||The neutrality of this article is disputed. (January 2014)|
|Japan (until 1945)|
|Commanders and leaders|
| Manuel Roxas
|Luis Taruc||Hirohito (until 1945)|
25 Battalion Combat Teams (BCTs)
|12,800 active troops
67 military squadrons
The Hukbalahap Rebellion was a rebellion staged by former Hukbalahap or Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa Hapon (Anti-Japanese Army) soldiers against the Philippine government. It started in during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines in 1942 and continued during the presidency of Manuel Roxas, and ended in 1954 under the presidency of Ramon Magsaysay.
During the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, the Hukbalahap created a strong resistance army against the Japanese forces in Central Luzon. The Huk Resistance, as it became popularly known, created a stronghold against the Japanese in the villages through guerilla warfare. During this time, the area was heavily protected by Huks, and Huk justice reigned.
The aftermath of the liberation from Japan was characterized by chaos. The Philippine Government, following orders from the United States of America, disarmed and arrested the Huks for allegedly being communists. Harassment and abuses against peasant activists became common. Largely consisting of peasant farmers, the Huks feared for their lives as United States Army Forces in the Far East (USAFFE) and the Philippine Constabulary (civilian police) hunted them down. Civilian casualties were huge. The Huks decided to go back to the mountains and their guerrilla lifestyle as a response to supposed maltreatment by the government. They staged a rebellion against the Philippine Government when it became clear that the repression will not stop unless all former Huk soldiers and supporters were rounded up.
Effects of American Capitalism
The late 1800s and early 1900s saw the arrival of Americans and the opening up of the Philippine market to the US economy due to American victory in both the Spanish-American War in 1898 and the Philippine-American War in 1902. The arrival of the Americans was characterized by the amplification of capitalism that was instituted by the Spaniards in the encomienda system; there was an exponential increase in the amount of free trade between the Philippines and the United States of America.[Constantino 1] Landowners favored cash crops for exprert to the USA, such as tobacco and sugar cane, over the usual rice or cereals, resulting in lesser supply of staple foods for the peasant farmers.
Patterns of farm management were also changing. Traditional landowners wanted to modernize their farms and employ tenant-farmers as wage-earners with legal contracts in order to maximize their profit. The following excerpts of Benedict Kerkvliet's interview with Manolo Tinio, one of the landowners during that time in San Ricardo, Talavera, Nueva Ecija (a town in Central Luzon where most of the Huks resided) perfectly captured the general attitude of landowners during that time:
On the padrino relationship
"In the old days.. the landlord-tenant relationship was a real paternalistic one. The landlord thought of himself as a grandfather to all tenants, and so he was concerned with all aspects of their lives... But the system had to be changed over time as the hacienda has to be put in a sound economic footing.. The landlord tenant relationship is a business partnership, it is not a family. The landlord has invested capital in the land, and the tenants give their labor."
"If the tenants need to borrow rice or money, they could go somewhere else to get it. I decided to lend to only a few tenants, if they pay interest. But to give ration loans and charge no interest, and sometimes not be repaid is certainly an un-businesslike way to handle money."
"Contracts help to prevent tenants from cheating from me. My father never had problems because the tenants were better people then. But tenants became lazy, and they would take rice and other things that do not belong to them. So each year I made them sign contracts. anyone who didn't want to could go someplace else. And those who didn't abide by the contracts can go someplace else."
On mechanization of farms
"I was enthused about putting modern machinery to work like the modern farms I'd seen in the US... The only machine here is the Japanese rice thresher..Meanwhile I try to make the tenants do as I said so the land will be more productive. If you tell a machine something it will do it. It's not the way with tenants."
No more Padrino
This period saw the collapse of the colonial structures the Spaniards had maintained for more than three centuries. Before, the landowner was very visible. He could be seen attending social functions like weddings and baptisms of his tenants, sponsoring food during fiestas, and inspecting the land. The relationship was very intimate.[Kerkvliet 1] He helped them in times of distress, especially financial ones, and was seen as a protector from friars and government officials.
Now the landowners were nowhere to be found; the haciendas were left to caretakers. The peasants felt abandoned. The elites had become collaborators of the Americans. If before they looked to the masses to legitimize their place in society, now they looked to Manila. As a result, peasants started looking for other landowners, only to find that the situation elsewhere was no better and that some peasants had it worse. Hence, there was a growing unrest among the peasantry, which was characterized by small protests against their own landlords.
