Fifteen years after Lynch completed his study, another American, this time a historian, Norman Owen, published an article entitled, “The Principalia in Philippine History: Kabikolan, 1790-1898.” Once again, Kabikolan—composed of  the  provinces of Albay, Camarines  Norte  and   Sur,  Sorsogon,  Masbate  and  Catanduanes was the focus of the study.  Owen described how principalia status was in fact recognized and manifested by members of Bikolano society throughout the 19th century.  Among the characteristics of the principalia that he described were that they owned tracts of land, engaged in local politics, were addressed by the honorific title “Don” and were tasked with collecting tribute but were exempted from rendering polos y servicios or forced labor to the colonial government. Owen estimated the principalia class, in its expanded sense, to comprise around 3-4 percent of Bikolano society (Owen, 1974).
 

As a student of Bikol history, the question I often pose when faced with these studies is this: Are the “dakulang tao” which Lynch observed in the 1950s the same persons who belonged to the principalia class of the 19th century that Owen described?  Since 60 years or so separate the “time frame” of the two studies, it is highly likely that the subjects of the studies are not the same persons, but may belong to two generations of the same families. The corollary question then is, “What transpired over the 60 or so years that will explain how the principales of the late 19th century changed such that the next generation came to be recognized as the ‘dakulang tao’ of the 1950s?”
 
 

Examining the Nature of the Principalia  in Bikol History

The study upon which this lecture is based is an attempt to bridge the gap between our knowledge of the Bikolano principalia of the 19th century as described by Owen (1974) and the “dakulang tao” observed by Lynch (1959) in the 1950s. The period studied covers the American occupation of the Philippines, from 1898 to 1946; but since the Americans occupied the Bikol region only in 1900, I used that year as a starting point, with the granting of independence in 1946 as the ending point. Specifically, the study tries to address two main questions: (1) How did the nature and characteristics of the principalia change or evolve during the American period; and  (2) How can we describe these changes in the experience of the Bikolano principalia from 1900-1946? 

Before we proceed, a clarification needs to be made. In a study of “Interpretations of Class and Status in the Philippines: A Critical Evaluation,” the sociologist Mark Turner offers a different interpretation using a Weberian framework in explaining the concepts of class, status and power. In his view, “class” refers to the role which an individual plays in the economic processes of the society to which he belongs whereas “status” refers to social estimation and prestige, or the respect and recognition given to an individual by other members of society. Given this framework, belonging to the principalia refers to an individual’s “status” in society, not so much to his “class”  (Turner, 1978).

In examining the changing nature of the Bikolano principalia during the American period, the study was divided into four chapters: (1) the Bikolano principalia in the late 19th century; (2) the first phase of the American occupation: accommodation into the new regime 1900-1916; (3) the second phase: the struggle and competition towards independence, 1916-1935; and (4) the Commonwealth of the Philippines: conflict in the time of crisis and the Japanese occupation, 1935-1946. 

For such a study, the following sources proved to be useful. For the American period in Philippine history, the collections of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) of the United States in Washington, D.C. and College Park, Maryland are invaluable, particularly Record Group (RG) 350: Records of the Bureau of Insular Affairs, the largest collection of documents and primary sources pertaining to the American presence in the Philippines.  Another Personnel Information File or “P File” which contained folders and brief biographies of prominent Filipinos both in the U.S. and in the Philippines—among them, some Bikolanos (Maxwell, 1971). 

Other relevant groups of documents were RG 395: Records of U.S. Army Overseas Operations and Commands for the Philippine-American War, RG 126: Records of the Office of the U.S. High Commissioner to the Philippine Islands for the Commonwealth era and RG 407: Records of the Adjutant General’s Office: Recovered Personnel Division, for the various guerilla groups which fought during the Second World War.

In the Philippines, the collections which were most helpful were the Quezon Papers in the Rare Manuscript section of the Filipiniana division of the National Library, particularly the series on provincial and municipal governments. For published sources on the American period, the American Historical Collection in the Rizal Library of the Ateneo de Manila University has a wide array of titles. For Bikol in particular, the collections of the University of Nueva Caceres (UNC) Museum, particularly the papers of Ignacio Meliton and Don Jaime Hernandez provide useful insights on the workings of Bikol society under the American colonial regime. Likewise, the James O’Brien, S.J. Library of the Ateneo de Naga University, particularly the Manuel I. Abella collection has some valuable information. 

Needless to say, the works of other historians and writers on Bikol, such as Elias Ataviado (1938; 1941), Domingo Abella (1954), Luis Dery (1987), Leonor Dy-Liacco (1996), Merito Espinas (1983) Luis General (1972), Danilo Gerona (1988), Mariano Goyena del Prado (1981), Francisco Mallari, S.J. (1990), Jaime Malanyaon (1991), James O’Brien, S.J. (1968), Norman Owen (1984), Ma. Lilia Realubit (1983), Jose Calleja Reyes (1992), Jose Rojas (1994), and Soliman Santos (1994) helped clarify my understanding of Bikol culture, society and history, and proved to be an inspiration for me to add to the growing number of scholarly studies on Bikol. 
 

