Chapter 3

PHILIPPINE HISTORY: SPACES FOR CONFLICT AND

CONTROVERSIES
 Learning Objectives
To interpret historical events using primary sources.
To recognize the multiplicity of interpretation than can be read
from a historical text.
To identify the advantages and disadvantages of employing
critical tools in interpreting historical events through primary
sources.
To demonstrate ability to argue for or against a particular
issue using primary sources.

In. this chapter, we will analyze four historiographical problems in

Philippine history in an attempt to apply what we have learned thus far in
the work of a historian and the process of historical inquiry. Earlier, we
have been introduced to history as a discipline, the historical method, and
the content and context analysis of primary sources. Two key concepts
that need to be defined before proceeding to the historical analysis of
problems in history are interpretation and multiperspectivity.

Making Sense of the Past: Historical Interpretation

History is the study of the past, but a more contemporary definition is
centered on how it impacts the present through its consequences. Geoffrey
Barraclough defines history as "the attempt to discover, on the basis of
fragmentary evidence, the significant things about the past." He also notes
"the history we read, though based on facts, is strictly speaking, not factual
at all, but a series of accepted judgments." Such judgments of historians
on how the past should be seen make the foundation of historical
interpretation.

The Code of Kalantiaw is a

mythi.cal legal code in the epic
history Maragtas. Before it was
revealed as a hoax, it was a
source of pride for the people of
Aklan. In fact, a historical
marker was installed in the town
of Batan, Aklan in 1956, with
the föllowing text:
The Code of Kalantiaw
"CODE OF KALANTIAW. Datu Bendehara Kalantiaw, third Chief of
Panay, born in Aklan, established his government
in the peninsula of Batang, Aklan Sakup. Considered the First Filipino
Lawgiver, he promulgated in about 1433 a penal code now known as
Code of Kalantiaw containing 18 articles. Don Marcelino Orilla of
Zaragoza, Spain, obtained the original manuscript from an old chief of
Panay which was later translated into Spanish by Rafael Murviedo
Yzamaney."

It was only in 1968 that it was proved a

hoax, when William Henry Scott, then a
doctoral candidate at the University of
Santo Tomas, defended his research on
pre-Hispanic sources in Philippine
history. He attributed the code to a
historical fiction written in 1913 by Jose
E. Marco titled Las Antiguas Leyendas
de la Isla de Negros. Marco attributed
the code itself to a priest named Jose
Maria Pavon. Prominent Filipino
historians did not dissent to Scott's
William Henry Scott findings, but there are still some who
would like to believe that the code is a legitimate document.
 Historians utilize facts collected from primary sources of history and
then draw their own reading so that their intended audience may
understand the historical event, a process that in essence, "makes sense of
the past." The premise is that not all primary sources are accessible to a
general audience, and without the proper training and background, a non-
historian interpreting a primary source may do more harm than good—a
primary source may even cause misunderstandings; sometimes, even
resulting in more problems.

Interpretations of the past, therefore, vary according to who reads

the primary source, when it was read, and how it was read. As students of
history, we must be well equipped to recognize different types of
interpretations, why these may differ from each other, and how to
critically sift these interpretations through historical evaluation.
Interpretations of historical events change over time; thus, it is an
important skill for a student of history to track these changes in an attempt
to understand the past.

"Sa Aking Mga Kabata"

is a poem purportedly written by Jose
Rizal when he was eight years old
and is probably one of Rizal's most
prominent works. There is no
evidence to support the claim that this
poem, with the now immortalized
lines "Ang hindi magmahal sa
kanyang salita/mahigit sa hayop at
malansang isda" was written by Rizal,
and worse, the evidence against Rizal's authorship of the poem seems all
unassailable.
There exists no manuscript of the poem handwritten by Rizal. The
poem was first published in 1906, in a book by Hermenegildo Cruz. Cruz
said he received the poem from Gabriel Beato Francisco, who claimed to
have received it in 1884 from Rizal's close friend, Saturnino Raselis. Rizal
never mentioned writing this poem anywhere in his writings, and more
importantly, he never mentioned of having a close friend by the person of
Raselis.
Further criticism of the poem reveals more
about the wrongful attribution of the poem
to Rizal. The poem was written in Tagalog
and referred to the word "kalayaan." But it
was documented in Rizal's letters that he
first encountered the word through a
Marcelo H. del Pilar's translation of Rizal's
essay "El Amor Patrio," where it was
spelled as "kalayahan."
While Rizal's native tongue was Tagalog,
JOSE RIZAL he was educated in Spanish, starting from
his mother, Teodora Alonso. Later on, he would express disappointment
in his difficulty in expressing himself in his native tongue.
The poem's spelling is also suspect—the use of letters "k" and 'W' to
replace "c" and "u," respectively was suggested by Rizal as an adult. If the
poem was indeed written during his time, it should use the original
Spanish orthography that was prevalept in his time.
Many of the things we accept as "true" about the past might not be the
case anymore; just because these were taught to us as "facts" when we
were younger does not mean that it is set in stone—history is, after all, a
construct. And as a construct, it is open for interpretation. There might be
conflicting and competing accounts of the past that need one's attention,
and can impact the way we view our country's history and identity. It is
important, therefore, to subject to evaluation not only the primary source,
but also the historical interpretation of the same, to ensure that the current
interpretation IS reliable to support our acceptance of events of the past.

