1

Module 3

Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and Controversies

Making Sense of the Past: Historical Interpretation

History is the study of the past, but more a 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 of 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 a mythical legal 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 ppeninsula of Batang, Aklan Sakup. Considered the first Filipino
Lawgiver, he promulgated in about 1433 a penal code now known as the 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.”
He attributed the code to a historical fiction written in 1913 by Jose E. Marco entitled Las Antiguas
It was only in 1968that it was proved a hoax, when William Henry Scott, then a doctoralcandidate at
Leyendas de las Isla de Negros. Marco attributed the code itself to a priest named Jose Maria
the University of Santo Tomas, defended his research on pre-Hispanic source in Philippine history.
Pavon. Prominent Filipino historians did not dissent to Scott’s 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 is 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-
historican 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
“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 2
isda” was written by Rizal, and worse, the evidence against Rizal’s authorship of the poem seems all
unassailable.
events change over time; thus, it is an important skill for a student of history to track these
Thereinexist
changes no manuscript
an attempt of the poem
to understand handwritten by Rizal. The poem was first published in
the past.
1906, in a book by Hermenegildo Cruz. Cruz said he received the peom 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 tagalong, he was educated in Spanish, starting from his mother,
Teodora Alonso. Later on, he would express disappointment in his difficulty in expresiing 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 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
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 multiperpectivity. This can be defined as the way of looking at historical events,
personalities , developments, cultures and societies from different perspectives. This means
 3

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 interpret
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 this
subject, which may not be appropriate to the period the subject was from. Historian may also
provide a single cause for an event without considering other possible causal explanations of
said 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 multi 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 a 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
burdensome work for the historian, it also renders more validity to the historical scholarship.

CASE STUDY 1: 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.
 4

Toward the end of 19th century and the start of the 20th 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 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 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 òderotero del viage de magellanes desde el cabo se S. Agustin en el Brazil el
regreso a Espana de la nao Victoria, escrito por Frandsco Albo, “Document n. Xxii in Colleccion
de viages y descubrimientos que hicieron por mas los Españoles desde fines del siglo XV, Ed.
Martin Fernandez de 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 n
Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.

1. On the 6th of March (1521) as they sailed in westerly course from Ladrones, they saw
land towards the northwest; but owing to many shallow places they did not approach it.
They found later its name was Tunagan.

2. They went instead the 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 the 2/3 degrees North latitude.

3. Departing from those two islands of “Gada” where they took in a supply of wood and
water. The sea around the 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 ten degrees North latitude.)

4. From that island they sailed westward towards a large island names SEilani that was
inhabited and was known to have gold. (Seilani – or, as Pigafetta calls it, “Ceylon” – was
the island of Leyte.)
 5

5. Sailing southwards along the coast of that large island of Seilani, they turned southwest
to a small island called “Mazava.” That island is laso at a latitude of 9 and two-thirrds
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 ten 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 the channel and 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 a est-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) ina 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, 9°54’N. Also, Albo does not mention the first
Mass, but only the planting of the cross upon the 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: Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.
 6

1. Saturday, 16 March 1521- Magellan’s expedition sighted a “high land” named “Zamal”
which was some 300 leagues westward of Ladrones (now 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 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 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 archipelago 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 raising 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 bi bouni segnialli)

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 islands
of Homonhon. In the ecclesiastical calendar, this day (March 25) was the feast day of the
Incarnation. Also called the feast of the Anunciation 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 “CANELO” is a misspelling in the Italian manuscript for what
PIGAFETTA in has map calls “CEILON” and ALBO calls “SEILANI”: namely the islands of
 7

LEYTE. “HIUNANGHAN” (a misspelling of HUMUNANGEN) seemed to PIGAFETTA to be a

separate islands, but is actually on the Mainland of LEYTE (I.E.,”CELYON”). 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 the 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 islands “ lies in a
latitude of nine and two-thirds toward 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 GUINED thither by
the king of MAZAUA who sailed in his own boat. Their route took them past five
“islands” namely: “CELYON, BOHOL, CANIGHAN,BAIBAI, and GATIGHAN.”

13. At Gatighan they sailed westward to the three islands of the camotes
group,namely ,PoroPasihan and Ponson. Here the Spanish ships stopped to allow the
king of Mazua to catch up with them,since the Spanish were much faster than the native
balanghai-a thing that excited the admiration of the king of mazua.

14. From the Camotes islands theky sailed southwards towards “Zubu”

15. Sunday, April 7- At noon they enter the harbor of “Zubu” (Cebu). It had taken them has
three days to negotiate the journey from Mazaua northwards to the Camotes islands
and then soutwards to cebu.