The Bikolano Principalia in the 19th Century

On January 4, 1897, 11 men from Bikol were executed in Bagumbayan field, just five (5) days after Jose Rizal was shot in the same field, for alleged conspiracy in a revolution against the Spaniards which broke out in August 1896.  Together with four (4) other men who died in prison or in exile, they came to be known as the “Quince Martires of Kabikolan,” and a monument was inaugurated in their memory on November 30, 1923 at a plaza in Naga City fronting the old provincial capitol of Camarines Sur. Although questions have been raised as to whether these men were really martyrs of the revolution or merely victims of Spanish tyranny, one thing is certain—most of them, if not all, belonged to the principalia  (Cf. Espinas, 1957).

In my view, they were being punished by the Spanish authorities for having been the most serious threat to the colonial regime.  Men like Don Manuel Abella, his sons Domingo and Ramon, Leon Hernandez, the priests Severino Diaz, Inocencio Herrera and Gabriel Prieto were men of means, education and influence who could challenge the Spanish rulers. However, I believe that they had the least motive to lead a revolution which would overthrow a system which in fact they benefitted from. 

The typical Bikolano principal of the 19th century is described by Owen through an observation made by Pablo Feced y Temprano, a  Spaniard who resided in the Bikol region and wrote condescending articles about the indio under the pseudonym “Quioquiap” which infuriated the propagandists like Marcelo H. del Pilar.  Feced describes the indio’s dream of becoming a member of the principalia: 
 

The plebian indio who by unexpected inheritance acquires a fortune or stumbles across it in the plains or on the mountains, usually feels the spur of vanity, capital sin of his race; he dreams of the principalia and right away, he lengthens his trousers to his ankles, expands his shanty a couple of meters higher, buys a ten-peso  horse and makes himself visible and presentable.
  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

And from that day he is another man. He wears the official jacket on feast days; he puts a fat Don in front of his name; he visits his subjects like a great Pasha . . . (Owen, 1974: 314 from Feced, 1888).

For truly, belonging to the principalia was a privilege for the typical Bikolano. And the men who identified themselves in their letters to Spanish officials as “los principales del pueblo de ____”  or were recognized as such by the other members of Bikolano society, usually held public office, currently or previously either as gobernadorcillo or cabeza, had achieved some form of education under the Spaniards, owned various tracts of land and other types of property and therefore, relied on the rest of the Bikolano population to provide the manual labor which would support their privileged existence.

The names of these principales most often appeared in the documents submitted to the Spanish officials now found in our National Archives, in such bundles as estadisticas (statistics), terrenos (agricultural lands), ereccion_de_pueblos (formation of towns), elecciones_de_gobernadorcillos and cabezas_de_barangay. The principalia were the medium through which the Spanish colonial officials administered the various towns in the Bikol area. They were not only owners of parcels of land mostly planted to rice, abaca or coconut, but power brokers as well.  They intervened for the rest of the population and petitioned the Spanish officials for whatever favors or actions that were necessary in the conduct of local affairs (Owen, 1974).

In late 19th century Kabikolan, a significant role was played by the Seminario-Colegio de Nueva Caceres in educating the male members of the principalia.  Originally founded as a diocesan seminary for native clergy training for the priesthood, by 1865 the Seminario-Colegio was now being run by the Vincentians and was opened to male externos—offsprings of the principalia who simply wanted a more rigorous and better quality of Catholic education than otherwise would be available in the parochial schools. Thus, by the end of the century, most of the Bikolano clergy and the leaders of Bikol society had at one time or another shared the classrooms of the Seminario-Colegio. These “school ties” would serve them well during the revolution, when members of the Bikol clergy actively supported the revolutionary leaders who had been their schoolmates. Among the prominent alumni of the Seminario-Colegio were Fathers Jorge Barlin, Felipe Orense, Gabriel Prieto and Nemesio Ranin while the Bikol “martyrs” Ramon and Domingo Abella, Leon Hernandez, Tomas Prieto and revolutionary leaders Ludovico Arejola and Felix Plazo had also been students of the seminario (Rojas, 1994).

One effect of the active role of the Seminario-Colegio in developing Bikolano leaders was the predominance of native, secular clergy in most of the parishes in the region.  In a study made by Daniel Doeppers of the composition of parish priests in the various regions affected by the Aglipayan movement, he showed that by the late 19th century, over 50 percent of the parishes in Bikol were administered by the native clergy, while the rest remained in the hands of the Franciscans. This explains why the anti-friar feeling was not as strong in the region at the time of the revolution (Doeppers, 1976).

Thus, when the revolution broke out in the Tagalog provinces in 1896, there was no resounding cry of support from among the Bikolano principalia. In fact, what occurred was the opposite—despite the execution of the “Quince Martires,” some Bikolano principales expressed their continued support for the Spanish Crown. A regiment of volunteers from Albay was formed to fight alongside Spanish troops in February 1897, but this never saw action. Up until the first few months of 1898, Bikol was relatively free of revolutionary activity (Ataviado, 1938).