Multiperspectivity
With several possibilities of interpreting the past, another important
concept that we must note is multiperspectivity. This can be defined as a
way of looking at historical events, personalities' developments, cultures,
and societies from different perspectives. This means that there is a
multitude of ways by which we can view the world, and each could be
equally valid, and at the same time, equally partial as well. Historical
writing is, by definition, biased, partial, and contains preconceptions. The
historian decides on what sources to use, what interpretation to make more
apparent, depending on what his end is. Historians may misinterpret
evidence, attending to those that suggest that a certain event happened,
and then ignore the rest that goes against the evidence. Historians may
omit _significant facts about their subject, which makes the interpretation
unbalanced. Historians may impose a certain ideology to their subject,
which may not be appropriate to the period the subject was from.
Historians may also provide a single cause for an event without
considering other possible causal explanations of said event. These are
just many of the ways a historian may fail in his historical inference,
description, and interpretation. With multiperspectivity as an approach in
history, we must understand that historical interpretations contain
discrepancies, contradictions, ambiguities, and are often the focus of
dissent.
Exploring multiple perspectives in history requires incorporating source
materials that reflect different views of an event in history, because
singular historical narratives do not provide for space to inquire and
investigate. Different sources that counter each other may create space for
more investigation and research, while providing more evidence for those
truths that these sources agree on.
Different kinds of sources also provide different historical truths—
an official document may note different aspects of the past than, say, a
memoir of an ordinary person on the same event. Different historical
agents create different historical truths, and while this may be a
burdensome work for the historian, it also renders more validity to the
historical scholarship.
Taking these in close regard in the reading of historical interpretations, it
provides for the audience a more complex, but also a more complete and
richer understanding of the past.

Case Study l:
Where Did the First Catholic Mass Take Place
in the Philippines?
The popularity of knowing where the "firsts" happened in history
has been an easy way to trivialize history, but this case study will not focus
on the significance (or lack thereof) of the site of the First Catholic Mass
in the Philippines, but rather, use it as a historiographical exercise in the
utilization of evidence and interpretation in reading historical events.
Butuan has long been believed as the site of the first Mass. In fact, this
has been the case for three centuries, culminating in the erection of a
monument in 1872 near Agusan River, which commemorates the
expedition's arrival and celebration of Mass on 8 April 1521. The Butuan
claim has been based on a rather elementary reading of primary sources
from the event.
Toward the end of the
nineteenth century and the
start of the twentieth century,
together with the increasing
scholarship on the history of
the Philippines, a more
nuanced reading of the
available evidence was
made, which brought to light
more considerations in going
against the more accepted interpretation of the first Mass in the
Philippines, made both by Spanish and Filipino scholars.
It must be noted that there are only two primary sources that historians
refer to in identifying the site of the first Mass. One is the log kept by
Francisco Albo, a pilot of one of Magellan's ship, Trinidad. He was one
of the 18 survivors who returned with Sebastian Elcano on the ship
Victoria after they circumnavigated the world. The other, and the more
complete, was the account by Antonio Pigafetta, Primo viaggio intorno al
mondo (First Voyage Around the World). Pigafetta, like Albo, was a
member of the Magellan expedition and an eyewitness of the events,
particularly, of the first Mass.

Primary Source: Albo's Log

Source: "Diario 6 derotero del viage de Magallanes desde el cabo se S.
Agustin en el Brazil hasta el regreso a Espana de la nao Victoria, escrito
por Frandsco Albo," Document no. xxii in Colleciön de viages y
descubrimientos que hicieron por mar los Espanoles desde fines del siglo
XV, Ed. Martin Fcrnandez dé Navarrete (reprinted Buenos Aires 1945, 5
Vols.) IV, 191—225. As cited in Miguel A. Bernad "Butuan or
Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A
Reexamination of Evidence" 1981, Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern
Philippines, Vol. 111, 1-35.

1. On the 16th of March (1521) as they sailed in a westerly course from

Ladrones, they saw land towards the northwest; but owing to many
shallow places they did not approach it. They found later that its
name was Yunagan.

2. They went instead that same day southwards to another small island
named Suluan, and there they anchored. There they saw some
canoes but these fled at the Spaniards' approach. This island was at
9 and two-thirds degrees North latitude.

3. Departing from those two islands. they sailed westward to an

uninhabited island of "Ladd' where they took in a supply of wood
and water. The sea around that island was free from shallows. (Albo
does not give the latitude of this island. but from Pigafetta's
 testimony, this seems to be the "Acquada- or Homonhon, at 10
degrees North latitude.)

4. From that island they sailed westwards towards a large island names
Seilani that was inhabited and was known to have gold. (Seilani or,
as Pigafetta calls it, "Cevlon" ---- was the island of Leyte.)

5. Sailing southwards along the coast of that large island of Seilani,

they turned southwest to a small island called "Mazava." That island
is also at a latitude of 9 and two-thirds degrees North.

6. The people of that island of Mazava were very good. There the
Spaniards planted a cross upon a mountain-top, and from there they
were shown three islands to the west and southwest, where they
were told there was much gold. 'They showed us how the gold was
gathered, which came in small pieces like peas and lentils.'

7. From Mazava they sailed northwards again towards Seilani. They

followed the coast of Seilani in a northwesterly direction, ascending
up to 10 degrees of latitude where they saw three small islands.

8. From there they sailed westwards some ten leagues, and there they
saw three islets, where they dropped anchor for the night. In the
morning they sailed southwest some 12 leagues, down to a latitude
of 10 and one-third degree. There they entered a channel between
two islands, one of which was called "Matan" and the other "Subu."

9. They sailed down that channel and then turned westward and
anchored at the town (la villa) of Subu where they stayed many days
 and obtained provisions and entered into a peace-pact with the local
king.

10. The town of Subu was on an east-west direction with the

islands of Suluan and Mazava. But between Mazava and Subu, there
were so many shallows that the boats could not go westward directly
but has to go (as they did) in a round-about way.

It must be noted
that in Albo's account,
the location of Mazava
fits the location of the
island of Limasawa, at
the southern tip of Leyte,
90* 54'N. Also, Albo
does not mention the first
Mass, but only the
planting of the cross upon a mountain-top from which could be seen three
islands to the west and southwest, which also fits the southern end of
Limasawa.

