It was in 1962 when the late Diosdado Macapagal, the father of Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, issued Proclamation No. 28. It's because it was in 1898 when the Philippines managed to gain independence from Spain and declare a republic. For a time, the Philippines fell under American control but not without having declared itself a republic. The commonwealth was from 1935 to 1946. Later, America did seize control of Japan from 1945 to 1952. That happened after the Empire of Japan finally surrendered when it lost during the Second World War.
The Asia Society shares this insight on why the date was eventually changed:
June 12 was not always our official Independence Day. It was made-so on May 12, 1964, by then-president Diosdado Macapagal. Macapagal moved the celebration to June 12 in order to commemorate Emilio Aguinaldo’s original proclamation of Philippine independence from Spain on the same date in 1898. In his 1962 Independence Day Address, Macapagal elaborated on the rationale for the change, “The irrefutable claim of June 12 as our day of freedom is bolstered by the fact that it is the culmination of many acts of patriotism and nationalism. June 12, 1898 is pregnant with meaning not only for our people as the birthday of their sovereign nation but also for the world, since it was our Filipino patriots and leaders, Rizal, Aguinaldo and Bonifacio, who led the nations of Asia in breaking the chains of colonialism in order that they may breathe the fresh air of individual liberty and national dignity”. He viewed the change as a restoration of the legacy of the Filipino struggle for independence against Spain. As we are well aware, such a legacy was disrupted by half a century of U.S. colonial rule.
The article by Rama Co also concludes her piece from where I shared the excerpt from above:
Ultimately, was Macapagal right in changing the Philippine Independence Day date? I personally would agree. National holidays have never been about historical accuracy or geopolitical technicality. To paraphrase Eric Hobsbawm, they are “invented traditions” meant to instill a sense of cohesion in the imagined community that is the nation. Aguinaldo’s Republic might only have been nominally independent, but that’s not the point. Britain recognized an independent United States seven years after it had declared itself so, yet Americans continue to celebrate on the Fourth of July – Macapagal made this exact point. June 12 exists as a symbolic independence. The Philippines had to wait another forty-eight years before actual independence. Commemorating a symbol, rather than an actuality, beckons us to ask broader questions. Is the nation independent and sovereign, or merely the state? Are all its people empowered, or merely a handful of actors as in our not-so-distant colonial past? When we speak of “our” independence, who are we leaving out of the conversation? Do we think enough of the ethnic and religious minorities marginalized not only in present discourse, but also to whom June 12, 1898 means very little historically. These are but some of the questions we must begin to ask. A tall order, yes, but Filipinos are no strangers to division and uncertainty. Our history has always been one of struggle and negotiation; on the battlefield, in legislative halls (both foreign and domestic), and in the symbolic realm home to grand debates over the national narrative we choose to internalize as a citizenry. By considering why we celebrate June 12, what we became independent from, and who exactly the “we” is in this story, we look not for definitive answers but aim instead to foster productive conversations.
While reading Third World to First by the late Lee Kuan Yew, certain chapters of the book still speak of America as a useful ally such as Chapter 28--"America: The Anticommunist Anchorman" and Chapter 30--"America's New Agenda". It was also spoken LKY about FDIs how America from pages 58-59 and how American companies helped Singapore rise up:
After several years of disheartening trial and error, we concluded that Singapore's best hope lay with the American multinational corporations (MNCs). When the Taiwanese and Hong Kong entrepreneurs came in the 1960s, they brought low technology such as textile and toy manufacturing, labor-intensive but not large-scale. American MNCs brought higher technology in large-scale operations, creating many jobs. They had weight and confidence. They believed that their government was going to stay in Southeast Asia and their businesses were safe from confiscation or war loss.
I gradually crystallized my thoughts and settled on a two-pronged strategy to overcome our disadvantages. The first was to leapfrog the region, as the Israelis had done. This idea sprang from a discussion I had with a UNDP expert who visited Singapore in 1962. In 1964, while on a tour of Africa, I met him again in Malawi. He described to me how the Israelis, faced with a more hostile environment than ours, had found a way around their difficulties by leaping over their Arab neighbors who boycotted them, to trade with Europe and America. Since our neighbors were out to reduce their ties with us, we had to link up with the developed world-America, Europe, and Japan-and attract their manufacturers to produce in Singapore and export their products to the developed countries.
Yes, ties with America must still be continued. Instead, I choose to look at July 4 as Philippine-American friendship day. I still view America as an important ally, though one must never become overdependent on America. There must still remain respect between the two countries like by not intervening with Philippine politics when it's not needed. I still don't like it when some American politicians intervene with the Philippines when they can't even fix their own problems. However, I still respect any decent American who is willing to help the Philippines.