This situation was especially true in the Central Luzon area of the Philippines. The sudden and extreme gap between the landlord and the tenant is seen as the main cause of the peasant unrest.[Lachica 1]
With peasants out of work and cash crops being preferred over staple food, peasants started begging for food and stealing from the rice warehouses of the government.[Kerkvliet 1] There was despair during this troubled decade.[Constantino 1]
Furthermore, the early 1930s saw the formation of many small peasant unions. Some of these are:
- Samahang Magsasaka
- Kabisang Tales
- Anak Pawis
- Aguman ding Malding Talapagobra (AMT; General Workers' Union)
- Kalipunang Pambansa ng mga Magsasaka ng Pilipinas (KPMP; National Council of Peasants in the Philippines)
Peasants saw that the situation elsewhere was similar to that in their environs in Central Luzon. They decided to protest together in order to have a bigger voice and have mutual protection from landlords and the government. The goal remained the same: to revert back to the traditional tenancy system. The means of protest, however, have evolved. There were strikes, petitions to government officials, including the president, court cases against landlords, and even running for, and winning, local office.
In 1939, the two largest peasant organizations merged: The AMT with 70,000 men and the KPMP with 60,000 men.[Kerkvliet 1] They participated in the 1940s election by joining with the Partido Sosyalista ng Pilipinas (PSP), a rural peasant political party, and ran with a complete slate of candidates under the Popular Front ticket in Pampanga. Although Pedro Abad Santos, the founder of the PSP, did not win any elections, his party became synonymous with the peasant movements and eventually with the Huks. His right hand man was Luis Taruc, the future supreme commander of the Huks.
Against the Philippine Republic
Unfortunately, even though the Japanese had left, life for the Huks did not return to pre-war conditions. Most of the landowners were collaborators during the Japanese occupation[Kerkvliet 1] and were no longer interested in tenant-farming. Furthermore, most of them had already moved to Manila during the war.
Not only was life economically unsustainable for the Huks, their hardships were aggravated by the hostility and repression they experienced from the USAFFE soldiers, Philippine Constabulary, and landlords.[Kerkvliet 1] Former Huks were hunted down and arrested under orders of disarmament from the United States. Even the villagers were victimized: their properties were looted, food stolen and houses even burned in search of Huks who were possibly hiding in them.
One major act of hostility against the Huks was the Massacre of Squadron 77 in Malolos, Bulacan in February 1945.[Lachica 1] Consisting of 109 Huks, Squadron 77 was surrounded by American and Filipino soldiers, shot, and buried in a mass grave.
Furthermore, in February 1945, the U.S. Counter Intelligence Corp (USCIC) decided that the only way to end the "Huk domination of the area"[Kerkvliet 1] was to arrest the prominent leaders of the Hukbalahap. There were almost 20 prominent leaders arrested, including the top two commanders of the Huks: Castro Alejandrino and Luis Taruc.
In September 1945, Luis Taruc and other Huk leaders were freed from prison. Luis Taruc formally announced the end of the resistance movement. He gave the roster of Hukbalahap names to the US and Philippine government, hoping for recognition from President Osmena for their participation during the Japanese war to qualify for war veteran's benefits. Unfortunately, four squadrons, consisting of about 2,000 men, were not recognized. The Huks saw it as a divide-and-conquer tactic and decided not to accept anything from the government.
Luis Taruc protested to MacArthur to stop the maltreatment of the Huks. Although at the top levels leaders were constantly negotiating with each other, the situation on the ground between the Huks and the US and Philippine forces was ripe for a full-scale rebellion. In the words of the Hukbalahap's supreme commander, Luis Taruc, the truce is "in effect only at the top level, between the government representatives and peasant leaders. On the level of the fields there was open conflict".[taruc 1]
Moreover, the harvest between the period of late 1945 to early 1946 not only exacerbated the plight of the Huks, it also further intensified the gap between the tenants and the landlords. There were “landowner-tenant disputes over high interest rates, loans, rent payments, and sharing agricultural expenses sometimes led to evictions."[Kerkvliet 1] The landed elites, who collaborated with the Japanese during the war, now pledged their allegiance to America. Together with the government, they agreed to a 60% share of harvests for the tenants, from the usual 50-50. But when harvest came, the promises were not kept.
So the Huks decided to join politics again, continuing the tradition born of the peasant movement.[Kerkvliet 1] The Pambansang Kaisahan ng Magbubukid (PKM) or National Peasants Union was formed. At the national level, the PKM lobbied for the 60-40 division of harvest.
PKM had the following objectives:
- Better relations with the landlords
- Low interest loans from landowners
- Government to set up banks so they can borrow easily
- Laws to be implemented: to protect peasants from landowners; to protect small landowners from big landowners
- Justice for everyone regardless of social standing
But despite their meager aims, harassment and abuses continued. Local police, military police, and even “civilian guards” intimidated, arrested, and even killed Huk veterans and PKM supporters.[Kerkvliet 1]
It is in this situation that the Huks formally allied with the PKP (which at this time had already become the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). The CPP had created the Committee of Labor Organizations (CLO) to spearhead its political offensive on the labor front.[Saulo 1] It was composed of 76 trade unions from all over Manila and had a membership of 100,000 laborers.[Lachica 1] On the other hand, peasant support for the PKM was impressive in the countryside.