Primary Source: Pigafetta's Testimony on the Route of Magellan's

Expedition

Source: Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson,

 The Philippine Islands, Vols. 33 and 34, as cited in Miguel A.
Bernad, "Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the
Philippines: A Reexamination of Evidence" 1981, Kinaadman: A Journal
of Southern Philippines, vol. 111, 1-35.

1. Saturday, 16 March 1521 — Magellan's expedition

sighted a "high land" named "Zamal" which was some
300 leagues westward of Ladrones (now the Marianas)
Islands.

2. Sunday, March 17 — 'The following day" after

sighting Zamal Island, they landed on "another island
which was uninhabited" and which lay "to the right" of
the above-mentioned island of "Zamal." (To the "right"
here would mean on their starboard going south or
southwest.) There they set up two tents for the sick
members of the crew and had a sow killed for them.
The name of this island was "Humunu" (Homonhon).
This island was located at 10 degrees North latitude.

3. On that same day (Sunday, March 17), Magellan

named the entire arvhipelago the "Islands of Saint
Lazarus," the reason being that it was Sunday in the
Lenten season when the Gospel assigned for the Mass
and the liturgical Office was the eleventh chapter of St.
 John, which tells of the raising of Lazarus from the
dead.

4. Monday, March 18 — In the afternoon of their second

day on that island, they saw a boat coming towards
them with nine men in it. An exchange of gifts was
effected. Magellan asked for food supplies, and the
men went away, promising to bring rice and other
supplies in "four days."

5. There were two springs of water on that island of

Homonhon. Also they saw there some indications that
there was gold in these islands. Consequently
Magellan renamed the island and called it the
"Watering Place of Good Omen" (Acquada la di bouni
segniallö.

6. Friday, March 22 — At noon the natives returned. This

time they were in two boats, and they brought food
supplies.

7. Magellan's expedition stayed eight days at Homonhon:

from Sunday, March 17, to the Monday of the
following week, March 25.
8. Monday, March 25 — In the afternoon, the expedition
weighed anchor and left the island of Homonhon. In
the ecclesiastical calendar, this day (March 25) was the
feast-day of the Incarnation, also called the feast of the
Annunciation and therefore "Our Lady's Day." On this
day, as they were about to weigh anchor, an accident
happened to Pigafetta: he fell into the water but was
rescued. He attributed his narrow escape from death as
grace obtained through the intercession of the Blessed
Virgin Mary on her feast-day.

9. The route taken by the expedition after leaving

Homonhon was "toward the west southwest, between
four islands: namely, Cenalo, Hiunanghan, Ibusson
and Albarien." Very probably "Cenalo" is a
misspelling in the Italian manuscript for what Pigafetta
in his map calls "Ceilon" and Albo calls "Seilani":
namely the island of Leyte• "Hiunanghan" (a
misspelling of Hinunangan) seemed to Pigafetta to be
a separate island, but is actually on the mainland of
Leyte (i.e., "Ceylon"). On the other hand, Hibuson
(Pigafetta's Ibusson) is an island east of Leyte's
southern tip.Thus, it is easy to see what Pigafetta meant
by sailing "toward t,he west southwest" past those
islands. They left Homonhon sailing westward towards
 Leyte, then followed the Leyte coast southward,
passing between the island of Hibuson on their portside
and Hiunangan Bay on their starboard, and then
continued southward, then turning westward to
"Mazaua."

10. Thursday, March 28 — In the morning of Holy

Thursday, March 28, they anchored off an island where
the previous night they had seen a light or a bonfire.
That island "lies in a latitude of nine and two-thirds
towards the Arctic Pole (i.e., North) and in a longitude
of one hundred and sixty-two degrees from the line of
demarcation. It is twenty-five leagues from the
Acquada, and is called Mazaua."

11. They remained seven days on Mazaua Island.

12. Thursday, April 4 — They left Mazaua, bound for

Cebu. They were guided thither by the king of Mazaua
who sailed in his own boat. Their route took them past
five "islands" namely: "Ceylon, Bohol, Canighan,
Baibai, and Gatighan."
13. At Gatighan, they sailed westward •to the three
islands of the Camotes Group, namely, Poro, Pasihan
and Ponson. Here the Spanish ships stopped to allow
 the king of Mazaua to catch up with them, since the
Spanish ships were much faster than the native
balanghai—a thing that excited the admiration of the
king of Mazaua.
14. From the Camotes Islands they sailed southwards
towards "Zubu."

15. Sunday, April 7 — At noon they entered the

harbor of "Zubu"(Cebu). It had taken them three days
to negotiate the journey from Mazaua northwards to
the Camotes Islands and then southwards to Cebu.

It must be pointed out that both Albo and Pigafetta's testimonies coincide
and corroborate each other. Pigafetta gave more details on what they did
during their weeklong stay at Mazaua.

Primary Source: Pigafetta and Seven Days in Mazaua

SOurce•. Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson, The

Philippine Islands, Vols. 33 and 34, as cited in Miguel A. Bernad, "Butuan
or Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A
Reexamination of Evidence" 1981, Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern

1. Thursday, March 28 — In the morning they anchored near an

island where they had seen a light the night before a small boat
(boloto) came with eight natives, to whom Magellan threw some
trinkets as presents. The natives paddled away, but two hours
 later two larger boats (balanghai) came, in one Of which the
native king sat under an awning of mats. At Magellan's invitation
some of the natives went up the Spanish ship, but the native king
remained seated in his boat. An exchange of gifts was effected.
In the afternoon that day, the Spanish ships weighed anchor and
came closer to shore, anchoring near the native king's village.
This Thursday, March 28, was Thursday in Holy Week, i.e., Holy
Thursday.

