Laoag City, Ilocos Norte

MODULE 3: Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and Controversies

Chapter 3

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 judgment. Such judgement of historians on how the past should be seen make the
foundation of historical interpretation.

The Code of Kalantiaw is a mythical 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 following text:

"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, the promulgated in about 1433 about penal code now known as a 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 my 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
Philippines history. He attributed the Code to a historical fiction written in 1913 by Jose E. Marco
titled Las Antiguas Leyendas de lang Isla de Negros. Marco attributed the Code itself to a priest
named Jose Maria Pavon. Prominent Filipino historians did not dissent to Scotts 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, ah 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, and non historian interpreting and
primary sources may do more harm than good- a primary source may even cause
misunderstanding; sometimes, even resulting in more problems.

Interpretations of the past, therefore, vary according to who reads primary sources, when it was
read, and how it was read. As student of history we must be well equipped to recognize
different types of interpretation why these may differ from each other, and how to critically sift
the interpretations through historical evaluation. Interpretations of history event 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 8 yrs. old and
is probably one of Rizals most prominent works. There is no evidence to support the claim that
this poem, with that now immortalized lines "Ang hindi magmahal sa kanyang sariling wika
mahigit pa sa malansang isda" was written by Rizal, and worse the evidence against Rizals
authorship of the poem seems all unassailable.

There exist no manuscript of the poem handwritten by Rizal. The poem was first published in a
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 Rizals 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
Rizals letters that he first encountered the word through a Marcelo H. del Pilars translation of
Rizals essay "El Almor Patrio", where it was spelled as "kalayahan ".

While Rizals native tounge was Tagalog, the 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 tounge.

The poems 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 his time, it should
use the original Spanish orthography that was prevalent 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 open for
interpretation. There might be conflicting and competing account of the past that need ones
attention, important, therefore, to subject to evaluation not only the primary sources, but also the
historical 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,
development, culture and societies from different perspective. This means that there is
multitude of ways by which we can view the world, and each could be equally partial as well.
Historical writing is, by definition, biased, partial, and contain preconception. This historical
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 way a historian may fail in his historical
inference, description, and interpretation. With multiperspectivity as an approach in history,
welcome must understand that historical interpretations contain discrepancies, contradiction,
ambiguities and are often the focus of dissent.

Exploring multiple perspective in history requires incorporating source material that reflect
different views of an event in history, because singular historical narrative do not provide for
space to inquire and investigate. Different source that counter each other may create space for
more investigation and research, while providing more evidence, truths that there sources agree
on.

Different kinds of sources also provide different historical truth-an official document may note
different aspect of the past than, say, ah memoir of an ordinary person on the same event.
Different historical agent creates 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 interpretation, it provides for the audience a more
complete and richer understanding of the past.

CASE STUDY 1: WHERE DID THE FIRST CATHOLIC MASS TAKE PLACE IN THE
PHILIPPINES?

The popularity of knowing where the first happened in history has been an easy way to trivialize
history, but this case study will not focus on the significance of the site of the First Catholic Mass
in the Philippines, but rather, use it as as a historiographical exercise in the utilization of evidence
and interpretation in reading historical event.

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
commemorate the expedition arrival and celebration of Mass on April 8, 1521. The Butuan claim
has been based on a rather elementary reading of primary sources from the event.

Toward the end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th century, together with the increasing
scholarship on the history of the Philippines, ah more nuanced reading of the
available evidence was made, which brought to light more consideration 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 2 primary sources that historians refer to an identifying the site
of the Mass. One is the log kept by Francisco Albo, ah pilot of one of Magellans ship, Trinidad.
The was one of the 18 survivors who returned with Sebastian Elcano in 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, (The Voyage Around the world ). Pigafetta, like Albo,
was a member of the Magellan expedition and an eyewitness of the event, particularly, of the
Mass.

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:Reexamination of evidence" 1981, Kinaadman:And Journal of Southwest Philippines,
Vols. III, 1-35.

Thursday, March 28-In the morning they anchored near in island where they had seen a light the
night before a small boat (boloto) came with 8 natives, to whom Magellan threw some trinkets as
presents. The natives paddled away, but 2 hrs. later 2 larger boats (balanghai) came, in one of
which the native king sat under an awning of mats. At Magellans invitation some of the natives
went up the Spanish ships, but the native king remained seated in his boat. An exchange of gifts
was affected. In the afternoon that day, the Spanish ships weighed anchor and came closer to
shore, anchoring near the native kings 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 8
men, and this time went up Magellans ship and the 2 men embraced. Another exchange of gifts
was made. The native king and his companions returned ashore, bringing with them 2 members
of Magellans expedition as guest for the night. One of the 2 was Pigafetta.

