Philippine history was at a crossroads about 100 years ago. In 1926, Congressman Robert Bacon of New York proposed a bill (HR 12772) to remove Mindanao, Sulu, and Palawan from the Philippines, creating a separate U.S.-controlled territory.
Although it was primarily concerned with Mindanao and Sulu, Palawan’s inclusion in this proposal had far-reaching implications. The bill became a flashpoint for debates about Philippine sovereignty, American imperialism, and the future of the Moros.
Background The Bacon Bill came when the Philippines was under American colonial rule and pushing for independence. The U.S. had strengthened its hold over the islands following the Philippine-American War, and the Jones Act of 1916 granted Filipinos greater self-rule, yet complete independence was still a distant goal.
The Wood-Forbes Mission (1921) and the Thompson Commission (1926) concluded that the Philippines was not ready for self-government, reinforcing that continued American oversight was necessary.
At that time, the Moro (Muslims) population in the south resisted integration into the predominantly Christian Philippines. They felt alienated and were dissatisfied with the Philippine government, advocating for continued U.S. protection or a separate political status.
In 1924, Moro leaders petitioned the U.S. government, requesting that Mindanao, Sulu, and Palawan become separate territories under American control. The Bacon Bill was a direct response to this petition.
Congressman Bacon proposed the bill, which sought to remove these regions from Philippine jurisdiction and create a U.S. territory with an autonomous government.
This territory would include Mindanao, the Sulu Archipelago, and Palawan, with Zamboanga as its capital. The proposal addressed the so-called “Moro problem” by allowing the Moros to remain under U.S. protection. While Bacon argued that the bill would protect the Moros, the underlying economic and imperial motives were evident.
Economic and strategic motives The inclusion of Palawan in the Bill had significant economic and imperial implications.
At the time, the U.S. was interested in the rich natural resources of Mindanao and its surrounding regions. Palawan’s fertile land and vast forests were considered valuable for agricultural production, including rubber, hemp, tobacco, and timber.
Rubber was in high demand in the automotive industry, aircraft, and military equipment then, but suffered from global shortages caused by the British monopoly.
The U.S. was also strategically focused on Palawan’s location in the Philippines. Situated between Southeast Asia and the Pacific, the island was seen as a crucial military outpost that could enhance U.S. influence.
As tensions increased with imperial powers like Japan, Palawan’s potential for a military and naval base became even more significant to bolster American power.
Nationalist opposition Filipino nationalists strongly opposed the Bacon Bill, arguing that it threatened Philippine unity and sovereignty. Leaders like Emilio Aguinaldo, Manuel Quezon, and Sergio Osmena, believed that Bacon used the Moro grievances as an alibi to divide the Philippines and maintain control over the archipelago.
They saw the separation of Palawan, Mindanao, and Sulu, as an affront to a unified nation.
For these nationalists, the Philippine flag (representing Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao) symbolized the unity of the islands. Other leaders such as Palawan Governor Perfecto Abordo, argued that “the solution to the Moro problem was not division but integration.”
He believed the Moros could be integrated into the broader Filipino nation with adequate infrastructure and development.
Filipino opposition to the bill also had a cultural and nationalistic component. For them, the bill represented a political setback, undermined the Filipino identity, and crushed the dream of a united, independent country.
Drawing attention to Palawan’s separation, they emphasized that such a move would further distance the Moros and disrupt unity in the Philippines.
Moro perspective The Moro responses to the Bacon Bill were divided. Some leaders, particularly those in positions of power within the colonial system, supported continued American control.
They believed that U.S. governance offered more protection and autonomy than rule by Filipino leaders, whom they regarded with suspicion.
These leaders argued that the Philippines was not ready for independence and that continued U.S. protection would safeguard Moro’s interests.
However, other Moro leaders opposed the Bacon Bill, believing that separation from the rest of the Philippines would only perpetuate division and conflict.
These leaders felt that the Moros were not so different from the Christian Filipinos and should remain part of a unified Philippine nation. They saw the bill as a dangerous step toward potential conflict.
Bacon bill failed The Bacon Bill ultimately failed to gain sufficient support in the U.S. Congress, largely due to a concerted lobbying effort by Filipino politicians, opposition from American critics, and protests from some Moro groups and Filipino legislators.
According to Pedro Guevarra, Resident Commissioner to the US Congress (1926): “the bill misrepresented the Moro situation and that the differences between Moros and Christian Filipinos were the result of colonialism, not inherent cultural divides.”
The bill’s failure was a significant victory for Filipino nationalism. However, it did not resolve the underlying issues of Moro integration and the political status of the southern regions, including Palawan.
While the bill’s defeat preserved the territorial integrity of the Philippines, it also highlighted the ongoing tensions between Filipino nationalists, the Moros, and the Americans over the Philippine future.
Conclusion The Bacon Bill represented a crucial moment in Philippine history, particularly for Palawan.
Although it failed, the inclusion of Palawan highlighted its regional importance to the Filipino people. Palawan’s natural resources and strategic location made it a key player in the geopolitical landscape.
The bill’s failure, however, ensured that Palawan remained a part of the larger conversation about Philippine history and unity.
FEDERICO V. MAGDALENA, PHD is an Associate Specialist at the Center for Philippine Studies, and a faculty affiliate in the Asian Studies Department of the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa. This article is derived from his presentation at Western Philippines University in Aborlan, Palawan on October 9, 2024. He has published feature articles in Hawaiʻi Filipino Chronicle, such as “Mindanao – Almost the 50th State of USA.”
+ There are no comments
Add yours