The internet is so great.
Here’s something from just a quick random search on this topic.
http://countrystudies.us/philippines/21.htm
“The Japanese military authorities immediately began organizing a new government structure in the Philippines. Although the Japanese had promised independence for the islands after occupation, they initially organized a Council of State through which they directed civil affairs until October 1943, when they declared the Philippines an independent republic. Most of the Philippine elite, with a few notable exceptions, served under the Japanese. Philippine collaboration in Japanese-sponsored political institutions—which later became a major domestic political issue—was motivated by several considerations. Among them was the effort to protect the people from the harshness of Japanese rule (an effort that Quezon himself had advocated), protection of family and personal interests, and a belief that Philippine nationalism would be advanced by solidarity with fellow Asians. Many collaborated to pass information to the Allies. The Japanese-sponsored republic headed by President José P. Laurel proved to be unpopular.
“Japanese occupation of the Philippines was opposed by increasingly effective underground and guerrilla activity that ultimately reached large-scale proportions. Postwar investigations showed that about 260,000 people were in guerrilla organizations and that members of the anti-Japanese underground were even more numerous. Their effectiveness was such that by the end of the war, Japan controlled only twelve of the forty-eight provinces.”
So at the beginning, the Phillipine people eagerly collaborated with the Japanes, but after awhile, once the course of history was becoming clear, the tide turned and people turned towards collaboration with the Anglo-American forces. Similar turns of events canbe found for Indonesia and elsewhere.
People are always eager to collaborate if it keeps their headon their shoulders and even better, gives them a shot at riches and power, and they are very willing to switch sides should events turn.
So at the beginning, the Phillipine people eagerly collaborated with the Japanese, but after awhile, once the course of history was becoming clear, the tide turned and people turned towards collaboration with the Anglo-American forces. Similar turns of events can be found for Indonesia and elsewhere.
That would not, I presume, include the 75,000 prisoners taken by the Japanese after the Battle of Bataan and subjected to the Bataan Death March, would it? The Filipinos suffered casualties at ten times the rate of the Americans. That was hardly what I would categorize as collaboration.
This whole "they changed their minds when the course of history became evident" approach to those events is categorically false. Only in retrospect do such courses become obvious - that is a generalization that files in the face of individual histories of the actual events. In point of fact your source references a widespread resistance that the "collaborative" government of Laurel constituted an exception to as does so much of the past and subsequent history of the intelligentsia in Manila. That individual, incidentally, was placed in that position by his boss Quezon and is broadly considered to have tried to make the best of a bad situation. Even so, it was only a declaration of amnesty that saved him from 132 charges of treason.
People are always eager to collaborate if it keeps their headon their shoulders and even better, gives them a shot at riches and power, and they are very willing to switch sides should events turn.
Not all people, not even most. Some people, yes, and quite often they end up dangling at the end of a rope for their treason. These are the only people whose actions can be described to bend to what they consider the "course of history" and that's a very bad thing to be wrong about.
I gently suggest that you are buying into a historical narrative that suits certain assumptions about the way the world works that are wonderfully cynical and woefully contrary to the actual facts. In my years in Asia I spoke personally with veterans of Nanking, Burma, and the Philippines whose life stories are those of ordinary people caught up in extraordinary circumstances. Not one of them bent to any "course of history" but responded as best he could to the circumstances at hand. That response was frequently heroic. A historical narrative that prefers to paint human activity with a broad brush and according to some grand pattern that is only visible in retrospect is quite simply an oversimplification that is falsehood. Whether you wish to swallow that narrative is up to you, but do not expect those of us who know better to accede to the accompanying insult to the participants.