Two incidents highlighted the Bikolano’s response to the second phase of the revolution.  One was a short-lived uprising in Daet, Camarines Norte led by a principal, Ildefonso Moreno, which was quelled by the Spaniards and which led to widespread reprisals in April 1898.  The second was in September 1898, when members of the Nueva  Caceres guardia civil, led by Elias Angeles and Felix Plazo, rebelled against their officers and forced the Spanish provincial officials to surrender the government to them. Within days, the provinces of Albay and Sorsogon would also be abandoned by the Spaniards and their provincial governments turned over to principales or the native clergy. Over the next few years up until the end of 1899, Bikolano principales effectively ran their provincial and municipal governments and placed themselves under the nominal control of the Tagalog-led Malolos Republic (Ataviado, 1938; Pastrana-Riol, 1980). 
 

Accommodation into the New Regime, 1900-1916

By January 1900, American troops began the occupation of the Bikol region, not so much to end Bikolano resistance, but to open the hemp ports from which flowed the abaca fibers very much in demand in the American market. This occupation began what I called the first phase of the Bikolano principalia’s response to the American regime: accommodation. For the first two years, Bikolano principales led the organized resistance against the American forces. But once civil government had been established in 1901, the principales would focus their attention on establishing un bien gobierno (good government) in their municipalities and provinces.  By 1907, when a Philippine Assembly was inaugurated, Bikolano principales competed with their provincemates to obtain seats in the Asamblea Filipina—three from Ambos Camarines, three from Albay which included Catanduanes, and two from Sorsogon which included Masbate.  Victory in the elections for an Assembly seat over the next nine (9) years until 1916 meant that the provincial principalia could now extend their sphere of influence beyond their provinces and into Manila, the center of the colonial capital. 

The Philippine-American War in Bikol therefore was originally led by Tagalog officers appointed by Aguinaldo. As the guerilla resistance progressed, however, Bikolano leaders eventually took over—Ludovico Arejola in Camarines Sur, Ramon F. Santos in Albay, and Emeterio Funes and Father Felipe Orense in Sorsogon. They led armies which resisted the American forces until the middle of 1901.  In April 1901, members of the Philippine Commission and Federal Party had visited the region and actively solicited the support of the other principales in forming provincial and municipal governments under American tutelage  (Gerona, 1988; Dery, 1987; Linn, 1989; Totanes, 1990). 

By 1902, the first elections were held for provincial and municipal positions in the Bikol region under the guidelines set by the Municipal and Provincial Code (Acts No. 82 and 83).  The Bikolano principales actively participated in these elections because these provided them with opportunities to reaffirm their political dominance in their municipalities and, for a select few, to assert their control over the entire province if they managed to win seats in the provincial board—either as governor, secretary or provincial fiscal—the only positions open to Filipinos, since the posts of treasurer and supervisor were still reserved for Americans  (Cullinane, 1971).

In these elections, men like Juan Pimentel, Ramon F. Santos and Dr. Bernardino Monreal emerged as governors of Ambos Camarines, Albay and Sorsogon, respectively.  When they assumed these positions, they vigorously implemented a policy of un bien gobierno or “good government”—actively supporting the American’s pacification campaign and cleansing the provincial and municipal governments of misfits and inefficient personnel.  Thus, these Bikolano leaders, together with other principales, actively supported the Philippine Constabulary in suppressing the continued resistance movements led by the likes of Simeon Ola in Albay and Antonio Colache in Sorsogon.  These men were perceived to be “uneducated” and therefore, were leading a resistance which did not properly belong to the revolutionary Republic of Malolos but simply a manifestation of bandolerismo or banditry.  In recognition of their efforts, the American colonial government chose Pimentel and Monreal to be part of the Filipino delegation to the St. Louis Exposition in Missouri, U.S.A. in 1904 (Reports of the Philippine Commission, 1902-1904; Owen, 1979).

In 1907, the first elections for a representative Philippine Assembly were held.  The principales of the different provinces in the Bikol region competed against each other to gain seats which would bring them to Manila—closer to the corridors of power in the colonial capital, where they would be dealing with the top American officials and be in the company of men like Sergio Osmeña from Cebu and Manuel Quezon from Tayabas, who were elected speaker and majority floor leader, respectively, of the Assembly.
The following Bikolanos were elected to this first Assembly:  from  Albay, Tomas Almonte, Carlos A. Imperial and Angel Roco; from Ambos Camarines, Tomas Arejola, Manuel Rey and Francisco Alvarez; and from Sorsogon, Vicente de Vera and Pedro Chavez.  For men like Arejola and Alvarez, their victory was an affirmation of the active roles they played in the revolutionary government in Malolos-Arejola had been a delegate to the Malolos Congress while Alvarez was one of those arrested and deported in 1896 together with some of the “Quince Martires.”  For the younger men, like Carlos Imperial, this would be the beginning of la ong political career in the colonial government spanning the entire American period-by the 1930s, Imperial would become an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court  (Tuohy, 1908).

During this period 1900-1916, the American colonial government also introduced changes in the Bikol region in areas other  than politics.  A system of secular public education was established while the ranks of civil service were professionalized and competitive examinations were held for prospective government employees.  In the economic front, incentives were offered by the government to improve the abaca industry and colonial officials engaged in numerous public works projects like the building of roads and bridges.  Although each of these areas could be treated more lengthily, let us simply deal briefly with their effects on the principalia and their reaction to such.