It must be pointed out that both Albo and Pigafettas 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 Island,Vols-33 and 34, as
cited in Miguel A. Bernard,”Butuan or Limasawa?The site of the First mass in the Philippines: A
Reexamination of Evidence”1981,Kinaadman: A journal southern Philippines,Vol. III, 1-35.
 8

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 eigth natives, to whom
Magellan trew some trinklets 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 Magellans 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 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 replay 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 exchanged of gifts was made. The native king and his
companion returned ashore, bringing with them two members of Magellan’s
expeditions as guest for the night. One of 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 celebrated, after which a cross
was venerated. Magellan and the Spaniard 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 in order to obtain more
abundant supplies of food than were available in that island. They replied that there
were three 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
 9

changed his mind and said that he would himself conduct Magellan to Zubu but 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 off their drinking bout the night
before.

7. Tuesday, April 2 and Wednesday, April 3 – Work on the harvest during the “next 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 Miguel 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 Amaericas, which was then cut-off from the rest of
the known world.

Spain colonized parts of North America, Mexico, and South America in the 16 th 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 be pointed out 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.
 10

Case study 2: what happened in the CAVITE MUTINITY?

The body 1872 is a historic year of two events: the CAVITE MUTINY and the
MARTYDROM of the three priests: Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, Later on
immortalized as GOMBURZA. These events are very important milestone in Philippines history
and have caused ripples throughout time, directly influencing the decisive events of the
Philippines revolution toward the end of the century. While the SIGNIFICANCE is
unquestioned, what made this year controversial are the different 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 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 MUNITY was criticized as woefully biased and rabid for a scholar.
Another account from the official report written by then Governor General Rafael IZQUIREDO
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 Philippines 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 come, the cause of the insurrection. These were, however, other
cause

The Spanish revolution which overthrew a secular throne; the propaganda carried on by an
unbridled press against monarchical principles, ATTENTORY (sic) of the most sacred respects
toward the dethroned majesty ; the democratic and republican books and pamphlets; the
speeches and PREACHINGS of these new ideas Spain: the outbursts of the American publicists
and the criminal policy of the senseless Governor whom the Revolutionary government sent to
 11

govern the Philippines, and who put into practice these ideas were the determining
circumstances which independence. It was toward
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 a 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 Filipinos Spaniard, D. Joaquin PARDO DE TAVERA, or in that
of the native priest, Jacinto Zamora, and 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 IZQUIRED, “official Report on the Cavite Mutiny;” in Gregorio ZAIDE and Sonia
ZAIDE, Documentary sources of Philippines history, volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store,
1990), 281-286

… it seems definite that insurrection was motivated and prepared by the native clergy, by the
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 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 January 1 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
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 realizations
 12

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 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, native clergy attracted supporters by
giving them charismatic assurance that their flight would not fail because they had God’s
support, aside from promises of lofty rewards such a employment, wealth, and ranks in the
army.

In the Spaniard’s account, the event of1872 was premeditated, and was part of a big
conspiracy among the educated learners, MESTIZOS, lawyers and residents of Manila and
Cavite. They allegedly plan to liquidate high-ranking Spanish officers, then kill the friars. The
signals they identified among these CONSPIRATIONS of manila and Cavite was the rockets
fired from INTRAMUS.

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 CAVITENOS
allegedly mistook this as the signal to commence with the attack. The 200-men CONTINGENT
led by7 Sergeant LAMADRID attacked Spanish officers at sight and seized the arsenal.
IZQUIERDO, upon learning of the attacked, ordered the reinforcement of the Spanish forces in
Cavite to quell the revolt. The “revolution” was easily crushed, when the MANILENOS who
expected to aid the CAVITENOS 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
Marianas Island. IZQUIERDO dissolve the native regiment of artillery and ordered the creation
of an artillery force composed exclusively by PENINSULARES.

On 17 February 187, 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 account 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
 13

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
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 powers in the colony would soon be complete a thing of the
past.

…Up to that time 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 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 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 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 analayzed 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 of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila:
National Book Store, 1990), 251-268
 14

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:

1. Changes in tariff rates at customs and the method of collection.

2. Removal of surcharges on foreign importations.
3. Reduction of export fees.
4. Permission of foreigners to reside in the Philippines, buy real estate, enjoy freedom
of worship, and operate commercial transports flying the Spanish flag.
5. Establishment inform the Minister of Overseas Affairs in Madrid on the necessary
reforms to be implemented.
6. Changes in primary and secondary education.
7. Establishment of an Institute of Civil Administration in the Philippines, rendering
unnecessary the sending home of the short-term civil officials everytime there is a
change of ministry.
8. Study of direct-tax 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 as 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
inaugurations…

The Filipino had the 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 ranks of those who worked on public roads.

