Of Landlords and Revolts
By: N. Mozart Diaz
Tags: Revolt, History, Philippines, Facts, Communism

2 Jul 1950 — Original caption: Huk Chief Proves He’s Alive. Luis M. Taruc, head man of the Huk Guerrillas in the Philippines, who has often been reported dead by Philippine government intelligence, proves it isn’t so by posing for a picture reading a Manila newspaper dated July 1. He is surrounded by members of his guerrilla band. July 12, 1950. — Image by © Bettmann/CORBIS

The Partidong Komunista ng Pilipinas and the Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan

The Hukbong Bayan Laban sa Mga Hapon (HUKBALAHAP), and eventually the Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (HMB) (literally, the People’s Liberation Army) , or simply, the Huks, instigated one of the major revolts in 20th century the Philippines and in recent memory. However, the roots of the organization show that this movement was not meant to be revolutionary, in fact, the movement was only solidified in the crucible of World War Two (Kerkivliet, 1979).

In order to understand the organization, one must look into the spatial and historical context in which the movement existed. Spatially, the organization was strongest in the plains of Central Luzon, one of the most arable lands in the country with one of the largest concentrations of agrarian communities in the nation (Lachica, 1971; Kerkivliet, 1979). Historically, the area had been one of the most exemplary cases of the history stated above: huge swaths of land were controlled by the few members of the principalia class, the communities were mainly agrarian in nature and was unable to progress or modernize along with other sectors in the country, and the peasant and farmer population were subjected to the harsh rules and regulations of their respective landlords (Lachica, 1971; Kerkivliet, 1979). As such, the Huks came from a background of impoverished and harsh conditions brought about the lack of agrarian reform.

Initially, the Huk did not exist as one solid movement of peasants and farmers — in fact, the Huk did not exist prior to the Japanese Invasion -, there were only pockets of peasant organizations in and around Central Luzon demanding reform from both their local landlords and the Commonwealth government (Kerkivliet, 1979). The organizations were created by the peasants and the farmers due to unequal crop share, low incomes, and the continual decrease of their security in terms of food and safety (Lachica, 1971). These demands for reform worked to some extent, but the roots of the agrarian problems refused to be addressed by the landlords (Kerkivliet, 1979).

The entrance of the Japanese in December 1941 and the retreat of the Americans to Bataan in early 1942 gave rise to the consolidation and formation of the HUKBALAHAP, an organization of loosely connected peasant organizations that was intended to engage the Japanese in guerilla warfare (Saulo, 1969). As well as being organized to conduct their operations in Central Luzon, the landlords of the region had also fled in fear of the Japanese invasion (Kerkivliet, 1979).

The Huks, with their continually growing membership, continually harassed the Japanese in Central Luzon, making it nearly impossible for the occupation to control the area (Lachica, 1971). This continual harassment, coupled with support from the people, enabled the Huks to become one of the most effective guerilla movements in the course of the war (Kerkivliet, 1979). The organization was so effective and successful that, by 1944, months before the return of the Americans to Philippine soil, the Huks had expelled the Japanese from Central Luzon and had been administering the region themselves (Lachica, 1971; Kerkivliet, 1979).

The control of the Huks over the agrarian communities in Central Luzon had proven to be beneficial to the peasants and farmers who resided in the region. The absence of the landlords meant that they were finally free from the bondage which they found themselves in, and with the Huks being comprised of peasants and farmers like them, the policies enacted were completely and totally in the favor of the peasant and the farmers (Kerkivliet, 1979). The peasants were in complete control of the land they tilled and no longer had to give a share of the crops to landlords — resulting in a surplus of food in the region; they could move freely from barrio to barrio without fear of being harassed; complaints were taken seriously; barter, not money, was the mode of transaction, making the flow of goods easier in and around the controlled regions; rent was lowered for peasants (Kerkivliet, 1979; Lachica, 1971).