The opening of public elementary schools in the municipalities of Bikol and of high schools in the capital towns of each of the provinces provided the children of the principalia and even non-principales access to an American-sponsored education, where they could learn and master the English language.  This proficiency in the English language in turn provided them a competitive edge to qualify for and hurdle the examination for employment in the civil service.  Once employed by the colonial government, either as clerks or teachers, these young men and women could now take pride in wearing the prescribed all-white uniform for government employees and be assured of a fixed salary.  This sets them apart from their peers who continued to work on the land or to do odd jobs to earn their daily wage.  For the Bikolanos from the far-flung towns, landing a job in the provincial capitol or in the public schools was an advancement in local society and had now become a desirable career.  One could thus break into principalia status even without seeking public office  (de la Torre, 1986).

On the economic side, the increased incentives in the abaca industry proved attractive to the principalia.  For one, the Americans had a high market demand for Manila hemp derived from abaca and Bikol was the main supplier of the commodity.  Many of the principales owned lands planted to abaca  and although most did not engage in abaca-planting as a full-time enterprise, they reaped a lot of benefits by participating in the industry.  It supplemented the income they derived from planting other crops like rice and coconuts.  But these benefits would be short-lived as changes in the market prices for Manila hemp in the 1930s would lead to the downfall of the industry (Totanes, 1995).

Finally, upon assuming public office, many of the principales embarked on public works projects under the supervision of American officials.  Provincial capitol buildings, public high schools, first-class provincial roads and bridges were constructed during this period in Bikol mostly from insular government funds.  Unlike in the 19th century, the Catholic Church was no longer the beneficiary of the taxes being collected from the Bikolanos since these were now being channeled to public works, no longer to churches.  The diocese of Nueva Caceres had to rely on the generosity of their parishioners, largely the principalia, for funding the necessary improvements in  parish churches  (Reports of the Philippine Commission, 1903-1916).

Despite all these improvements, the privilege of voting and participating in provincial and municipal elections for most of this period, was still limited to the principalia with less than 3 percent of the total population of the region actually voting.  For instance, during the Philippine Assembly elections in 1907 where we have complete figures, out of a population of 637,035 in 1903, there were 18,417 registered voters, of whom only 17,526  or about 2.75 percent of Bikol population cast their votes.  It is not surprising therefore if the principales would continue to dominate provincial and municipal positions since they would vote for one of their kind (Totanes, 1999:  163).
 

Struggle and Competition Towards Independence, 1916-1935

The second phase of American occupation during the years 1916 until 1935 can be described as a period of struggle and competition towards independence.  The agitation for independence from among the Filipino political leaders was heightened during this period and would culminate with the passage of the Tydings-McDuffie Law in 1934.  For the Bikolano principales, however, the more pressing concern was the opportunity offered by the passage of the Jones Law in 1916, which reorganized the Philippine  Legislature and called for elections for the Senate—two Senators for each of the twelve districts in the country, with the Bikol region classified as the Sixth district (Golay, 1997).

The Senatorial elections of 1916 in Bikol  was marred by a scandal and charges of cheating.  Initially, the Governor-General proclaimed Jose Fuentebella and Tomas Arejola, both from Ambos Camarines, the winners.  But this was not confirmed by the rest of the newly-elected Senate members.  Manuel Quezon, Senate president-elect, castigated his colleagues in the Nacionalista party for engaging in such irregularities and ordered an investigation.  When it was clear that, indeed, tampering with ballots and election results had occurred, the Governor-General ordered a new election in May 1917.  In that second election, Leoncio Imperial of Albay and Mario Guariña of Sorsogon emerged as winners.  This incident was particularly interesting because it showed that the Bikolano principales from the different provinces were now competing against each other to claim the highest post available for the entire region—that of Senator.  For the next 20 years, the leading Bikolano politicians from Albay, Ambos Camarines and Sorsogon would compete for that coveted post of being recognized as the leader of the entire region, not just of their respective provinces (J.F. Quinn, 1917 in Quezon Papers).

This period also witnessed the alignment of the Bikolano principales with the Colectivista-Unipersonalista factional contest being waged by Quezon and Osmeña, and together with this, the emergence of a third party in the Democratas led by Juan Sumulong in the 1920s.

Men like Juan Alegre, who became a Senator in the 1920s, Vicente de Vera, Julian Ocampo and Ramon Felipe were the prominent Democratas who challenged the Nacionalistas, the likes of whom were Jose Fuentebella, Jose O. Vera, Pedro Vera and Pedro Sabido.  These factional divisions continued into the 1930s although the Democratas ended up merging with the Colectivistas of Quezon to form a new coalition to be known as Liga Colectivista-Democrata Bicolana, under the leadership of Julian Ocampo and Jose Imperial.  This coalition supported Quezon in the thick of the “Pro” and “Anti” fight over the Hare-Hawes-Cutting Bill in 1933.  But by the time elections for the Commonwealth were held in 1935, it was unclear whether these factions persisted as both Quezon and Osmeña agreed to run on a coalition ticket.  In fact, in my view, the Bikolano politicians crossed party lines when their co-provincianos were involved in electoral contests  (Quezon Papers, 1930s).

