Ferriol, Terrence E.

Module 2 Metacognitive Reading Report

“The American and Japanese Rule: Emilio Aguinaldo”

The perception of Emilio Aguinaldo, who served as the inaugural President of the Philippines and
played a pivotal role in the nation's quest for autonomy, is a matter of dispute and fluctuates among people
and historians. Whether he is deemed a hero or not is contingent on one's viewpoint and the historical
backdrop in which his deeds are assessed. Aguinaldo played a pivotal role in the declaration of Philippine
independence from Spanish colonial rule on June 12, 1898. This occasion is observed as the Philippines'
Independence Day. He served as a prominent leader in the Philippine Revolution against Spanish
colonialism and later against American colonization. His leadership during the revolution is hailed by many
as a symbol of resistance and the fight for self-determination. However, Aguinaldo's leadership was marred
by conflicts and tensions with other Filipino leaders, including Andres Bonifacio and Antonio Luna. These
disputes have cast doubt on his ability to unify various factions in the quest for independence. During the
Japanese occupation of the Philippines in World War II, Aguinaldo collaborated with Japanese authorities,
a move that has stirred controversy, as some see it as a compromise of the principles of independence.
In my observation, in his letter to the CIC chief, the latter portion contained a notable plea for the
opportunity to present his own defense. Aguinaldo justified his collaboration with the Japanese by
underscoring Japan's dominance during the occupation era. He asserted his unwavering loyalty to the United
States and made a broad appeal on behalf of all political collaborators, whom he argued were driven more
by pro-American sentiments than pro-Filipino ones during their service to the Japanese. Aguinaldo
contended that these individuals had collaborated with the Japanese to safeguard their lives and prevent
further suffering in the country. He beseeched the American people for fairness and implored General
MacArthur to grant amnesty to all political collaborators, allowing them to contribute to the country's
reconstruction. Aguinaldo believed that this action could be a significant step toward restoring peace and
order in the nation. Aguinaldo harbored a deep fondness for Japan, a sentiment not commonly shared among
other prominent Filipino leaders or members of the Quezon administration's cabinet. This affection is
evident in his proposal, outlined in the 1943 Constitution, that the Japanese Emperor should appoint the
Philippine president. In his memoir, Aguinaldo emphasized that he was reluctantly manipulated by the
Japanese, compelled to participate in their propaganda efforts that were enforced with ruthless military
tactics. However, he couldn't ignore his longstanding affinity for Japan, which had developed since the late
19th century and undeniably influenced his decision to collaborate with the Japanese. In a surprising turn
of events, on January 28, 1948, President Manuel Roxas, who had been cleared of collaboration by General
MacArthur, declared amnesty for all those who had collaborated politically and economically.
Astonishingly, just one day after the amnesty announcement, Aguinaldo's legal case was dismissed by the
People's Court, effectively averting the need for his trial. With this legal burden removed, Aguinaldo chose
to quietly retire to his hometown, where he spent the remainder of his life. Although he briefly reentered
the public sphere in 1950 when President Elpidio Quirino appointed him to the Council of State in
Malacañang, he soon returned to retirement, dedicating his efforts to the welfare and concerns of veteran
soldiers.
Since the conclusion of the Asia–Pacific War, and especially following his passing on February 6,
1964, numerous books and articles have portrayed Aguinaldo as a Filipino patriot, extolling him as one of
the most illustrious figures in Philippine history. On the contrary, historians such as Joaquin have taken an
objective stance on his nationalist contributions and arrived at the conclusion that his heroism was fraught
with issues. After the revolutionary era, Aguinaldo, unlike Ricarte, appeared to have led a life of comfort,
marked by a strong influence of American democratic ideals on his political beliefs. In contrast, Ricarte
remained resolute, akin to a former Katipunero, steadfastly pursuing Philippine independence. In summary,
whether Emilio Aguinaldo is regarded as a hero or a contentious figure depends on how one interprets his
role, and this interpretation can be influenced by historical context and personal viewpoints. When assessing
his legacy, it is crucial to consider both his positive contributions to the Philippine independence struggle
and the disputes surrounding his leadership. Ultimately, whether he is seen as a hero is a matter of individual
perspective, and opinions on this matter can vary widely.

WORD COUNT: 741