.svg "Sergio Osmeña"){kind=small}
Manuel L. Quezon
Search results
Sergio Osmeña Sr. CCLH (Spanish: [ˈseɾxjo osˈmeɲa], Tagalog: [ˈsɛɾhjo ʔosˈmɛɲa]; Chinese: 吳文釗; Pe̍h-ōe-jī: Gô͘ Bûn-chiau; September 9, 1878 – October 19, 1961) was a Filipino lawyer and politician who served as the fourth President of the Philippines from 1944 to 1946.
Sergio Osmeña (born Sept. 9, 1878, Cebu City, Phil.—died Oct. 19, 1961, Manila) was a Filipino statesman, founder of the Nationalist Party (Partido Nacionalista) and president of the Philippines from 1944 to 1946.
- The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica
Jun 11, 2018 · Sergio Osmeña (1878-1961) was the second president of the Philippine Commonwealth and a distinguished statesman. He led the country in its initial stage of political maturation by his honest and selfless devotion to public service, but lost the 1945 election to Manuel Roxas.
People also ask
Who was Sergio Osmena?
What role did Sergio Osmena play in post-revolutionary politics?
Why is Osmena important?
What was Osmena's role in the Philippine Revolution?
Mar 14, 2024 · Did you know that Sergio Osmeña served as the fourth President of the Philippines from 1944 to 1946? Born on September 9, 1878, in Cebu City, Osmeña was a prominent figure in Philippine politics, known for his leadership during World War II and his contributions to the Nationalist Party.
Sergio Osmeña (September 9, 1878 -- October 19, 1961) Early life and career: Osmeña was born in Cebu to Juana Osmeña y Suico. Juana was only 14 years old when she gave birth to him. Owing to the circumstances of his birth, the identity of his father had been a closely guarded family secret.
Sep 9, 2022 · We mark today the 144th birth anniversary of the late President Sergio Osmeña who was born #OnThisDay in 1878. Hailing from the province of Cebu, Osmeña was a journalist and lawyer before being elected as provincial governor.
How did Sergio Osmena, the most important Filipino leader of the post-revolutionary years, interpret and deploy the Philippine Revolution? This article explores his role, his ambiguous and ambivalent relationship to the revolution, and the dominant interpretation of the revolution in post-revolutionary scholarship and education.
