The Politics of Independence in the Philippines

June 12 will be known in history, or, at least for the next few years, as the day when U.S. President Donald Trump met North Korea leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore. But for Filipinos, June 12 has long had much deeper significance within the country: it is one of the days that has been held as the country’s date of independence, and it continues to serve as a rallying cry for those concerned about the Philippines’ past, present, and future, including under the current government of President Rodrigo Duterte.

The very notion of June 12 as Independence Day in the Philippines has long been politicized. The choice of date had come from the fact that the country’s flag was first unfurled on June 12, 1898, as General Emilio Aguinaldo announced the independence of the Philippines after more than 300 years of being a colony of Spain. But Aguinaldo had declared the new republic would be guided by the U.S. government, and, after a few months, Washington attacked the Philippines and the country became an American colony for years to come. As a result, because of the role of the United States in Aguinaldo’s 1898 declaration, some critics have suggested that independence should be dated to the earlier launch of the Philippine Revolution in August 1896.

The notion of what constitutes Independence Day for the Philippines has changed over time. From the time the Philippines became independent from the United States on July 4, 1946 after the end of World War II, Independence Day had been celebrated on July 4. That lasted until 1962, when the Diosdado Macapagal government changed it to June 12. Though there was debate as to what motivated Macapagal’s decision, he had said that June 12 was a more appropriate date than July 4 because it symbolized the heroic struggle of Filipinos to end Spanish colonialism. June 12 remains an official holiday in the Philippines, and the government celebrates it each year by honoring the heroes of the independence struggle.

This year, June 12 served as a platform for a different sort of agenda. Various groups used the day as an opportunity to protest and denounce what they characterized as Dutere’s “mendicant” foreign policy. While Trump and Kim were shaking hands in Singapore, thousands of Filipinos braved the rain in Manila to protest some of Duterte's foreign policy decisions, including his refusal to act on China’s aggressive activities in the South China Sea (known locally as the West Philippine Sea) and the building of U.S. military facilities across the country.

The anti-Duterte protests on June 12 signaled the joining of rather diverse groups, which briefly united to oppose a range of decisions, most prominent of which was the government’s refusal to file a diplomatic protest against China’s incursion in the country’s territorial waters. The protest was partly triggered by the release of a video showing how Chinese coast guard officers “confiscated” the fish catch of Filipino fishermen who were sailing within the Philippines’ maritime boundaries. This came amid a series of other related developments on this front, including local media exposing China’s military buildup and land reclamation inside waters claimed by Manila.

During the June 12 protest, various charges were leveled against Duterte. Perhaps the most serious was criticism for failing to protect the country’s sovereignty, a particularly damaging charge which his administration has been conscious of in relation to the South China Sea issue and the management of relations with China. In spite of the fact that Duterte has embarked on a “rebalance” of Manila’s ties with Beijing and Washington, Philippine popular perceptions have not fully adjusted to this dramatic foreign policy alignment.

The protest also featured a range of other groups that opposed Duterte’s various domestic policies, including his so-called anti-people policies such as new tax rates, the revival of the bloody anti-drug campaign, and the militarization of ethnic communities in mining areas. The protests were a powerful testament to the growing tide of opposition emerging against Duterte, who still has about four more years left in his single six-year term in office.

The government’s official response was to downplay the June 12 protest and to defend its policies. To be fair, such protests have not been uncommon in the Philippines in the past, and the country has retained its fiercely democratic nature despite wild swings in its politics. Even during the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos, protests were raging. The protests back then accused the government of being a “puppet” of the United States, which speaks to Philippine sensitivities regarding the country’s relationships to foreign governments and repeated appeals to preserve its sovereignty, including appeals to the national interest and its independence and history.

The coming together of such divergent factions on June 12 against the government, and the powerful use of the country’s Independence Day to highlight the assaults of the Duterte administration on the country’s sovereignty, cannot be minimized. The government would be wise to rethink its approach to at least some of these issues and address legitimate grievances if it intends to make true inroads in its key priorities over the next few years.