2. Friday, March 29 — "Next day. Holy Friday," Magellan sent his

slave interpreter ashore in a small boat to ask the king if he could
provide the expedition with food supplies, and to say that they
had come as friends and not as enemies. In reply the king himself
came in a boat with six or eight men, and this time went up
Magellan's ship and the two men embraced. Another exchange of
gifts was made. The native king and his companions returned
ashore, bringing with them two members of Magellan's
expedition as guests for the night. One of the two was Pigafetta.

3. Saturday, March 30 — Pigafetta and his companion had spent the

previous evening feasting and drinking with the native king and
his son. Pigafetta deplored the fact that, although it was Good
Friday, they had to eat meat. The following morning (Saturday)
Pigafetta and his companion took leave of their hosts and returned
to the ships.

4. Sunday, March 31 — "Early in the morning of Sunday, the last

of March and Easter day," Magellan sent the priest ashore with
some men to prepare for the Mass. Later in the morning Magellan
 landed with some fifty men and Mass was celebrated,. after which
a cross was venerated. Magellan and the Spaniards returned to
the ship for the noon-day meal, but in the afternoon they returned
ashore to plant the cross on the summit of the highest hill. In
attendance both at the Mass and at the planting of the cross were
the king Of Mazaua and the king of Butuan.

5. Sunday, March 31 — On that same afternoon, while on the

summit of the highest hill, Magellan asked the two kings which
ports he should go to in order to obtain more abundant supplies
of food than were available in that island. They replied that there
were 1.11 ree ports to choose from: Ceylon, Zubu, and Calagan.
Of the three. Zubu was the port with the most trade. Magellan
then said that he wished to go to Zubu and to depart the following
morning. He asked for someone to guide him thither. The kings
replied that the pilots would be available "any time." But later
that evening the king of Mazaua changed his mind and said that
he would himself conduct Magellan to Zubu but that he would
first have to bring the harvest in. He asked Magellan to send him
men to help with the harvest.

6. Monday, April 1 — Magellan sent men ashore to help with the

harvest, but no work was done that day because the two kings
were sleeping ofT their drinking bout the night before.

7. Tuesday, April 2 and Wednesday, April 3 — Work on the harvest

during the "next to days," i.e., Tuesday and Wednesday, the 2nd
and 3rd of April.
 8. Thursday, April 4 — They leave Mazaua, bound for Cebu.

Using the primary sources available, Jesuit priest Nliguel A. Bernad

in his work Butuan or Limasawa: The Site of the First Mass in the
Philippines: A Reexamination of Evidence (1981) lays down the argument
that in the
Pigafetta account, a crucial aspect of Butuan was not mentioned—the
river.
Butuan is a riverine settlement, situated on the Agusan River. The beach
of Masao is in the delta of said river. It is a curious omission in the account
of the river, which makes part of a distinct characteristic of Butuan's
geography that seemed to be too important to be missed.

The Age of Exploration

Is a period of competition among European rulers to conquer and
colonize lands outside their original domains. Initially, the goal was to
find alternative routes by sea to get to Asia, the main source of spices and
other commodities. Existing routes to Asia were mainly by land and cost
very expensive. A sea route to Asia means that EUropeans could access
the spice trade directly, greatly reducing costs for traders. Spain's major
foray into the exploration was through Christopher Columbus, who
proposed to sail westward to find a shortcut to Asia. He was able to reach
the Americas, which was then cut-off from the rest of the known world.
Spain colonized parts of North America, Mexico, and South America in
the Sixteenth century. They were also able to reach the Philippines and
claim it for the Spanish crown. Later on, other European rulers would
compete with the activities of exploring and conquering lands.
 It must also be pointed out that later on, after Magellan's death, the
survivors of his expedition went to Mindanao, and seemingly went to
Butuan. In this instance, Pigafetta vividly describes a trip in a river. But
note that this account already happened after Magellan's death.

Case Study 2:
What Happened in the Cavite Mutiny?

The year 1872 is a historic year of two

events: the Cavite Mutiny and the martyrdom of
the three priests: Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos,
and Jacint o Zamora, later on immortalized as
GOMBURZA. These events are very important
milestones in Philippine history and have caused
ripples throughout time, directly influencing the
decisive events of the Philippine Revolution
toward the end of the century. While the significance is unquestioned,
what made this year controversial are the difTerent sides to the story, a
battle of perspectives supported by primary sources. In this case study, we
zoom in to the events of the Cavite Mutiny, a major factor in the
awakening of nationalism among the Filipinos of that time.
Spanish Accounts of the Cavite Mutiny

The documentation of Spanish historian Jose Montero y Vidal

centered on how the event was an attempt in overthrowing the Spanish
government in the Philippines. Although regarded as a historian, his
account of the mutiny was criticized as woefully biased and rabid for a
scholar. Another account from the official report written by then Governor
General Rafael Izquierdo implicated the native clergy, who were then,
active in the movement toward secularization of parishes. These two
accounts corroborated each other.

Primary Source: Excerpts from Montero's Account of the Cavite Mutiny

Source: Jose Montero y Vidal, "Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of
1872," in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources Of
Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990),
269— 273.

The abolition of privileges enjoyed by the laborers of the Cavite

arsenal of exemption from the tribute was, according to some, the cause
Of the insurrection. There were, however, other causes.

The Spanish revolution which

overthrew a secular throne; the propaganda
carried on by an unbridled press against
monarchical principles, attentatory [sic] of
the most sacred respects towards the
dethroned majesty; the democratic and
republican books and pamphlets; the
speeches and preachings of the apostles of
these new ideas in Spain; the outbursts of the
American publicists and the criminal policy
of the senseless Governor whom the Revolutionary government sent to
govern the Philippines, and who put into practice these ideas were the
determining circumstances which gave rise, among certain Filipinos, to
the idea of attaining their independence. It was towards this goal that they
started to work, with the powerful assistance of a certain section of the
native clergy, who out of spite toward friars, made common cause with
the enemies of the mother country.