As said earlier, the Huk was comprised of peasants and farmers but the entrance of the PKP into the organization gave the movement an ideological base (Kerkivliet, 1979). Soon enough, the leaders of the organization began to espouse the ideas and teachings of Communism and began seeing the movement as revolutionary, as an opportunity to break the chains of dependency — permanently (Kerkivliet, 1979; Saulo, 1969).

The restoration of American rule in the latter part of 1945, however, meant the restoration of their local landlords as well as their old rules and regulations. The systems put in place by the Huk guerillas were dismantled and the old order was restored (Kerkivliet, 1979). Coupled with the destruction brought by Japanese retreat and American advance, the peasants found themselves at even more implorable and impoverished conditions than they had before the war (Lachica, 1972). Further, the United States of America Forces in the Far East (USAFFE), the very same contingent which had organized the Huks into a guerilla movement, had either acquisitioned their guns or imprisoned some of the leaders of the movement due to their labeling as ‘Communist’ (Saulo, 169).

These incidents created an uneasy feeling among former comrades and the splintering of the movement had begun. Some of the peasant organization under the Huk recognized that there was no longer an urgent impetus in the organization, returning to lobbying for change and reform to the government and their landlords; while others became more radical, retreating into the mountains and continuing resistance against the Americans themselves (Kerkivliet, 1979). Most notable of this splintering occurred with the PKP, who withdrew support for the Huks stating that ‘Parliamentary struggle’ is still possible in the government (Lachica, 1969; Kerkivliet, 1979).

The granting of Philippine independence did not help either. As said earlier, the landed elite formed the bulk of the government and the idea of an armed group of peasants in their land did not sit well with them. As a result, the Roxas administration began to arrest high-level Huk officials as well as remove some of their members from both local and national government positions (Gleeck, 1993; Kerkivliet, 1979). Sensing the dissolution and discarding of the reforms they had fought for, the Huks refashioned themselves into a revolutionary government, and changing their name to the Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (HMB) (Saulo, 1969).

As stated in their constitution, the movement does not intend to establish a new republic within the Philippines but rather to establish a true democracy in the Philippines as well as give social justice for the farmers and peasants who had gone through centuries of injustice in the hands of landlords (Saulo, 1969). This is exemplified in the use of Philippine symbols as the symbols of the revolt, upholding, and continuing the nationalist traditions of both the republic and the Katipunan (Saulo, 1969).

Initially, the movement was able to organize and gain momentum as they called on former comrades from the Second World War (Kerkivliet, 1979). However, with continued and systematic harassment from the government, as well the lack of impetus due to the absence of national conflict, and ideological differences between top-tier Huk officials, the movement failed to accrue to the success as they had during the war (Saulo, 1969; Kerkivliet, 1979). The presence of the landlords had also contributed to the failure of the revolt since the rigidity of the land system had returned and the system of support from the people could be no longer feasible due to their lack of mobility (Kerkivliet, 1979; Lachica, 1971). Any and all enacted reforms during the war were unable to be implemented and with continuing government responses and harassment, coupled with lack of the unity of the movement, the revolt lost all momentum and was crushed by the mid-1950s (Saulo, 1969).

Notably, the PKP could not seem to find solidarity on whether or not to support the movement, withdrawing and giving support to the movement in the few years it had existed. As a result, the PKP continued to splinter, was eventually outlawed and went underground by the early 60s (Saulo, 1969; Kerkivliet, 1979).

Nevertheless, the Huk revolt exemplified the need for agrarian reform in the country as the battle cries of the Huk centered around social justice, reform, and the redistribution of land. Listening to these heeds, the Magsaysay Administration implemented one of the most effective and comprehensive agrarian reform programs the country had ever had (Gleeck, 1993). Despite this, however, Magsaysay still had to pander to the elites of the country who could just as easily remove him from power due to their influence on the congress, judiciary, and other governmental institutions (Putzel, 1992). Due to this dependence on elites to stay in power, numerous aspects of his reform program were half baked and did not reach the majority of agrarian communities in the country, most of which still lived in feudal conditions (Putzel, 1992).