The friars used the incident as part of a larger conspiracy to cement their dominance,
which had started to show cracks because of the discontentment of the Filipinos. They
showcased the mutiny as part of a greater conspiracy in the Philippines by Filipinos to
The GOMBURZA is the collective name of the three martyred priests Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos
overthrow the Spanish Government. Unintentionally, and more so, the Cavite Mutiny of
and Jacinto Zamora, who were tagged as the masterminds of the Cavite Mutiny. They were
resulted in the martyrdom of GOMBURZA, and paved the way to the revolution culminating in
prominent Filipino priests charged with treason and sedition. It is believed that the Spanish clergy
1898.
connected the priests to the mutiny as part of a conspiracy to stifle the movement of secular
priests who desired to have their on parishes instead of being merely assistants to the regular
friars. The GOMBURZA ere executed by garrote in public, a scene purportedly witnessed by a
young Rizal.

Their martyrdom is widely accepted as the dawn of Philippine nationalism in the 19 th century,
with Rizal dedicating his second novel, El Filibusterismo, to their memory.
 15

“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 agants of injustice in the Philippine society.

It is understandable, thereof, that in any piece of writing from Rizal that recants
everything he wrote against the friars and the Catholic Church in the Philippines 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 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 May 18, 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
 16

Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, make public this spontaneous manifestation of mine in order
to repair the scandal which my acts 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
Española 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 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 Illostrious 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:
 17

At 7:50 yesterday morning, jose Rizal entered death row accompanied by his counsel, Señor
taviel de Andrade, and the Jesuit priest Vilaclara. At the urgings of the former and
momentsafter entering, he was served a light breakfast. At approximately 9, the Assistant of
the Plaza Señnor 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.

Señor 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 those 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 to 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 Señor del Fresno and the Assistant of the
Plaza, Señor Maure ere informed. They entered death row and together with Rizal signed the
document that he accused had written.

At 5 this moring 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 credence.
Rizal’s Connection
However, nowhere to in
thetheKatipunan
account wasis undeniable-
Fr. Balaguerinmentioned,
fact, the precursor
which makes of the
the katipunan as an
friars a mere
organization
secondary issource
the LatoLiga
the Filipina,
writing ofanthe
organization
document.Rizal Thefounded,
retractionwith Andres
of Rizal Bonifacio
remains as day,
to this one of
a its
controversy;
members. But many scholars
La Liga Filipinahowever,
was shortagree thatasthe
lived thedocument
Spaniardsdoes not Rizal
exiled tarnishinthe heroism
Dapitan. of
Former
Rizal. His
members relevance
decided remained
to band solidified
together to Filipinos
to establish and pushed
the katipunan themdays
a few to continue the exile
after Rizal’s revolution,
on 7 July
which
1892. eventually resulted in independence in 1898.

Rizal may not been officially part of the Katipunan, but the Katiouneros showed great appreciation of
his work toward the same goals. Out of the 28 members of the leadership of the Katipunan (known as
the Kataastaasang Sangunian ng Katipunan) from 1892-1896, 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 his meeting with Rizal have been greatly
doubted by many scholars, buit 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 sources. 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
informed Rizal that the revolution could inevitably break out if the Katipunan ere to be discovered by
the Spaniards. Rizal advised Valenzuela that the Katipunan should first secure that Antonio Luna
recruited to direct the military movement of the revolution.
 18

Case Study 4: Where Did the Cry of Rebellion Happen?

Momentous events swept the Spanish colonies in the late 19 th century, including
Philippines. Journalists of the time refered 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 Agust 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 the colonizers.

The controversy regarding this event stems from the identification of the date and place
where the Cry happened. Prominent historian Teodoro Agoncill 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 inspire 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 delos Santos Avenue (EDSA) 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 the unknown reason.

Different Dates and Places of the Cry

 19

Various accounts of the Cry give different dates and places.A guradia civil, Lt. Olegario
Diaz, identified the Cry to have planned in Balintawak on Agust 25, 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 August 24, 1896. Pio Valenzuela,
known katipunero and privy to many events concerning the Katipunan stated that the Cry
happened in Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896. Historian Gregorio Zaide identified the Cry to
have happened in Balintawak on August 26, 1896, while Teodoro Agoncillo put it in Pugad
Lawin on August 23, 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 August 24, 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 of Apolonio Samson, then
cabeza of that barrio of Caloocan. Among those 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 are all leaders of the Katipunan and
composed the board of directors of the organization and composed the board directors of the
organization. Delegates from Bulacan, Cabanatuan, cavite and Morong ere also present.

At about nine o’clock in the moring 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
the starting the revolution too early, and appealed to them in a fiery speech in which he said:
“You remember the faith 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
 20

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 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 Spaniards.”

Pio Valenzuela
Source: Pio Valenzuela, “Cry of Pugad Lawin,” in Gregorio Zaide and 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 in 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 ere Briccio Pnatas, Alejandro Satiago,
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 witness 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 very:23,24,25 or 26 August 1896.
 21

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 red flag when dealing with primary
sources.

According to Guerrero, Encarnacion, and villenges all these places are in BALINTWAK, then part
of Caloocan, now, in Quezon City. As for 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.
22