At various times but especially in the beginning of year 1872, the

authorities received anonymous communications with the information
that a great uprising would break out against
the Spaniards, the minute the fleet at Cavite
left for the South, and that all would be
assassinated, including the friars. But
nobody gave importance to these notices.
The conspiracy had been going on since the
days of La Torre with utmost secrecy. At
times, the principal leaders met either in the
house of Filipino Spaniard, D. Joaquin Pardo
de Tavera, or in that of the native priest,
Jacinto Zamora, and these meetings were
usually attended by the curate of Bacoor, the soul of the movement, whose
energetic character and immense wealth enabled him to exercise a strong
influence.
Primary Source: Excerpts from the Official Report of Governor Izquierdo
on the Cavite Mutiny of 1872

Source: Rafael Izquierdo, "Official Report on the Cavite Mutiny," in

Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine
History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 281—286.

...It seems definite that the insurrection was motivated and prepared
by the native clergy, by the mestizos and native lawyers, and by those
known here as abogadillos...
 The instigators, to carry out their criminal project, protested against
the injustice of the government in not paying the provinces for their
tobacco crop, and against the usury that some practice in documents that
the Finance department gives crop owners who have to sell them at a loss.
They encouraged the rebellion by protesting what they called the injustice
of having obliged the workers in the Cavite arsenal to pay
tribute starting January I and to render personal service, from which they
were formerly exempted...

Up to now it has not been clearly

determined if they planned to establish a
monarchy or a republic, because the Indios
have no word in their language to describe
this different form of government, whose
head in Filipino would be called hari; but it
turns out that they would place at the head
of the government a priest... that the head
selected would be
D. Jose Burgos, or D. Jacinto Zamora...

Such is... the plan of the rebels, those who guided them, and the means
they counted upon for its realization.

It is apparent that the accounts underscore the reason for the

"revolution": the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the workers of the
Cavite arsenal such as exemption from payment of tribute and being
employed in polos y servicios, or force labor.
 They also identified other reasons which seemingly made the issue
a lot more serious, which included the presence of the native clei•gy, who,
out of spite against the Spanish friars, "conspired and supported" the
rebels. Izquierdo, in an obviously biased report, highlighted that attempt
to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines to install a new
in the persons of Fathers Burgos and Zamora. According to him, native
clergy attracted supporters by giving them charismatic assurance that their
fight would not fail because they had God's support, aside from promises
of lofty rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the army.

In the Spaniard's accounts, the event of 1872 was premeditated, and

was part of a big conspiracy among the educated leaders, mestizos,
lawyers, and residents of Manila and Cavite. They allegedly plan to
liquidate highranking Spanish officers, then kill the friars. The signal they
identified among these conspiratorS of Manila and Cavite was the rockets
fired from Intramuros.

The accounts detail that on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc

celebrated the feast of the Virgin of Loreto, and came with it were some
fireworks display. The Cavitefios allegedly mistook this as the signal to
commence with the attack. The 200-men contingent led by Sergeant
Lamadrid attacked Spanish officers at sight and seized the arsenal.
Izquierdo, upon learning of the attack, ordered the reinforcement of the
Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The "revolution" was easily
crushed, when the Manilefios who were expected to aid the Cavitefios did
not arrive. Leaders of the plot were killed in the resulting skirmish, while
Fathers Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora were tried by a court-martial and
sentenced to be executed. Others who were implicated such as Joaquin
Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa, and other
Filipino lawyers were suspended from the practice of law, arrested, and
sentenced to life imprisonment at the Marianas Island. Izquierdo
dissolved the native regiments of artillery and ordered the creation of an
artillery force composed exclusively by Peninsulares.