However, there were other men among the principalia who emerged as significant achievers without necessarily running for public office or engaging in politics.  Most of them chose career paths in the civil service.  They were products of the public educational system of the early decades of American rule, who at one time or another were granted scholarships to the United States as pensionados, then served in the colonial government for several years until they rose from the ranks to reach positions of leadership.   The more prominent examples are Don Jaime Hernandez, who worked his way through several assignments in the Bureau of Audits until he became the first Filipino appointed to the position of Auditor-General in 1935; Celedonio Salvador who served in the Bureau of Education, earned a degree at Indiana University and became the City Superintendent of Schools in 1936; Prudencio Langcuaon, who did studies at Harvard University and eventually replaced Salvador; and Jose S. Reyes, who did a doctorate at Columbia University and became a delegate from Sorsogon to the Constitutional Convention of 1934 before being appointed as the technical assistant of Sergio Osmeña in the meetings of the Joint Preparatory Committee on Philippine Affairs (“P” file of Bureau of Insular Affairs; Hernandez papers, UNC Museum).

But the outstanding products of the first 35 years of the American occupation of Bikol can be seen in the profiles of the winning candidates to the Constitutional Convention of 1934.  Many of them were educated under the American public school system and were graduates either of the University of the Philippines or the Ateneo de Manila run by American Jesuits.  Thus they were more well-versed in English than their older counterparts.  Among the prominent names of the younger generation were Wenceslao Vinzons of Indan, Camarines Norte, who had served as editor of the Philippine Collegian at U.P. and was a young lawyer barely 25 years of age at the time of the convention, and Manuel I. Abella, a 27-year old lawyer who was a son of Mariano Abella, former governor of Camarines Sur and grandson of the late Manuel Abella, one of the “Quince Martires” of Bikol (Our Delegates to the Constitutional Assembly, 1935).

With the establishment of the Philippine Commonwealth in 1935, the American occupation entered into a third phase, a 10-year transition period towards independence which would be rudely interrupted by four years of Japanese occupation.
 

Conflict in the Time of Crisis and the Japanese Occupation, 1935-1946

This third phase of the American colonial period in the Bikol region was marked by intensifying conflict in politics among the Bikolano principales  By this time, American presence in the region was almost negligible as nearly all of the provincial positions in the region were now in the hands of the Bikolanos.  We are able to get an insider’s view of the politics of that period through Ignacio Meliton, a former schoolteacher who became a congressman for Camarines Sur in 1934 and was actively involved in politics until the outbreak of the war  (Meliton Papers, UNC Museum).

These factional conflicts in the electoral contests would spill over to the wartime period and in some cases, the Japanese invaders would be used as convenient  instruments by the Bikolano principales to eliminate their rivals.  What appears to be guerilla-led movements were in fact factional contests among Bikolano principales carried out in the context of war.

A helpful source in drawing up profiles of Bikolano principales on the eve of the Commonwealth is the Bicol Regional Directory (Lazarte, 1935).  By this time, the word principalia is hardly used in the publications of the day, but rather, the men who have acquired such status are referred to as being the “prominent citizens” or “leading citizens” of the region.  This directory has 600 or so brief profiles of the “leading citizens” of the region and a cursory preview of these combined biographies allows us to draw up tentative conclusions.

For one, there is a clear gap between the principales who have occupied national or provincial positions and  those who have served only within their municipalities.  The former were mostly better-educated, a majority of whom had studied in the elite schools in Manila—Ateneo de Manila,  Colegio de San Juan de Letran, University of the Philippines, or the University of  Santo Tomas --  were mostly professionals—lawyers or doctors—with a few who had studied in the United States.  The latter tended to have been educated mainly in the Bikol region, in the public high schools in their provinces, and for those who were fortunate, in the Seminario-Colegio in Nueva Caceres, which by 1925 had closed its doors to externos and was back to being a seminary for young men aspiring to the priesthood.  The former could move from being governor or congressmen in their provinces to being senators of the entire region, but the latter could aspire only for the highest positions in their respective municipalities, that of municipal president or councilor  (Lazarte, 1935).

Another notable development is that of the 600 or so names of “leading citizens” of the region, about two-thirds of whom would qualify as having achieved principalia status without ever having to occupy political office.  Among them would be the professionals—doctors, teachers, dentists, civil servants and even businessmen.  From their biographies, one can see that most were better educated than the typical Bikolano, having completed secondary school in the region although  not all of them had an opportunity to study in Manila.  Among them one can also find the secular priests, who were mostly trained in the Seminario Conciliar de Nueva Caceres, and were now occupying leadership  positions in the various towns as parish priests.  Finally, there was a growing number of women whose achievements were already being recognized in the directory, even if they still could not occupy positions in the colonial government since women in the Philippines won their right to vote only in 1937  (Lazarte, 1935).

