOWA TESTING PROGRAMS on March 18, 2015

128 ASIAN AND PACIFIC MIGRATION JOURNAL

REFERENCES
Abella, Domingo, ed.
1962 “Vignettes of Philippines-Marianas Colonial History,” Pamphlet no.1. Manila.

Aquino, Clemen, ed.

1992a Ang Lupon sa Araling Pang-erya: Isang Panimula. Quezon City: College of Social Sciences
and Philosophy, University of the Philippines.

1992b Ang Migrasyon ng mga Pilipino: Tungo sa Araling Pang-erya. Quezon: City College of
Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines.

1992c Pagpapakilala sa Aprika. Quezon City: College of Social Sciences and Philosophy,
University of the Philippines.

Bankoff, Greg
1996 Crime, Society and the State in the Nineteenth Century Philippines. Quezon City: Ateneo de
Manila University Press.

Beardsley, Charles
1964 Guam: Past and Present. Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Company.

Bellwood, Peter
1985 Pre-history of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. Sydney: Academic Press.

1979 Man’s Conquest of the Pacific. New York: Oxford University Press.

Blust, Robert
1988 “The Austronesian Homeland: A Linguistic Perspective,” Asian Perspectives, 26(1):56.

Bolinao, Ma. Luisa

1993 Kasaysayan 2000: Mga Panayam sa Pangingibang-Bayan Tungo sa Pagpapaunlad ng Disiplina
ng Kasaysayan sa Pilipinas. Quezon City: Trinitas Publishing Inc.

Boncan, Celestina
1995 Remembering the Cavite Mutiny of 1872. Manila: Geronimo Berenguer de los Reyes, Jr.
Foundation Inc.

Carano, Paul and Pedro Sanchez

1964 A Complete History of Guam. Rutland: Charles E. Tuttle Company.

Cook, Mary Ellen

1980 A Survey of Exiles in the Mariana Islands. Unpublished MA thesis in History, University
of Guam.

Duff, Roger
1970 “Stone Adzes of Southeast Asia,”Canterbury Museum Bulletin, 3:16.

Downloaded from amj.sagepub.com at IOWA TESTING PROGRAMS on March 18, 2015

PHILIPPINES-MARIANAS RELATIONS IN HISTORY 129

Hezel, Francis
1989 From Conquest to Colonization: Spain in the Marianas Islands, 1690 to 1740. Saipan: CNMI
Division of History Preservation.

Kalaw, Teodoro
1930 Las cartas politicas de Apolinario Mabini (con prologo y notas). Manila: T.M.K.

Mabini, Apolinario
1931a “Las memorias de Guam.” In La revolucion Filipina (con otros documentos de la epoca), Vol.
II. Manila: Bureau of Printing.

1931b “Manifiesto-Prologo.” In La revolucion Filipina (con otros documentos de la epoca), Vol. II.
Manila: Bureau of Printing.

Majul, Cesar
1960 Mabini and the Philippine Revolution. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.

Manuel, E. Arsenio
1970a Dictionary of Philippine Biography, Vol. I. Quezon City: Filipiniana Publications.

1970b Dictionary of Philippine Biography, Vol. II. Quezon City: Filipiniana Publications.

Medina, Isagani
1995a “Melchora Aquino.” In Women in the Philippine Revolution. Edited by Rafaelita Soriano.
Quezon City: Printon Press.

1995b “Segunda Puentes y Santiago.” In Women in the Philippine Revolution. Edited by Rafaelita
Soriano. Quezon City: Printon Press.

Miranda, Evelyn
1997 Ang Bayani sa Tingin ng Masa sa Panahon ng Komonwelt. Paper Series 1997. Quezon City:
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines.

Navarro, Atoy
1998 “Ang Pag-aaral ng Himagsikan sa Ating Panahon.” In Tayabas: Pagmumulat sa Kasaysayan,
Himagsikan at Sentenaryo. Edited by Atoy Navarro and Ryan Palad. Quezon City:
LIKAS.

1997 “Apolinario Mabini: Batangueñong Punong Ministro ng Pilipinas sa Panahon ng

Himagsikan,” Sun Star Batangas, 33(165):2-3.

Navarro, Atoy, Mary Jane Rodriguez and Vicente Villan, eds.

1997 Pantayong Pananaw: Ugat at Kabuluhan; Pambungad sa Pag-aaral ng Bagong Kasaysayan.
Mandaluyong City: Palimbagang Kalawakan.

Perez, Alejandrino
1965 “Apolinario Mabini: Sa Bilangguan sa Guam at Pagbabalik sa Lupang Tinubuan,” Ang
Bansa, 8(6):14.

Downloaded from amj.sagepub.com at IOWA TESTING PROGRAMS on March 18, 2015

130 ASIAN AND PACIFIC MIGRATION JOURNAL

Ricarte, Artemio
1992 Memoirs of General Artemio Ricarte. Manila: Pambansang Surian Pangkasaysayan.

Salazar, Zeus
1999 “The Exile in Philippine History,” Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 8(1-2):19-64.

1998 “Wika ng Himagsikan, Lengguwahe ng Rebolusyon: Mga Suliranin ng Pagpapa-

kahulugan sa Pagbubuo ng Bansa.” In Wika, Panitikan, Sining at Himagsikan. Edited by
Atoy Navarro and Raymund Alejo. Quezon City: LIKAS.

Schumacher, John
1981 Revolutionary Clergy: The Filipino Clergy and the Nationalist Movement, 1850-1903. Quezon
City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Solheim, Wilhelm II
1981 “Philippine Prehistory.” In The People and Art of the Philippines. Edited by Gabriel Casal,
et al. Los Angeles: Museum of Cultural History, UCLA.

Spoehr, Alexander
1973 “Zamboanga and Sulu: Archaeological Approach to Ethnic Diversity.” Ethnology
Monograph, no.1. Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburg.

1957 Marianas Prehistory: Archaeological Survey and Excavations on Saipan, Tinian and Rota
Fieldiana: Anthropology.

Takayama, Jun
1984 “Early Pottery and Population Movements in Micronesian Prehistory,” Asian Perspec-
tives, 24(1):4-5.

Thompson, Laura
1947 Guam and Its People. New Jersey: Princeton University.

Topping, Donald
1973 Chamorro Reference Grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Villanueva, Honesto
1964 “Apolinario Mabini: His Exile to Guam,” Historical Bulletin, 8(2-3):87.

Downloaded from amj.sagepub.com at IOWA TESTING PROGRAMS on March 18, 2015