In July 15, 1945, the Democratic Alliance (DA) was formed with the merger of the PKM and the CLO.[Lachica 1] Despite the CLO's apparent ideological bias towards Communism, the PKM partnered with them for better chances of winning the national elections, with the aim of finally representing the tenant farmers through legal political means at the national level.[Kerkvliet 1] The DA supported the candidacy of a former collaborator, Sergio Osmena of the Nacionalista Party, despite its clear anti-collaborationist platform, in order to ensure the defeat of Liberal Party's Manuel Roxas.
The May 1946 elections won Manuel Roxas the presidency. The six DA candidates won their seats in the Congress. But the six DA Congressmen, together with 1 NP Congressmen and 3 NP Senators, were not allowed to take their seats in the House of Representatives with a resolution introduced by Rep. Jose Topacio Nueno and upheld by a majority of the congress on grounds of election fraud and terrorism.[Saulo 1]
The six DA Congressmen were:
- Luis Taruc, 2nd district of Pampanga
- Amado Yuzon, 1st district Pampanga
- Jesus Lava, Bulacan
- Josa Cando, Nueva Ecija
- Constancio Padilla, Nueva Ecija
- Alejandro Simpauco, Tarlac
On July 4, 1946, the US Government granted sovereignty to the Philippines. The Philippine economy at this point had become very dependent on the US economy. It is important to note that the Philippine Trade Act of 1946 or Bell Trade Act at that time was being debated in both chambers of the Legislature. Had the unseated Congressmen voted, the controversial bill might not have been passed.[Kerkvliet 1]
On August 24, 1946, Juan Feleo, a prominent peasant leader from Nueva Ecija, was kidnapped together with four of his companions while they were on their way to Manila. Their bodies were found floating in the Pampanga river a few days afterwards. This was the tipping point for the Hukbalahap Rebellion.[Saulo 1] Feleo had been in charge of the Pacification Program and was negotiating with the Government in behalf of the Huks. Scholars explained that the paranoia caused by his death ("if the government can kill someone like Juan Feleo, they can kill anyone of us") caused the Huk soldiers to rebel and flee back to the mountains.
The Huks staged a rebellion against the Roxas presidency within months after the Philippine independence and days after Feleo's murder. They retreated to the mountains once more in fear for their lives and renamed themselves Hukbong Magpapalaya ng Bayan (HMB) or People's Liberation Army.[Lachica 1] The government intensified its campaign against the Huks, which caused the rebellion to further escalate.[Kerkvliet 1]
President Roxas employed what he termed a “Mailed-Fist Policy” to stop the rebellion.[Lachica 1] It was meant to crush the rebellion in 60 days. The Philippine Constabulary (PC) became even more ferocious in hunting down the Huks.[Kerkvliet 1]
Roxas' response was based on two assumptions:
- That the Huks were Communists, and every one, including their peasant base, was to be suppressed
- That the Philippine army had the capacity to sustain an all-out war against guerrillas
However, his reasoning was flawed because:
- The Communists broke off from the HMB when the HMB staged a rebellion against the Philippine Government, for two main reasons:[Kerkvliet 1]
- To the CPP, a rebellion required a greater reason than self-defense, i.e., the flattening of society.[Saulo 1]
- The CPP also held that a real revolution must be led by the working class and the labor movement, not peasants who cannot even comprehend dialectical materialism. Hence, the government lost the support of the villagers when they also went after the Huk's mass base under the assumption that everyone was a Communist.[Kerkvliet 1]
- Roxas over-estimated the capacity of his army.[Lachica 1] The Huks were trained in guerrilla warfare during the Japanese Occupation while the Philippine government was yet to establish a formidable army. The government eventually sought the military help of the United States. The rebellion lasted for years, with huge civilian casualties.[Kerkvliet 1]
During this time, the HMB had the same organizational structure as during the Hukbalahap Resistance. It provided both an army against the civilian guards of the elites and the PC, and an underground government which was well known for “Huk justice”.[Kerkvliet 1] Villagers supported the Huk squadrons again as well. It continued to grow in strength and in the numbers of its soldiers and supporters, reaching its zenith in 1950, when it had 12,800 soldiers and a mass base of 54,000.[Lachica 1]
Roxas died of a heart attack a few weeks after declaring his Mailed Fist Policy. His successor, President Elpidio Quirino, had a more accommodating stand towards the Huks, but his failure to deliver fundamental land reforms and appease the Huks who had been victimized by the PC further intensified Huk demands.