By the 1930s therefore, the distinctions between the “dakula asin sadit na tao” was already being described in print media.  One article in An Parabareta, a weekly paper based in Legazpi City, bannered the headline “Class Ordinances Favoring the Rich Exist in Legaspi . . . The Poor are Required to Bury their Feces while the Rich may throw their Waste into the River.”  The issue involved is the municipal ordinance requiring all households to use an “Antipolo latrine” to dispose human wastes.  But the writer observed that there is no ordinance preventing the rich from using their “inodoros,” (toilet bowls) some of which drain directly into the river (An Parabareta, August 9, 1939).

From these articles one occasionally sees the use of the phrases “big shots” or “big people” when describing the Bikolano politicians who hosted visitors from Manila, such as the Speaker of the House Jose Yulo and his party of forty members of the National Assembly, who visited Legaspi in August 1939.  In the reception for this party  held in the residence of Don Juan Alsua in the town of Ligao, a writer noted that after the main party and special guests were ushered into the residence, “the door was barred before the eyes of the people . . . this caused a little murmur from the ‘small tao.’  The “ordinary citizens” including some municipal officials from the lesser-known towns simply bought their own food from the carinderias at the side of the road (An Parabareta, August 30, 1939).

By showing these examples, I am not saying that the distinctions between the “big and little people” were not being perceived or felt much earlier.  It just appears in the historical record more frequently in the 1930s.

With the arrival of the Japanese in the region in December 1941, most of the towns fell into the hands of the invaders with little resistance from the Bikolanos.  It was only in the early months of 1942 that guerilla groups began to be organized among both the Bikolano principales and ordinary citizens.

The guerilla resistance in Bikol against the Japanese is a story worth retelling in its own right.  For now,  I would just wish to point out that, as far as the principales were concerned, there were basically two options open:  collaborate with the Japanese and assume positions of leadership in the “puppet” government, or flee to the hills and join the guerilla groups.  In Camarines Norte and Sur, these two options would split the principales and pit them against each other.  In Camarines Norte, for instance, Wenceslao Vinzons led a guerilla group for the first few months of 1942 but ended up being captured and later executed by the Japanese, perhaps aided by the information provided by his rivals.  In Camarines  Sur, acting governor Mariano Villafuerte and his cohort, Manuel Crescini, were executed by guerillas who had captured Naga for two (2) days and resented their collaboration with the Japanese.  I have reason to believe that their deaths were still linked to the pre-war political rivalries which had been seething in these provinces since the 1930s  (Dy-Liacco 1996; Gripaldo 1983).

In Albay and Sorsogon, rival guerilla groups were outdoing each other in trying to assert their control over the resources that would be channeled into the region by the returning American forces.  For instance, the rivalry between governor Salvador Escudero, Sr. and former constabulary chief Major Licerio Lapus in Sorsogon led to many deaths on both sides, since followers of the two leaders sought to protect their turf while at the same time avoiding the Japanese.  These rivalries led one American officer, Lt. Colonel Russell Barros, who was assigned to investigate guerilla activities in the region in April 1944 to comment:
 

When the smoke of the war cleared and the Americans returned and reassumed control of the region in 1945, a number of principales had been killed in the course of the conflict—men who had been active in Bikol politics such as Vinzons, Villafuerte, Crescini, and Francisco Celebrado.  But a like number prevailed and continued with their political careers even after having served with the Japanese-controlled government—Jose Fuentebella, Pio Duran, Silverio Garcia.   Others would ride on their “guerilla” exploits to catapult themselves into political careers which would flourish even after the war—men like Juan Miranda, Leon S. Aureus and Salvador Escudero.  Indeed, the principales, despite the turbulence wrought by the Japanese occupation, continued to reign supreme.
 

Conclusion and Recommendations

What I have presented to you this afternoon is merely an overview of a detailed study which I hope to share with my fellow Bikolanos in the course of my research and writing on the Bikolano principales.  Many of these topics need to be treated  more extensively in other journal articles which I plan to write in the future.  The changing nature of the Bikolano principalia during the American period is a complex topic which requires in-depth  analysis and painstaking attention to biographical details.  What I have perhaps succeeded in presenting through my dissertation is just a broad outline and brief sketch, but nonetheless a worthwhile step towards a better understanding of ourselves and our history as a Bikol people.

Finally, in my attempt to study the Bikolano principalia, I did not wish to exclude the Bikolano masses, who comprise the larger majority of the inhabitants of our region.  Nonetheless, the historical record favors the principalia—they have access to and are the sources of documents, reports, letters, biographies, and other forms of writing that can be preserved and made available for posterity.  Even this historical record is already quite sparse for the Bikol region when compared to other areas in the Philippines.  In reconstructing the Bikolano experience during these years, I have had to rely on such records, although I am fully aware that the experiences of the Bikolano masses are often not fully articulated nor captured by them.  For truly, the “dakula na tao” could not have reached the heights of their dominance if they had not relied upon the sweat, labor and unwavering help of the “sadit na tao.”
 
 

The listing below includes the major primary sources used in the dissertation and selected references cited in the article. The complete bibliography is available on pages 416-432 of the dissertation. 
 