3. Saturday, March 30-Pigafetta and his companions 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 companions
took to 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 we're the king of Mazaua and the king of
Butuan.

5. Sunday, March 31-Om 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 we're able in that island. They replied that there were ports to choose from:Ceylon,
Zubu, and Calagan. Of the Zubu was the port with the most trade. Magellan then said, the wished
to go to Zubu and to depart the following morning. He asked for someone to guide him thither.
The king replied that pilots would be available any time. But later that evening, king of Mazaua
changed his mind and said that he would conduct Magellan to Zubu but he would first have to
bring harvest in. He asked Magellan to send him men to help with harvest.

6. Monday, April 1-Magellan sent men ashore to help with harvest, but no work was done that
day because the 2 king we're sleeping off their drinking bout the night before.

7. Tuesday, April 2 and Wednesday April 3-Work on the hand during the "next to days, i. e. then
and 3rd of April.

8. Thursday, April 4-They leave Mazaua, bound for Cebu.

Using the primary sources available, Jesuit priest Miguel A. Bernard his work Butuan or
Limasawa:The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines:And Reexamination of Evidence (1981)
lays down the argument that in the Pigafettas account, and crucial aspect of Butuan was not
mentioned- the river of Butuan is a riverine settlement, situated on the Agusan River. The beach
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 characteristics of Butuans 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 domain. Initially, the goal was to find alternative routes by
sea to get to Asian the main source of spices and other commodities. Existing routes to Asian
we're mainly by land and cost very expensive. And sea route to Asia means that Europeans could
access the spice trade directly, greatly reducing costs for traders. Spains 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 Americans, which was then cut off from the rest of the known
world.
Spain colonized parts of the North America, Mexico, and South America in the 16th 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 Magellans death, the survivors of his expedition
went to Mindanao, and seemingly went to Butuan. In this instance, Pigafetta vividly describe a
trip in a river. But note that this account already happened after Magellans death.

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

It is apparent that the account 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, of force labor. They also identified other reasons which
seemingly made the issu'e a lot more serious which included the presence of the native clergy,
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 “hari” in the persons of Fathers Burgos and Zamora.‘ AIccoIrding 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 Iotfy 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 mestizIos, lawyers, , and residents of Manila and Cavite. They
allegedly plan to liquidate high ranking 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 Caviteños 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
Cavitends 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, andsentenced to life
imprisonment at the Marianas Island. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and
ordered the creation of Ian 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 must 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

7. Establishment of an Institute of Civil Administration in the Philippines rendering unnecessary

the sending home of short térm civil officials every time there is a change of ministry.

8. Study of directtax system

9. 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 Manilaa 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 cement their deminance, 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 priest to the mutiny as part of a conspiracy to 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 widen 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 Rizals lifework was committed to this end particularly the more influential ones; Noli
Me ‘ Tangere and El Filibusterismo. His essays verify 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 Philippines c0uld 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 everything 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 is 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.

PRIMARY SOURCES: 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 Sin, the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia stationed in Fort Santigo 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, Senor
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.

Senor 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, Senor del Fresno and the Assistant of the Plaza, Senor
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 aticulo 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 scholars, however, agree
that the document does not tarnish the heroism of Rizal. His 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
excile 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 revolution 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 Rebellion" 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, wher they
declared rebellion against the Spanish colonial government. These events are important markers
in the history of colonies that struggled for their independence against their colonizers.

The controversy regarding this event stems from the identification of the date and place where
the Cry happened. Prominent Filipino historian Teodoro Agoncilo emphasizes the event when
Bonifacio tore the cedula or tax receipt before the Katipuneros who also did the same. Some
writers identified the first military event with the Spaniards as the moment of the Cry, for which,
Emilio Aguinaldo commissioned an "Himno de Balintawak" to inspired the renewed struggle
after the Pact of the Biak-na-Bato 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 road, 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 18. 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 Valenzuel. 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 SOURC:

ACCOUNTS OF THE CRY

Guillermo Masangkay
Source: Guillermo Masangkay, "Cry of Balintawak" in Gregorio Zaide and Zonia 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 of Apolonio Samson, then
cabeza of that barrio of Caloocan. Among those who attended, I remember, were Bonifacio,
Emilio Jacinto, Aguedo del Rosario, Tomas Remegio, 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 al 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 Zaide and Sonia Zaide,
Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 8 (Manila: Natinal 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 was 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!.
 N O R T HW E S TE RN U N IV ER S IT Y
From the eyewitness accounts ,INC 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.

Valenzuela'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.

SS 104: Ethics Page

15