On June 21, 1948, President Quirino granted the Huks amnesty.[Lachica 1] A few days later, both the Senate and the Congress approved the amnesty[Kerkvliet 1] provided that the Huks “present themselves with their arms and ammunition”. But no matter how well the negotiations went in Manila, the continued fighting in the countryside affected them. Many Huks surrendered their arms unwillingly: as they understood it, the amnesty required only that they be registered.[Kerkvliet 1] Many Huks were forced to surrender and were often threatened and beaten up. Once the word spread of continued abuses, people no longer came to register their arms. On August 14, 1948, negotiations fell apart.[taruc 1]
In 1949, as an attack against the government, Hukbalahap members allegedly ambushed and murdered Aurora Quezon, Chairwoman of the Philippine Red Cross and widow of the Philippines' second president, Manuel L. Quezon, as she was en route to her hometown for the dedication of the Quezon Memorial Hospital. Several others were also killed, including her eldest daughter and son-in-law. This attack brought worldwide condemnation of the Huks, who claimed that the attack was done by "renegade" members, and justified further attacks by the Philippine Government.
Luis Taruc and his men immediately went back into hiding in the Sierra Madre mountains when negotiations fell apart on 14 August 1948.[taruc 1] However, the start of the 1950s saw the beginning of the rebellion's decline. The decline is attributed to two main reasons:
- There was general weariness among the people from years of fighting.[Kerkvliet 1] Many prominent Huk leaders either had died or were too old to fight. Those that remained they were few, and were now pursued by the army even in the mountains. To make things worse for the Huks, the villagers became weary of supporting them, or just saw them as irrelevant.
- President Quirino transferred the Anti-Huk Campaigns from the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) to the Department of National Defense (DND). Under Ramon Magsaysay's leadership, the army was purged of corrupt and inefficient officials. Major military offensives were launched and the army became innovative in pursuing the Huks in the mountains.[Lachica 1] By 1951, army strength had increased by 60 percent over the previous year with 1,047-man BCTs. Furthermore, the PCs stopped their abuses of the peasants, which further caused peasants to no longer see the need for "Huk justice".
The Huk Rebellion was finally put down through a series of reforms and military victories by Magsaysay, who became the seventh President. In May 1954, Luis Taruc surrendered and accepted a 15-year imprisonment.
- Dolan, Ronald. Philippines: A Country Study. Washington: Library of Congress, USA. p. 1991.
- Ladwig (2014), pp. 25-26.
- Lanzona, Vina (1009). Amazons of the Huk Rebellion: Gender, Sex, and Revolution in the Philippines. University of Wisconsin Press. p. 114.
- Ladwig (2014), pp. 23-24.
- Ladwig (2014), pp. 19-45.
- Jeff Goodwin, No Other Way Out, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p.119, ISBN 0-521-62948-9, ISBN 978-0-521-62948-5
- Kerkvliet, Benedict (1977). The Huk Rebellion: A Case Study of Peasant Revolt in the Philippines. London: University of California Press.
- Lachica, Eduardo (1971). The Huks: Philippine Agrarian Society in Revolt. New York: Preager Publishing.
- Saulo, Alfredo (1969). Communism in the Philippines: An Introduction. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila Press.
- Taruc, Luis (1973). Born of the People. Greenwood Pres.
- Ladwig III, Walter C. (2014). "When the Police are the Problem: The Philippine Constabulary and the Huk Rebellion"," (PDF). in C. Christine Fair and Sumit Ganguly (eds.), Policing Insurgencies: Cops as Counterinsurgents. Oxford,UK: Oxford University Press.
- David Galula, Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice. Wesport, (Connecticut: Praeger Security International, 1964).
- Lawrence M. Greenberg, The Hukbalahap insurrection : A Case Study of a Successful Anti-Insurgency Operation in the Philippines, 1946-1955], U.S. Army Center of Military History.
- William J. Pomeroy,The Forest, (Quezon City: UP Press, 1963).
- F. Sionil Jose, The Huks in Retrospect: A Failed Bid for Power, (Manila: Solidarity, 1985)
- Our Massacred Peasants, HINDSIGHT by F. Sionil Jose, Philippine Star.
- Opportunities Gone Forever,Commentary, John J. Caroll S.J., Philippine Daily Inquirer.
- Sumilao Farmers March.
- Hacienda Luisita Case.
- The Huk Rebellion in the Philippines: Quantitative Approaches, RAND.
- The Huk Rebellion in the Philippines: An Econometric Study, RAND.