I. PRIMARY SOURCES
 

American Historical Collection. Rizal Library, Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City. 
Ateneo de Naga James O’Brien Library. Papers of Manuel I. Abella, Naga City. 
Archdiocese of Nueva Caceres, Diocesan Archives. Archbishop’s Palace, Naga City. 
Filipiniana and Special Collections, Rizal Library,  Ateneo de Manila University.
Loyola Heights, Quezon City.
Philippine National Archives (Bureau of Records Management)  Various documents. 
T.M. Kalaw, Manila. 
Philippine Revolutionary Papers (Philippine Insurgent Records) Philippine National Library, 
Filipiniana and Rare Manuscript      Section, Manila.
Quezon Papers. Philippine National Library, Filipiniana and      Rare Manuscript 
Collection. Manila. 
Taft Papers. Harrison Papers. Library of Congress, Manuscript Division. 
Washington, D.C., U.S.A. 
United States National Archives. Washington, D.C. at CollegePark, Maryland, 
U.S.A. The following Record Groups were useful: 

1. RG 350: Records of the Bureau of Insular Affairs;  including the “Manuscript Reports of the Governors-  General of the Philippines, 1909-1917.”
2. RG 395: Records of U.S. Army Overseas Operations and     Commands.
3. RG 94: Adjutant General’s Office Records.
4. RG 126: Records of the Office of the U.S. High Commissioner to the Philippine Islands. 
5. RG 407: Records of the Adjutant General’s Office, Recovered Personnel Section 