On 17 February 1872, the GOMBURZA were executed to serve as a threat

to Filipinos never to attempt to fight the Spaniards again.
Differing Accounts of the Events of 1872
Two other primary accounts exist that seem to counter the accounts of
Izquierdo and Montero. First, the account of Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo
Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher, who wrote a Filipino
version of the bloody incident in Cavite.
Primary Source: Excerpts from Pardo de Tavera's Account of the Cavite
Mutiny
Source: Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, "Filipino Version of the Cavite
Mutiny," in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of
Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990),
274— 280.
This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as a powerful level
by the Spanish residents and by the friars... the Central Government in
Madrid had announced its intention to deprive the friars in these islands
of powers of intervention in matters of civil government and of the
direction and management of the university... it was due to these facts and
promises that the Filipinos had great hopes of an improvement in the
affairs of their country, while the friars, on the other hand, feared that their
power in the colony would soon be complete a thing of the past.
•••UP to that time there had been no intention of secession from Spain,
and the only aspiration of the people was to secure the material and
education advancement of the country...
According to this account, the incident was merely a mutiny by Filipino
soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal to the dissatisfaction arising
from
the draconian policies of Izquierdo, such as the abolition of privileges and
the prohibition of the founding of the school of arts and trades for
Filipinos, which the General saw as a smokescreen to creating a political
club.
Tavera is of the opinion that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the
Cavite Mutiny as a way to address other issues by blowing out of
proportion the isolated mutiny attempt. During this time, the Central
Government in Madrid was planning to deprive the friars of all the powers
of intervention in matters of civil government and direction and
management of educational institutions. The friars needed something to
justify their continuing dominance in the country, and the mutiny
provided such opportunity.
However, the Central Spanish
Government introduced an
educational decree fusing
sectarian schools run by the
friars into a school called the
Philippine Institute. The
decree aimed to improve the
standard of education in the
Philippines by requiring
teaching positions in these
schools to be filled by
competitive examinations, an improvement welcomed by most Filipinos.
Another account, this time by French writer Edmund Plauchut,
complemented Tavera's account and analyzed the motivations of the 1872
Cavite Mutiny.
Primary Source: Excerpts from Plauchut's Account of the Cavite Mutiny
Source: Edmund Plauchut, "The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 and the
Martyrdom of Gom-Bur-Za," in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide,
Documentary Sources o/Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National
Book store, 1990), 251-268.
General La Torre... created a junta composed of high officials... including
some friars and six Spanish officials.... At the same time there was created
by the government in Madrid a committee to investigate the same
problems submitted to the Manila committee. When the two finished
work, it was found that they came to the same conclusions. Here is the
summary of the reforms they considered necessary to introduce:
Changes in tariff rates at customs, and the methods of collection.
Removal of surcharges on foreign importations.
Reduction of export fees.
Permission for foreigners to reside in the Philippines, buy real estate,
enjoy freedom of worship, and operate commercial transports flying the
Spanish flag.
Establishment of an advisory council to inform the Minister of Overseas
Affairs in Madrid on the necessary reforms to be implemented.
Changes in primary and secondary education.
Establishment of an Institute of Civil Administration in the Philippines,
rendering unnecessary the sending home of shortterm civil officials every
time there is a change of ministry.
Study of direct-tax system.
Abolition of the tobacco monopoly.
...The arrival in Manila of General Izquierdo... put a sudden end to all
dreams of reforms... the prosecutions instituted by the new Governor
General were probably expected as a result of the bitter disputes between
the Filipino clerics and the friars. Such a policy must really end in a strong
desire on the part of the other to repress cruelly.
In regard to schools, it was previously decreed that there should be in
Manila a Society of Arts and Trades to be opened in March of 1871... to
repress the growth of liberal teachings, General Izquierdo suspended the
opening of the school... the day previous to the scheduled inauguration...
The Filipinos had a duty to render service on public roads construction
and pay taxes every year. But those who were employed at the maestranza
of the artillery, in the engineering shops and arsenal of Cavite, were
exempted from this obligation from time immemorial... Without
preliminaries of any kind, a decree by the Governor withdrew from such
old employees their retirement privileges and declassified them into the
ranks of those who worked on public roads.
The friars used the incident as a part of a larger conspiracy to yement their
dominance, which had
started to show cracks
because of the discontent Of
the Filipinos. They
showcased the mutiny as.part
of a greater conspiracy in the
Philippines by Filipinos to overthrow .the Spanish Government.
Unintentionally, and more so, prophetically, the Cavite Mutiny of 1872
resulted in the martyrdom of GOMBURZA, and paved the way to the
revolution culminating in 1898.
The GOMBURZA is the collective name of the three martyred priests
Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, who were tagged as
the masterminds of the Cavite Mutiny. They were prominent Filipino
priests charged with treason and sedition. It is believed that the Spanish
clergy connected the priests to the mutiny as part of a conspiracy to stifle
the movement of secular priests who desired to have their own parishes
instead of being merely assistants to the regular friars. The GOMBURZA
were executed by garrote in public, a scene purportedly witnessed by a
young Jose Rizal.
Their martyrdom is widely accepted as the dawn of Philippine nationalism
in the nineteenth century, with Rizal dedicating his second novel, El
Filibusterismo, to their memory:
"The Government, by enshrouding your trial in mystery and pardoning
your co-accused, has suggested that some mistake was committed when
your fate was decided; and the whole of the Philippines, in paying homage
to your memory and calling you martyrs, totally rejects your guilt. The
Church, by refusing to degrade you, has put in doubt the crime charged
against you."

Case Study 3: Did Rizal Retract?

Jose Rizal is identified as a hero of the revolution for his writings

that center on ending colonialism and liberating Filipino minds to
contribute to creating the Filipino nation. The great volume of Rizal's
lifework was committed to this end, particularly the more influential ones,
Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. His essays vilify not the Catholic
religion, but the friars, the main agents of injustice in the Philippine
society.
 It is understandable, therefore, that
any piece of writing from Rizal that
recants everything he wrote against the
friars and the Catholic Church in the P
hilippines could deal heavy damage to his
image as a prominent Filipino
revolutionary. Such document purportedly
exists, allegedly signed by Rizal a few
hours before his execution. This
document, referred to as "The Retraction,"
declares Rizal's belief in the Catholic faith,
and retracts evefything he wrote against
the Church.

Primary Source: Rizal's Retraction

Source: Translated from the document found by Fr. Manuel Garcia,
C.M. on 18 May 1935

I declare myself a catholic and in this Religion in which I was born

and educated I wish to live and die.

I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings,

publications and conduct has been contrary to my character as son of the
Catholic Church. I believe and I confess whatever she teaches and I
submit to whatever she demands. I abominate Masonry, as the enemy
which is of the Church, and as a Society prohibited by the Church. The
Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, make
public this spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to repair the
scandal which my acts may have caused and so that God and people may
pardon me.
Manila 29 of December of 1896 Jose Rizal
There are four iterations of the texts of this retraction:' the first was
published in La Voz Espanola and Diario de Manila on the day of the
execution, 30 December 1896. The second text appeared in Barcelona,
Spain, in the magazine La Juventud, a few months after the execution, 14
February 1897, from an anonymous writer who was later on revealed to
be Fr. Vicente Balaguer. However, the "original" text was only found in
the archdiocesan archives on 18 May 1935, after almost four decades of
disappearance.

