The Paradox of Emilio Aguinaldo: A Hero or A Villain?

Mary Paulyn Cajes, Jersie Mary Causing, Jenessa Francis, Laika Gadores, Nicole Faye Mante,

Mary Precious Perl Mingoy, Chilcy Sigarino, and Loremae Tenchavez

University of the Visayas

Bachelor of Science in Psychology

Mr. Carl Jeffrey Egoy, RPm

November 28, 2024

1
Introduction

Emilio Aguinaldo holds a complex and often contradictory role in Philippine history. He

was a key figure in the fight for independence, leading the nation in its revolution against

Spanish colonial rule and becoming its first president (Agoncillo, 1990). He also led Filipino

forces during the Philippine-American War, opposing American occupation. However, his legacy

is deeply intertwined with controversy, particularly regarding his involvement in the execution of

Andrés Bonifacio, the founder of the Katipunan, the very group that ignited the Philippine

Revolution (Agoncillo, 1990). This incident casts a long shadow over his contributions and calls

for a more nuanced understanding of his life and actions, moving beyond simple labels of hero or

villain.

Aguinaldo's rise within the revolutionary movement was rapid. He joined the Katipunan,

the secret society established by Bonifacio, and quickly made a name for himself with his

military skills and strategic insight (Agoncillo, 1990). The Katipunan aimed to achieve

independence from Spain through armed struggle, which allowed Aguinaldo's leadership to

flourish (Schumacher, 1970). After the revolution began in 1896, Aguinaldo led several

successful military campaigns against Spanish forces, achieving significant victories, especially

in Cavite (Schumacher, 1970). These successes not only diminished Spanish control in the area

but also greatly lifted the spirits of the revolutionaries and solidified Aguinaldo's status as a

prominent leader, eventually rivaling Bonifacio's influence. His military achievements served as

clear proof of the revolution's potential, drawing in more recruits and resources to the cause

(Constantino, 1975).

2
 This period of revolutionary fervor was also significantly affected by internal power

struggles and differing ideologies. The rivalry between Aguinaldo and Bonifacio, both prominent

figures in the Katipunan, escalated into a bitter conflict with tragic outcomes (Agoncillo, 1990).

Bonifacio advocated for a more radical, plebeian-based approach to the revolution, while

Aguinaldo’s faction represented the conservative, elite members of Filipino society (Agoncillo,

1990). This divergence in social background and political beliefs heightened the tension between

the two leaders. The Tejeros Convention in 1897, which aimed to unify the revolutionary forces

under a single government, instead deepened the existing divisions. The election results from the

convention, which saw Aguinaldo elected president and Bonifacio assigned a lesser role, were

contested by Bonifacio and his supporters (Agoncillo, 1990). This contention ultimately led to

Bonifacio's arrest, trial, and execution. This controversial act, often linked to Aguinaldo's faction,

remains a contentious and sensitive issue among historians (Agoncillo, 1990). The execution of

Bonifacio created a profound and lasting divide within the revolutionary movement,

undermining its unity and casting a long shadow over Aguinaldo's legacy (Agoncillo, 1990).

Despite the internal conflicts and the lasting impact of Bonifacio's death, Aguinaldo

persisted in leading the revolution against Spain (Agoncillo, 1990). His leadership reached a

pivotal moment with the proclamation of Philippine independence on June 12, 1898, in Kawit,

Cavite, marking a significant event in the nation's history. However, this declaration did not

signify the end of the struggle for sovereignty (Constantino, 1975). The Spanish-American War,

which resulted in the United States defeating Spain, led to the Philippines being ceded to the

United States under the Treaty of Paris. This initiated the Philippine-American War, plunging the

3
newly declared republic into another conflict, this time against a new colonial power

(Schumacher, 1970).

It is under this test of Aguinaldo's leadership and Filipino resilience that came the

Philippine-American War. Even though the Filipinos faced a technologically superior and

better-equipped American force, they fought a determined guerrilla war for several years

(Schumacher, 1970). This guerrilla war waged by Aguinaldo became a symbol of Filipino

resistance against foreign domination. The struggle ended when Aguinaldo was captured in

Palanan, Isabela in 1901, effectively ending organized Filipino resistance (Constantino, 1975).