II. SECONDARY SOURCES 

Abella, Domingo.  Bikol Annals: A Collection of Vignettes of Philippine 
History.Vol. 1:The See of Nueva Caceres.  Manila: n.p. 1954.
Ataviado, Elias M. Lucha y Libertad. 2 tomo. Manila: n.p.  1938-1941.
________. The Philippine Revolution in the Bicol Region.   Isinalin ni Juan T. 
Ataviado. Manila: Encal Press, 1953.
Baloloy, Josefina B. “The Values and Virtues of Wenceslao Q. Vinzons, Sr.: 
Their Relevance to the Educational Objectives.” M.A. Thesis, 
University of Nueva Caceres, 1985.
Bicol Biographical Encyclopedia. Bicol Research and Publications Center, 
Vol. 1, 1968. 
Beyer, Henry Otley, ed. “Ethnography of the Bikol People:  A   Collection of 
Original Sources.” 2 vols. Philippine Etnographic Series, Manuscript 
Collection. Manila, 1922.
Cannell, Fenella. “Catholicism, Spirit Mediums and the Ideal of Beauty in 
a Bicolano Community, Philippines.” Ph.D. dissertation, University 
of London, 1993.
Cullinane, Michael. “Implementing the New Order: The Structure and 
Supervision of Local Government during  the Taft Era,” in Norman 
Owen, ed., Compadre Colonialism  Studies on the Philippines under 
American Rule. 
Ann Arbor: Michigan Papers on South and Southeast Asian Studies, No. 3, 
1971: 13-76. 
Dery, Luis. From Ibalon to Sorsogon: A Historical Survey of  Sorsogon Province
to 1905. Quezon City: New Day  Publishers, 1987.
Doeppers, Daniel F. “The Philippine Revolution and the Geography of 
Schism.” Geographical Review LXVI (1976): 158-177. 
Dy-Liaco, Leonor R. Sarung Dolot sa Satuyang Ina. Paranaque:  J & R 
Printing Co., Inc., 1996. 
Espinas, Merito B., ed. with Caesar C. Altarejos and Carlos  S. Gegantoca. 
Bikol Voices Anthology. Legazpi City:           Bikol University, 1983.
________. “Bikolandia’s Quince Martires of the  Revolution of 1896: Martyrs 
or Not?”  M.A. thesis,   University of Nueva Caceres, 1957.
Fernandez, Pablo, O.P. and Arcilla, Jose, S.J.  “A Report on the Diocese of 
Nueva Caceres from 1895-1908.” Philippiniana   Sacra 7 (1972): 
270-309. 
General, Luis, Jr.; San Jose, Lydia SD.; and Parrone,    Rosalio Al., eds. Readings 
on Bicol Culture. Bikol Culture Studies. Naga City: University of 
Nueva Caceres, 1972. 
Gerona, Danilo.  “Early Evangelization of the Bicol Region.”  Kinaadman 10 
(1988): 91-104.
_________. From Epic to History: A Brief Introduction to Bicol History. Naga 
City: AMS Press, 1988. 
Gleeck,  Lewis E., Jr. “Albay in American Times (Parts I-III).”Bulletin of the 
American Historical Collection  Foundation. Vol. XXV, Nos. (April-June 1997) 
2:7-22;  (July-September, 1997) 3:21-30; (October-December 1997) 
4:8-14.
Golay, Frank Hindman.  Face of Empire:  United States-Philippine Relations, 
1898-1946.  Quezon City:  Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1997.
Goyena del Prado, Mariano. Ibalon: Ethnohistory of the Bicol Region. Isinalin 
ni Ma. Lilia F. Realubit. Legazpi  City: AMS Press, 1981.
Gripaldo, Eden. “The Guerilla Resistance Movement in Camarines Sur, 1942-
1945.”  M.A. thesis, University of  the Philippines, 1983.
Jamoralin, Reynaldo T. Tracing: From Solsogon to Sorsogon. Sorsogon, Sorsogon: 
Sorsogon Arts Council, Inc., 1994.
Jose, Cristina. Facts About Sorsogon. Manila: National Media Production Center, 1971.
Lazarte, Valentin, publ. The Bicol Region Directory. Manila: Commonwealth Press, 1936. 
Linn, Brian. The U.S. Army and Counter-Insurgency in the  Philippine War, 1899-1902. 
Chapel Hill: University of  North Carolina Press, 1989. 
Lynch, Francis X, S.J.; assisted by Augusto V. Plopinio and Wilfredo F. Arce. Social Class 
in a Bikol Town. Research Series, no. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago,  Department of 
Anthropology, Philippine Studies Program, 1959. 
Mallari, Francisco, S.J. Ibalon under Storm and Siege, Essays on Bicol History: 1565-1860. 
Cagayan de Oro  City: Xavier University, 1990.
Malanyaon, Jaime T., ed. Diamond Jubilee Yearbook, 1901-1976 (DECS Region V: 
Bicol Region). Legazpi City, 1977. 
________. Philippines: A History of the Bikol Region (Istorya Kan Kabikolan). Naga City: 
AMS Press, 1991. 
Maxwell,  Richard S., comp. Records of the Bureau of Insular Affairs: National Archives 
Inventory Record Group 350.  Washington: National Archives and Records Service, 
1971. 
O’Brien, James, S.J. The Historical and Cultural Heritage  of the Bikol People. 2nd ed. 
Naga City: Ateneo de Naga, 1968. 
Our Delegates to the Constitutional Assembly. Manila: Benipayo Press, 1935. 
Owen, Norman G. Prosperity Without Progress: Manila Hemp and Material Life in the 
Colonial Philippines. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1984. 
 ________. “The Principalia in Philippine History: Kabikolan, 1790-1898.” Philippine 
Studies 22 (1974): 297-324. 
________. “Winding Down the War in Albay, 1900-1903.” Pacific Historical Review 
48(November 1979):557-589. 
Quinn, J.F. “Confidential Memorandum re: Conduct of Senatorial Election in Ambos 
Camarines Province on October 3, 1916: Resume of Reports of Irregularities.”  in 
VQuezon Papers, Series VII, Box No. 34: Camarines Sur,  folder 1917.
Realubit, Ma. Lilia F. Bikols of the Philippines. Naga City: AMS Press, 1983. 
________, ed. Journal of Bikol Writing. National Committee  on Literary Arts, National 
Commission for Culture and the Arts, 1994. 
Reyes, Jose Calleja. Bikol Maharlika. Goodwill Trading Inc. and JMC Press, Inc., 1992.
Riol, Apolinar Pastrana, O.F.M., ed. A Friar’s Account of  the Philippine Revolution in 
Bicol. Quezon City:   Franciscan Friary of St. Gregory the Great, San Francisco del 
Monte, 1980. 
Rojas, Jose. The History of an Enduring Monument of the Bicol Church: The Holy Rosary 
Seminary of Nueva Caceres.  Naga City: Archdiocese of Caceres, 1994.
Rubio, Greton T., comp. A Bibliography on the Bicol Region.  Quezon City: National 
Development Center, University of  the Philippines, 1973. 
Santos, Soliman M., Jr. Heart and Mind in Bicol, 1975-1993:  40 Selected Activist 
Writings. Quezon City, 1994. 
Soliman, Lea. Bibliography of Theses in the Bicol Region, 1954-1974. Legazpi: Bicol 
University Graduate School, 1976.
Totanes, Stephen Henry S. “Sorsogon’s Principalia and the Policy of Pacification, 
1900-1903.” Philippine Studies 38 (Fourth Quarter, 1990): 477-99.
________. “American Policy in the Abaca Industry and the Bikolano Response, 
1900-1941.” Bikolnon: Journal of Ateneo de Naga, Vol. 1 (March 1995) 2:151-170.
 ________. “Sorsogon, 1900-1941: Principalia Politics and Economic Development.” M.A. 
Thesis, University of the  Philippines, 1990.
________. “Ang Pagbabagong-Anyo ng Principalia sa Kapanahunang Amerikano: 
Kabikolan, 1900-1946.”  Ph.D. dissertation, University of the Philippines, 1999. 
De la Torre, Visitacion. History of the Philippine Civil Service. Quezon City: New Day 
Publishers, 1986. 
Tuohy, Anthony R. Album Historico de la Primera Asamblea Filipino. Manila: I.F., 1908. 
Turner, Mark M. “Interpretations of Class and Status in the  Philippines: A Critical 
Evaluation. “  Cultures et developpment 10 (1978) 2:265-96. 
United States. Philippine Commission, 1900-1916. Reports of the Philippine 
Commission to the Secretary of War. Title varies. Washington: Government Printing 
Office, 1900-1917.
Vinzons, Rannavalona. “Biography of Wenceslao Vinzons.”  Manuscript (n.d, n.p.)
Willougby, Charles A., comp. The Guerilla Resistance Movement in the Philippines: 
1941-1945.  New York:  Vantage Press, 1972.