The Balaguer Testimony

Doubts on the retraction document abound, especially because only
one eyewitness account of the writing of the document exists—that of the
Jesuit friar Fr. Vicente Balaguer. According to his testimony, Rizal woke
up several times, confessed four times, attended a Mass, received
communion, and prayed the rosary, all of which seemed out of character.
But since it is the only testimony of allegedly a "primary/' account that
Rizal ever wrote a retraction document, it has been used to argue the
authenticity of the document.

The Testimony of Cuerpo de Vigilancia

Another eyewitness account surfaced in 2016, through the research of
Professor Rene R. Escalante. In his research, documents of the Cuerpo de
Vigilancia included a report on the last hours of Rizal, written by Federico
Moreno. The report details the statement of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia to
Moreno.
Mon 8:07 AM

Primary Source: Eyewitness Account of the Last Hours of Rizal

Source: Michael Charleston Chua, "Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga Bagong
Dokumento at Pananaw," GMA News Online, published 29 December
2016.
Most Illustrious Sir, the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia stationed in
Fort Santiago to report on the events during the [illegible] day in prison
of the accused Jose Rizal, informs me on this date of the following:

At 7:50 yesterday morning, Jose Rizal entered death row

accompanied by his counsel, Sefior Taviel de Andrade, and the Jesuit
priest Vilaclara. At the urgings of the former and moments after entering,
he was served a light breakfast. At approximately 9, the Assistant of the
Plaza, Senor Maure, asked Rizal if he wanted anything. He replied that at
the moment he only wanted a prayer book, which was brought to him
shortly by Father March.

Sefior Andrade left death row at 10 and Rizal spoke for a long while
with the Jesuit fathers, March and Vilaclara, regarding religious matters,
it seems. It appears that these two presented him with a prepared retraction
on his life and deeds that he refused to sign. They argued about the matter
until 12:30 when Rizal ate some poached egg and a little chicken.
Afterwards he asked to leave to write and wrote for a long time by himself.
At 3 in the afternoon, Father March entered the chapel and Rizal handed
him what he had written. Immediately the chief of the firing squad, Sefior
del Fresno and the Assistant of the Plaza, Sefior Maure, were informed.
They entered death row and together with Rizal signed the document that
the accused had written.

At 5 this morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal arrived at the prison
... dressed in mourning. Only the former entered the chapel, followed by
a military chaplain whose name I cannot ascertain. Donning his formal
clothes and aided by a soldier of the artillery, the nuptials of Rizal and the
woman who had been his lover were performed at the point of death (in
articulo mortis). After embracing him she left, flooded with tears.
This account corroborates the existence of the retraction document, giving
it credence. However, nowhere in the account was Fr. Balaguer
mentioned, which makes the friar a mere secondary source to the writing
of the document
The retraction of Rizal remains to this day, a controversy; many
scholnrN. however, agree that the document does not tarnish the heroism
of Rizal. Il relevance remained solidified to Filipinos and pushed them to
continue the revolution, which eventually resulted in independence in
1898.
Rizal's Connection to the Katipunan is undeniable—in fact, the
precursor of the Katipunan as an organization is the La Liga Filipina, an
organization Rizal founded, with Andres Bonifacio as one of its members.
But La Liga Filipina was short-lived as the Spaniards exiled Rizal to
Dapitan. Former members decided to band together to establish the
Katipunan a few days after Rizal's exile on 7 July 1892.
Rizal may not have been officially part of the Katipunan, but the
Katipuneros showed great appreciation of his work toward the same goals.
Out of the 28 members of the leadership of the Katipunan (known as the
Kataas-taasang Sanggunian ng Katipunan) from 1892 to 1896, 13 were
former members of La Liga Filipina. Katipuneros even used Rizal's name
as a password.

In 1896, the
Katipuneros decided to
inform Rizal of their plans
to launch the revolution,
and sent Pio Valenzuela to
visit Rizal in Dapitan.
Valenzuela's accounts of his
meeting with Rizal have
been greatly doubted by
many scholars, but
according to him, Rizal objected to the plans, saying that doing so would
be tantamount to suicide since it would be difficult to fight the Spaniards
who had the advantage of military resources. He added that the leaders of
the Katipunan must do everything they could to prevent the spilling of
Filipino blood. Valenzuela informed Rizal that the revolu tion could
inevitably break out if the Katipunan were to be discovered by the
Spaniards. Rizal advised Valenzuela that the Katipunan should first
secure the support of wealthy Filipinos to strengthen their cause, and
suggested that Antonio Luna be recruited to direct the military movement
of the revolution.

Case Study 4:
Where Did the Cry of Rebellion Happen?
Momentous events swept the Spanish colonies in the late nineteenth
century, including the Philippines. Journalists of the time referred to the
phrase "El Grito de Rebelion" or "Cry of Rebellion" to mark the start of
these revolutionary events, identifying the places where it happened. In
the Philippines, this happened in August 1896, northeast of Manila, where
they declared rebellion against the Spanish colonial government.

These events are important markers in the history of colonies that

struggled for their independence against thetr colonizers.
The controu•rsy regarding this event stems from the identification of the
date and place where the Cry happened. Prominent Filipino historian
Teodoro Agonctllo emphasizes the event when Ilomfnc10 tore the cedilla
or t.ax r«reipt before the Katipuneros "Sho also did the same, Some
writers identified t he first military eswnt With the Spamnrds ag the

moment of the Cry, for winch. F,nuho Agvnnaldo comnussjoned nn "l

limno de Balintawak" to insptre the renewed struggle after the linct of the
Bink-nn-Bnto failed. A monument to the Heroes of 1896 was erected in
what is now the intersection of Epifanio de los Santos (EDSA) Avenue
and Andres Bonifacio Drive-North Diversion mad. and from then on until
1962, the Cry of Balintawak was celebrated every 26th of August. The
site of the monument was chosen for an unknown reason.
Different Dates and Places of the Cry

