PERMANA, Kanty GS 197 WFU

2019 – 22303 Submitted 10/23/2019

Hukbalahap: The Temporary Glory of Land Reform Movement

in the Philippines

Inherited with strategic location in the world, Philippines have familiar with land reform
issue between locals and foreigner or other locals having dominant power in terms of money
and sovereignty since long time ago. This powerful people will unfairly wrest the locals in
order to get the land and accommodate their own wealth. Some of locals, especially the
people who feel aggrieved with this treatment will then unite by creating movement to
overthrow that vigorous power. This such movement in Philippines was ever formed in
Japanese occupation called by Hukbalahap, which has similar mechanism and concept in
communism with MST in Brazil, which become one of the largest social movements in Latin
America. By having quite different outcomes, this writing wants to compare on parallel
regarding the practice between these two similar social movements, which led them for
experiencing contrast fate.
Hukbalahap, or Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa Hapon (People’s Anti-Japanase Army), is a
communist guerrilla movement consisted of peasants in Central Luzon who raised arms
against Japanese fascism during World War II. During this time, Hukbalahap had successfully
retaken most of Luzon from Japanese Army. Once Japanese withdrew in 1945, the Huks –
people of Hukbalahap – pursued a different cause for fighting the peasants’ rights against the
Philippine government that was strongly affiliated by US with its ruling elite. Unlike its
preceding triumph, Hukbalahap failed to recapture their political position because the
dominance of liberal party in the Philippine first election in 1946. Hukbahalap instead
captured as treacherous movement that was attacking wealthy landowners across Luzon,
many of whom had ties of relatives with government officials. Hukbalahap movement started
to decline in the beginning of 1950s, which was worsen by the Huks’ attitude for demanding
too much from the civil peasants to get their ammunition, whom broke the peasants’ trust.
Eventually, in 1954, the Hukbalahap was ceased through military victories by the presidency
of Ramon Magsaysay in 1954.
The Hukbalahap movement seems only to represent the restlessness from the peasants
that being treated unfairly with the powerful people. MST, on the other hand, represent the
broader people fighting against inequality for retrieving their land. MST, or Movimento dos
Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra, or MST, is a landless workers movement formed by rural
workers or those who are marginalized by income, race, and sex in Brazil. They unite to
struggle for land reform and against injustice that make land ownership more difficult to
achieve for the rural poor. This movement was inspired by communism concept that put
forward the right equality for all of people without looking on their background. In 1984, MST
became a national social movement that has settled on million hectares of land that they won
over two decades. MST’s struggles are not only for land justice, but also the access for
education, health credit for agricultural production.
In order to tackle land reform issue, both Hukbalahap and MST are inspired with the
communism concept from the Marxist, however the way to express the movement seems
different. First, Hukbalahap was historically formed as military organization, so that they often
used violence to defeat their opponent both before and after Philippine independence era.
The Huks was terrorizing and killing those who seize the peasants’ right, especially to the land
owners. This method somehow didn’t work well because their opponent – The Japanese or
Philippine government – would also respond it with violence, so that they pure intention to
defend their land was not delivered well by the opponent. MST, in contrast, is using more
diplomatic way to express their wants through dialogue or demonstration, so the opponent
somehow will lend an ear to these people, then understand and give in from their cupidity.
Second, the Hukbalahap movement had only concentrated with the peasants living in Central
Luzon, not in the national scope. This means that the whole Filipinos were not united, then
created the various idea between the parties in Philippines. As an evidence, the Philippine
government depicted Hukbalahap as the government foe whom killed their family or friends,
whereas Hukbalahap was only strived for the poor peasants’ right. In another hand, MST
considered by all of their society, both peasants and non-peasants, as national-scaled social
movement to regain their land from capitalists’ power. Although the government was
somehow against this movement, at least the whole nation is having same thoughts about
the struggle to regain their land. As a result, MST’s existence is more sustainable until today
than Hukbalahap because there are more people who support the movement against
government moved by the powerful wealthy people. Third, the scope of aspect brought by
the movement are having different level. Hukbalahap was only focusing movement into land
ownership of the peasants, while MST is focusing in broader aspects struggling the peasants’
life welfare, starts from education, health, and financial aid. This thing is not really related to
the unsustainability in Hukbalahap, but the people’s loyalty towards the movement can be
somehow maintained with more detail and clearly movement’s consideration as MST does.
In conclusion, the reason why Hukbalahap could not be sustained in the long-term can
be clearly seen in compare to MST that is still struggling until today. Hukbalahap was used
violence to express their movement, unsuccessfully pursued their struggle in national-scale,
and continually focused the struggle in one aspect. As a result, the villagers became weary of
supporting the Huks, or just saw them as irrelevant. This fragility of villagers’ trust towards
the Huks were also worsen by the bad attitude from the Huks itself. Nevertheless, this
condition cannot be fully blamed since the time dimension between Hukbalahap and MST are
different. Hukbalahap was formed under the invaders occupation and political instability, so
it actually makes sense that they would use violence to defeat their rights, while MST already
using more diplomatic way since the war has already over, so using violence was not
applicable anymore.
References
Greenberg, Lawrence M. (1987). The Hukbalahap Insurrection: A Case Study of a Successful
Anti-Insurgency Operation in the Philippines. Washington: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
McCowan, Tristan. (2016). Landless Workers Movement: Brazilian Social Movement.
Retrieved from Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/event/Landless-Workers-
Movement
Mier, Brian. (2017). MST and the Fight to Change the Brazilian Power Structure. Retrieved
from Brasil de Fato: https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2017/09/11/mst-and-the-fight-
to-change-the-brazilian-power-structure/
National Historical Commission of the Philippines. (2012). Soldiers of the Masses: The
Nationalistic Struggle of Hukbalahap. Retrieved from National Historical Commission
of the Philippines: http://nhcp.gov.ph/soldiers-of-the-masses-the-nationalistic-
struggle-of-hukbalahap/
ThoughtCo. (n.d.). The Hukbalahap Rebellion in the Philippines. Retrieved from ThoughtCo:
https://www.thoughtco.com/hukbalahap-rebellion-philippines-195649