Subsequently, Aguinaldo took an oath of allegiance to the USA, which complicates his legacy

further (Constantino, 1975).

Aguinaldo's actions in 1898 are mostly responsible for his nationalist notoriety, despite

the fact that he has been hailed as one of the national heroes of Philippine history for his part in

bringing an end to Spanish colonialism and announcing Philippine independence (Constantino,

1975). His autobiography published in 1964, Mga Gunita ng Himagsikan (Memories of the

Revolution), was silent about events in the second half of the revolution against Spain and the

Philippine–American War (Aguinaldo and Suntay, 1964). He died the year Mga Gunita was

released, despite having promised a second memoir (Ibid, 266). His passing scarcely caused

historians to reconsider his significance in Philippine history.

Oddly, despite widespread doubt about Aguinaldo's position, few Filipinos openly

questioned the U.S.’s ‘collaboration’. However, some did it anonymously (Constantino, 1975).

4
Just like Mabini, Ricarte outlined his unfavorable opinions on Aguinaldo in his letters to Jose P.

Santos, which most likely represented Filipino veterans' feelings who were let down by

Aguinaldo (Constantino, 1975). Ricarte and Aguinaldo first were friendly since they both had a

positive attitude toward Japan, which they were seen as "the Messiah" for the Asian races that

were oppressed (Constantino, 1975). "White races" are in charge of them (Kokuryukai 1966,

637–38). However, they eventually split up. Ricarte persisted in the resistance, but Aguinaldo

ultimately reached an agreement with the Americans.

The purpose of this research is to go beyond the black-and-white representations of

Aguinaldo as either a national hero or a morally compromised leader. It seeks to go beyond the

two polar opposite narratives, closely examining the multifaceted and contradictory aspects that

found his life, decisions, and actions that can create a more subtle and fuller grasp of his

character and profession in Philippine history. Not only does this study endeavor to conduct an

intensive analysis of primary source documents, including personal letters, official decrees,

military orders, to eyewitness accounts from Filipino and American perspectives, but it also aims

to continue current scholarly historical analyses to unearth hidden truths and debunk mainstream

narratives and engender greater historical empathy. This approach leads to a more equitable and

precise view of Aguinaldo's position in the broader context of Philippine history, acknowledging

both his triumphs and ever-controversial actions. Thus, it will make for a fuller and more

objective account of the past for future generations so that they may learn from both the victories

and the tragedies that made the nation. To unravel the strategic brilliance, political maneuvering,

and sometimes contentious choices that characterized Aguinaldo's leadership will be one way to

understand the stormy nation of Philippine history around the turn of the last century. This

5
research mentions aspects indicating ways toward more mature and informed thinking about the

past and includes an acknowledgment of the seams and tears that are bound to exist in any

historical narrative.

Statement of the Problem

This study specifically seeks answers to these following questions:

1. What were Emilio Aguinaldo's major contributions to the Philippine Revolution?

2. How did Emilio Aguinaldo's decisions impact the course of the Philippine-American war?

3. How do historians portray Emilio Aguinaldo?

Significance of the Study

Our research on Emilio Aguinaldo is crucial for several reasons. To begin with, it seeks to

challenge the simplistic hero-villain dichotomy often applied to historical figures, encouraging a

more nuanced understanding of their complexities. By delving into primary sources and

historical analyses, we aim to uncover hidden truths and provide a more accurate portrayal of

Aguinaldo's role in Philippine history. Furthermore, this research contributes to a more just

historical reckoning by critically examining the circumstances surrounding the controversial

execution of Andrés Bonifacio. By understanding the motivations and limitations of historical

figures, we can foster a deeper appreciation for the past and its impact on the present. Ultimately,

this research aims to inform future generations, ensuring a more accurate and balanced

understanding of Philippine history and national identity.

6
Scope and Delimitation

This study investigates the paradoxical legacy of Emilio Aguinaldo faction which believes

that Aguinaldo deserves no place of historical honor in the Philippines and studies his life's

intrigues and more so, the controversial Aguinaldo's actions during the phases of the Philippine

Revolution and the Philippine-American war from historians’ viewpoint. The research is also

focused on those historians who have made a lot of emphasis on the life and times of the

revolutionary Emilio Aguinaldo and the controversies surrounding him.