Various accounts of the Cry give different dates and places. A

guardia civil, Lt. Olegario Diaz, identified the Cry to have happened in
Balintawak on 25 August 1896. Teodoro Kalaw, Filipino historian, marks
the place to be in Kangkong, Balintawak, on the last week of August 1896.
Santiago Alvarez, a Katipunero and son of Mariano Alvarez, leader of the
Magdiwang faction in Cavite, put the Cry in Bahay Toro in Quezon City
on 24 August 1896. Pio Valenzuela, known Katipunero and privy to many
events concerning the Katipunan stated that the Cry happened in Pugad
Lawin on 23 August 1896. Historian Gregorio Zaide identified the Cry to
have happened in Balintawak on 26 August 1896, while Teodoro
Agoncillo put it at Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896, according to
statements by Pio Valenzuela. Research by historians Milagros Guerrero,
Emmanuel Encarnacion, and Ramon Villegas claimed that the event took
place in Tandang Sora's barn in Gulod, Barangay Banlat, Quezon City, on
24 August 1896.

Primary Source: Accounts of the Cry

Guillermo Masangkay
Source: Guillermo Masangkay, "Cry of Balintawak" in Gregorio Zaide
and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 8
(Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 307—309.

On August 26th, a big meeting was held in Balintawak, at the house

oj• Apolonio Samson, then cabeza of that barrio of Caloocan. Among
Chose who attended, I remember, were Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto,
Aguedo del Rosario, Tomas Remigio, Briccio Pantas, Teodoro Plata, Pio
Valenzuela, Enrique Pacheco, and Francisco Carreon. They were all
leaders of the Katipunan and composed the board of directors of the
organization. Delegates from Bulacan, Cabanatuan, Cavite, and Morong
were also present.
At about nine
o'clock in the morning
of August 26, the
meeting was opened
with Andres Bonifacio
presiding and Emilio
Jacinto acting as
secretary. The purpose
was to discuss when
the uprising was to
take place. Teodoro
Plata, Briccio Pantas,
and Pio Valenzuela were all opposed to starting the revolution too early...
Andres Bonifacio, sensing that he would lose in the discussion then, left
the session hall and talked to the people; who were waiting outside for the
result of the meeting of the leaders. He told the people that the leaders
were arguing against starting the revolution early, and appealed to them
in a fiery speech in which he said: "You remember the fate of our
countrymen who were shot in Bagumbayan. Should we return now to the
towns, the Spaniards will only shoot us. Our organization has been
discovered and we are all marked men. If we don't start the uprising, the
Spaniards will get us anyway. What then, do you say?"
"Revolt!" the people shouted as one.
 Bonifacio then asked the people to give a pledge that they were to
revolt. He told them that the sign of slavery of the Filipinos were (sic) the
cedula tax charged each citizen. "If it is true that you are ready to revolt...
I want to see you destroy your cedulas. It will be a sign that all of us have
declared our severance from the Spaniards."

Pio Valenzuela.
Source: Pio Valenzuela, "Cry of Pugad Lawin," in Gregorio Zaiddand
Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 8
(Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 301—302.

The first place of refuge of Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto,

Procopio Bonifacio, Teodoro Plata, Aguedo del Rosario, and myself was
Balintawak, the first five arriving there on August 19, and I, on August
20' 1896. The first place where some 500 members of the Katipunan met
on August 22, 1896, was the house and yard of Apolonio Samson at
Kangkong. Aside from the persons mentioned above, among those who
were there were Briccio Pantas, Alejandro Santiago, Ramon Bernardo,
Apolonio Samson, and others. Here, views were only exchanged, and no
resolution was debated or adopted. It was at pugad Lawin, the house,
store-house, and yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino, Where
over 1,000 members of the Katipunan met and carried out considerable
debate and discussion on August 23, 1896. The discussion was on whether
or not the revolution against the Spanish government should be started on
August 29, 1896... After the tumultuous meeting, many of those present
tore their cedula certificates and shouted "Long live the Philippines! Long
live the Philippines!"
From the eyewitness accounts presented, there is indeed marked
disagreement among historical witnesses as to the place and time of the
occurrence of the Cry. Using primary and secondary sources, four places
have been identified: Balintawak, Kangkong, Pugad Lawin, and Bahay
Toro, while the dates vary: 23, 24, 25, or 26 August 1896.
Valen'zuela's account should be read with caution: He once told a Spanish
investigator that the "Cry' happened in Balintawak on Wednesday, 26
August 1896. Much later, he wrote in his Memoirs of the Revolution that
it happened at Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896. Such inconsistencies in
accounts should always be seen as a red flag when dealing with primary
sources.
According to Guerrero, Encarnacion, and Villegas, all these places are in
Balintawak, then part of Caloocan, now, in Quezon City. As for the dates,
Bonifacio and his troops may have been moving from one place to another
to avoid being located by the Spanish government, which could explain
why there are several accounts of the Cry.
Chapter exercises
True or False. Write true if the statement is true. Otherwise,
write false in the space provided.
1. Historical interpretation is based on the historian's judgment on how
the past should be seen.

2. We make sense of the past through historical interpretation.

3. Multiperspectivity is a quality of historical writing attributed to a

variety of lenses that may be used to view the past.

4. There is only one account of the First Catholic Mass in the

Philippines.

5. The significance of the martyrdom of the GOMBURZA is

questioned by historians.

6. The Cavite Mutiny is an event that led to the execution of the

GOMBURZA.

7. Jose Rizal's essays go against the Catholic faith.

8. There is no doubt that Rizal retracted his writings to be able to marry

Josephine Bracken.

9. The Cry of the Rebellion happened in present-day Quezon City.

10. The site of the monument to the Heroes of 1896 was chosen
because this is the actual place where the Cry of the Rebellion
happened.