In this study, however, conclusions on the debate are not provided as it aims at finding out

how the historians approach the evidence presented, how they see the bugger picture on the

actions taken by Aguinaldo, and how it is possible for them to reach different conclusions on

Aguinaldo's actions in the history of the Philippines.

Review of Related Literature

One of the towering figures in Philippine history is Emilio Aguinaldo, widely recognized as a

hero but also criticized for his leadership (Santiago, 1997). Aguinaldo was remarkably young

when he rose to prominence as a leader in the Katipunan, a revolutionary society that initiated

the Philippine Revolution in 1896. During this period, Aguinaldo demonstrated military acumen

and strategic brilliance, leading to early victories in Cavite against Spanish forces (Schumacher,

1997). However, as the revolution expanded across the country, tensions arose between

Aguinaldo and Andres Bonifacio, the founder of the Katipunan (Agoncillo, 1990). These internal

conflicts culminated in the controversial order for Bonifacio’s execution, an event that

7
significantly tarnished Aguinaldo’s reputation (Schumacher, 1997). Despite this, Aguinaldo's

role in uniting Filipinos against Spanish colonial rule remains a pivotal chapter in Philippine

history (May, 2007).

Aguinaldo and his forces gained control over significant parts of Luzon, the largest island in

the Philippine archipelago, utilizing guerilla warfare and forming tactical alliances (Santiago,

1997). These successes led to the signing of the Pact of Biak-na-Bato in 1897, an agreement in

which Spain allowed Aguinaldo and other revolutionary leaders to go into exile in exchange for

monetary compensation (May, 2007). Aguinaldo's return from exile in 1898 coincided with the

outbreak of the Spanish-American War (Agoncillo, 1990). Taking advantage of Spain's

weakening grip on the Philippines, Aguinaldo and his revolutionaries quickly reclaimed much of

the country, ultimately declaring Philippine independence on June 12, 1898 (May, 2007).

However, the newly established Philippine Republic soon faced a new adversary: the United

States (Santiago, 1997). The U.S. refused to recognize Philippine independence, leading to the

outbreak of the Philippine-American War in February 1899 (Santiago, 1997). Aguinaldo’s

decision to declare war on the U.S. is considered a critical turning point in Philippine history.

While some historians argue that his actions were driven by nationalism and a strong desire to

resist another wave of colonialism (May, 2007), others critique it as a poorly calculated move

(Schumacher, 1997). The conflict resulted in a protracted and brutal war, lasting several years

and claiming the lives of hundreds of thousands of Filipinos (Schumacher, 1970).

The debate surrounding Aguinaldo's legacy persists among historians. Teodoro A. Agoncillo

highlights Aguinaldo's notable achievements, including the expulsion of Spanish colonial forces

8
and the proclamation of Philippine independence (Agoncillo, 1990). Conversely, John N.

Schumacher focuses on the controversies surrounding Aguinaldo’s leadership, particularly the

execution of Bonifacio and his decision to engage in war with the U.S. (Schumacher, 1997).

Recent scholarship offers more nuanced interpretations of Aguinaldo’s actions. For instance,

Ambeth Ocampo examines the complexities of Aguinaldo’s motives and decisions (Ocampo,

2023), while the National Humanities Center provides primary sources, such as The

Proclamation of Philippine Independence, to shed light on his perspective during the

revolutionary period (National Humanities Center, 2023).

Critics such as U.S. military officer John R. M. Taylor condemned Aguinaldo’s leadership,

citing administrative challenges and limitations during the First Philippine Republic (Taylor,

1899). According to Taylor’s report (1899), the establishment of an Administrative Civil

Government by Emilio Aguinaldo and his followers in the Philippine archipelago, underscores

the struggles Aguinaldo faced in governing a nascent republic. In contrast, Domingo Abella’s

eulogy praises Aguinaldo as an icon of Filipino nationalism, reflecting how many Filipinos

viewed him as an eminent figure in the nation’s history (Abella, 1964).

Despite his achievements, Aguinaldo remains a polarizing figure. Journalist Alonzo Gabriel

Limocon controversially labeled Aguinaldo a traitor, arguing that his declaration of war against

the U.S. caused unnecessary suffering for the Filipino people (Limocon, n.d.). Limocon

advocates for a more critical analysis of Aguinaldo’s legacy, moving beyond traditional

narratives that glorify him as a hero. Similarly, Muetterties and Bronstein (2020) recommend

incorporating historical empathy when studying figures like Aguinaldo. Their study, using

inquiry history to analyze historical figures, suggests that understanding historical figures

9
through multiple perspectives fosters deeper comprehension of their struggles and decisions

(Muetterties and Bronstein, 2020).

According to Abella (1964), Emilio Aguinaldo's life and legacy exemplify the complexity of

historical narratives. His contributions to the Philippine Revolution and the fight against Spanish

colonialism are undeniable, yet his leadership remains a subject of debate among historians and

scholars (Abella, 1964). By examining Aguinaldo's life through various lenses, we can gain a

deeper understanding of his impact on Philippine history and his enduring legacy in the nation's

revolutionary struggle.

To fully comprehend Aguinaldo's complex legacy, one must consider the historical context of

his time (Agoncillo, 1990). The Philippine Revolution, the internal conflicts, external pressures,

and shifting political landscapes of the era all played significant roles in shaping his decisions

(Ocampo, 2023). These circumstances led to choices that were often fraught with difficulty and

ambiguity, influenced by the complex factors of the time (Ocampo, 2023).

It is ultimately for historians to judge Aguinaldo's legacy. While he may not have lived up to

the ideal of a perfect hero, it cannot be denied that his actions and decisions had a profound and

lasting impact on Philippine history (Abella, 1964). A critical examination of his life and legacy

will not only provide a clearer understanding of the past but also offer valuable insights for

addressing future challenges (Agoncillo, 1990; Santiago, 1997).

10
Results and Discussion

Presentation of Evidence

Hero Perspective

Several historical accounts portray Aguinaldo as a courageous leader who fought for

Philippine independence (Abella, 1964). Among those accounts is that of Agoncillo and Alfonso

(1969), who describe Aguinaldo as having played a central role in the establishment of the First

Philippine Republic, and the declaration of independence from Spanish colonial rule. It also

emphasized his military and strategic brilliance in leading the revolutionary forces against a

formidable enemy (Ocampo, 2023).

In agreement with this, (Constantino, 1975) lavished praise on Aguinaldo, saying he was

indeed a patriot without any hesitations. However, against the U.S. with all its military

superiority, as such a decision by Aguinaldo demonstrates his love for the country. (Schurman

Commission Report, 1900).

Villain Perspective

Emilio Aguinaldo was often treated as a villain in Philippine history due to his controversial

actions (Limocon, n.d.). One notable incident was his order for the execution of Andres

Bonifacio, which has been interpreted as a move to consolidate his power during the revolution

(Sumulong, 2021). In March 1897, the leadership of the revolution transitioned to Aguinaldo,

who had Bonifacio executed for alleged sedition (Agoncillo, 1990). Despite his rise to power,

11
Aguinaldo’s military efforts against Spanish troops, who were reinforced by Filipino

mercenaries, were largely unsuccessful (Agoncillo, 1990). By the later months of 1897,

Aguinaldo’s revolutionary army was forced into the mountains southeast of Manila (Borlaza &

Hernandez, 2024).

Analysis

Emilio Aguinaldo has been an argument about leadership one way or another in the history of

the Philippines (Agoncillo, 1990). Some say that he is driven by a strong patriotic sense as a

leader, while some other historians think that indeed a good part of it lies in his ambition

(Ocampo, 2023). The two sides will be stated and analyzed in this essay along with arguments

represented by different scholars.

Those supporting Aguinaldo's case of being a patriotic leader will cite his early involvement

in the Katipunan (Santiago, 1997). The Katipunan was that revolutionary organization which

aimed to wrest the Philippines from Spanish shackrab (Constantino, 1975). Aguinaldo's bravery

and strongman touch during the Philippine Revolution in the Battle of Cavite established him as

an unflinching and successful chief (Abella, 1964). An innovative declaration of independence

by the Philippines in 1898 poses an even further example of how much this person believed in an

idea of liberation (Ocampo, 2023).

Additionally, the fact that he established the First Philippine Republic with its democratic

ideals and aspirations is also cited as indicative of Aguinaldo's patriotic intentions (Abella,

12
1964). He wanted to create a nation based on liberty, equality, and self-determination, consistent

with his notion of paving a better future for the Filipino people (Ocampo, 2023).

On the other hand, there are historians who argue that Aguinaldo was motivated by personal

ambition in his actions (Taylor, 1899). They cite his rivalry with Andres Bonifacio, founder of

the Katipunan, and a supposed involvement in Bonifacio's death as evidence of his ruthless

pursuit of power (Agoncillo, 1990). His declaration of independence without the support of other

revolutionary leaders, as well as actions done in the course of the Philippines-American War, is

interpreted as being too self-serving and detrimental to the interests of the country (Taylor,

1899).

Some scholars further hold that Aguinaldo's acceptance of a pension from the United States

government following the end of the war provides evidence of his personal ambitions

(Schumacher, 1970). This, they say, contradicts his earlier position as a staunch advocate of

Philippine independence, signifying a readiness to compromise principles for self-gain

(Schumacher, 1970).

Finally, Aguinaldo's patriotism or motivated personal ambition as leadership is a

long-standing and pernicious question. True, the early deeds and the establishment of the First

Philippines Republic indicated a firm commitment to the cause of independence, but later actions

and decisions raise suspicion on the genuineness of his intentions (Constantino, 1975). These

very unclear possibilities inclined toward some combination of both, and the question would be

13
too hard to answer whether patriotism or personal ambition constituted the principal impetus to

his leadership (Schumacher, 1970).

To fully understand the complexities surrounding Aguinaldo's motives, it is also important

to grasp the historical condition in which he operated. The Philippine Revolution had all the

traits typical of a violent period in which internal conflicts and external pressures are usually

compounded by shifting loyalties and alliances (Santiago, 1997). Aguinaldo's actions should,

therefore, be understood in this wider frame as the leader who best understood the limitations

and possibilities surrounding the context at any given time and place (Constantino, 1975).

There might be some evidence and arguments, and then the aperture through which carefully

examining Aguinaldo's legacy would expose greater nuance (Constantino, 1975). Indeed, it

cannot be denied that he contributed to the Philippine Revolution; acknowledged must be the

darker aspects of his leadership as to its impacts on the nation's history (Abella, 1964).

Emilio Aguinaldo, the leader of the Philippine Revolution, made several decisions that are

considered controversial (Ocampo, 2023). Some of these decisions are said to be necessary for

the greater good, like the Pact of Biak-na-Bato, which gave Filipino forces time to regroup

(Agoncillo, 1990). Critics argue that this agreement weakened the revolution (Agoncillo, 1990).

His initial collaboration with the US, which seemed to be a good thing at first, led to the

Philippine-American War, resulting in heavy casualties among Filipinos (Schumacher, 1997).

14
 Another point of debate about Aguinaldo's leadership is his handling of dissent within the

revolutionary forces. Some argue that he needed to suppress dissent to maintain order, while

others say it was a suppression of freedom and contributed to weakening the movement

(Agoncillo, 1990). The assessment of Aguinaldo's leadership has to be considered within the

complexity of the times, including fighting against Spain and the US, power struggles within,

and resources. Historians continue to debate the impact of his decisions on the Philippine

Revolution (Schumacher, 1997).

Emilio Aguinaldo is a key figure in Philippine history, known for his complex legacy that is

both celebrated and debated. To many Filipinos, he is a hero, yet his actions and decisions

prompt important discussions about his influence on the nation's future. Aguinaldo's leadership

during the Philippine Revolution against Spanish colonial rule stands out as one of his most

significant contributions. He was instrumental in rallying the Filipino people and motivating

them to pursue independence. His declaration of Philippine independence on June 12, 1898,

marks a pivotal moment in the country's history. Nevertheless, Aguinaldo's legacy is not without

controversy. His choice to execute Andres Bonifacio, the founder of the Katipunan, has sparked

considerable debate. Critics contend that Bonifacio's execution was unjust and detrimental to the

unity of the revolutionary movement (Agoncillo, 1990). Additionally, Aguinaldo's decision to

resist American colonial rule following the Spanish-American War adds another layer of

complexity to his legacy. While many Filipinos supported his fight, others felt it extended the

nation's suffering and impeded its progress. It is crucial to understand that historical figures are

often multifaceted. They cannot be simply categorized as heroes or villains; rather, they are

individuals who made decisions within specific historical contexts. Aguinaldo's actions, like

15
those of any historical figure, should be assessed within the broader scope of his era and the

challenges he encountered. By recognizing the complexities of Aguinaldo's role, we can develop

a more nuanced perspective on his influence in Philippine history. While he is undoubtedly a

significant figure, his legacy contains imperfections. A critical examination of both his positive

and negative contributions allows us to appreciate the intricacies of his character and the

obstacles he faced in shaping the future of the Filipino nation (Agoncillo, 1990).

16
Conclusion

This study has taken a serious look into the multidimensional legacies of Emilio Aguinaldo,

an obviously significant although not unquestioned person within Philippine history. To his role

in signing off as a major leader during the course of the Philippine Revolution against Spanish

colonial rule, there are no arguments against it; however, the action leading to the execution of

Andrés Bonifacio and the refusal of American colonial rule has found its way into a stimulating

debate between historians and the general public.

The research has attempted to bring about a comprehensively contextualized understanding of

Aguinaldo's leadership. Aguinaldo's contributions to Philippine independence are grand but need

to be viewed along with the controversial elements of his legacy. A deeper appreciation of

Aguinaldo in Philippine history throws more light into the wider issues of nationalism and

revolution and colonialism. Likewise, it could do much for a more critical and differentiated

approach to historical analysis, which goes beyond the simplistic hero-villain narratives.

Future promising avenues of research open up for such things as a more detailed study of the

Philippine-American War, women's roles in the revolution, the influence of American

colonialism on culture and identity, and a reevaluation of Andrés Bonifacio's legacy. All of these

developments will enable more rendering of the complexities of Philippine history and the

17
possible lasting touch of history in the present.

References

Abella, D. (1964). The indio leader. The Chronicle Magazine, 19(9), 7.

Agoncillo, T. A. (1990). A history of the Filipino people. Garotech Publishing.

Agoncillo, T. A., & Alfonso, O. M. (1969). History of the Filipino people. Garotech Publishing.

Aguinaldo's case against the United States. (n.d.).

ARA, S. (2015). Emilio Aguinaldo under American and Japanese rule:

Submission for independence? Philippine Studies: Historical & Ethnographic Viewpoints,

63(2), 161–192.

Borlaza, G. C., & Hernandez, C. G. (2024, October 21). Andres Bonifacio.

Constantino, R. (1975). The Philippines: A past revisited. Tala Publishing.

Garcellano, L. (2024). Reconsidering Emilio Aguinaldo through artifacts. Vera Files.

Limocon, A. G. (n.d.). Emilio Aguinaldo is not a hero but a traitor.

against Spain.

Philippine Studies, 55(4), 449–477. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42633930

Milestones in the history of U.S. foreign relations - Office of the Historian. (n.d.).

Muetterties, C., & Bronstein, E. (2020). Scoundrel or freedom fighter?

Creating historical empathy inquiries. Social Studies Research and Practice, ahead-of-print.

https://doi.org/10.1108/SSRP-12-2019-0063

Research guides: World of 1898:

International perspectives on the Spanish American War: Emilio Aguinaldo y Famy. (n.d.-b).

Santiago, L. P. R. (1997). Aguinaldo: A Revolutionary Life.

Schumacher, J. N. (1997). Readings in Philippine history. Ateneo University Press.

Schurman Commission Report. (1900). Report of the Philippine Commission.

Sumulong, L. (2021, November). Bonifacio’s death and historical decolonization.

19
Taylor, J. R. M. (1903). Report on the organization for the administration of civil government.

instituted by Emilio Aguinaldo and his followers in the Philippine Archipelago. Washington:

Govt. Print. Off.

20