45

CHAPTER 4: CONTROVERSIES
AND CONFLICTING VIEWS IN
PHILIPPINE HISTORY
Introduction
Although much historical writing has a propensity to aim for consensus in interpretation,
no historical debate can be settled by combining opposing viewpoints. Some conclusions are
incompatible with the evidence, while others are, and one of the historian's responsibilities is to
identify interpretations that fail the critical analysis test. While historical truth will always be
speculative, it does exist in the sense that certain conclusions fit the evidence better than others.

Historians who write about contentious issues encounter a variety of challenges.

Controversies can get hot when emotions and individual reputations are involved. When dealing
with historical issues, it's obvious that having a thick skin comes in handy. The venom unleashed
when mistakes are disclosed may only be equaled by the degree to which prejudice prevails over
logic and evidence in such instances. However, in order to comprehend history, we must confront
the facts and allow the data to affect our ideas.

This chapter will help you comprehend and demonstrate your abilities to make arguments
for and against specific problems in the historical event covered in this semester utilizing primary
sources.

Target Learning Outcomes

LO2. Analyze the context, content, and perspective of different kinds of primary sources and the
credibility, authenticity, provenance and their contributions in understanding Philippine
history.
LO4. Evaluate the political, economic, social, cultural development, struggles and
accomplishments of the Filipinos for the welfare of the nation in relation to current social
issues and problems of the present society.
LO6. Effectively communicate, using various techniques and genres, their historical analysis of a
particular event or Issue that could help others understand the chosen topic.
 46

LESSON LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the end of this lesson, the student should be able
LESSON 1: to:
1. Examine the basis of the different version of account
about the location of the first mass in the Philippines.
SITE OF THE 2. Interpret historical events using primary sources.
FIRST MASS 3. Express their own argument of their point of view on
the authenticity of a version they believe in regarding
the first mass.

STARTING POINT
The first Catholic Mass was celebrated on the island of Limasawa in Southern Leyte over 500
years ago. According to Pigafetta's memoirs, the precise date was March 31, 1521. The location of the
first mass, like every other event in Philippine history, was surrounded by controversy. Another
region claimed that their town, not Limasawa, was the site of the first mass. Limasawa was ultimately
acknowledged as the site of the first mass in the Philippines by the National Historical Institute in
1998. It was spoken by Father Pedro de Valderrama near the shores of "Mazaua," according to
Antonio Pigafetta's diaries.

Many people today think that the first mass was conducted in Limasawa, near the southern
tip of Leyte, however this is disputed by those who claim that the first mass was held in Masao,
Butua.

WARMING UP
How important do you think it is to know the real place where a historical event took place?
Try to give a comprehensive response on this.

CONTENT DEVELOPMENT
Limasawa Version

On June 19, 1960, the president gave his permission.

The legislative decree was issued. The location of the first
Mass in the Philippines, in Magallanes, Limasawa Island,
Province of Leyte, is thus proclaimed a national shrine to
commemorate the beginning of Christianity in the Philippines.
Magallanes is located east of Limasawa Island. In 1984,
Imelda Marcos had a multi-million peso Shrine of the First
Holy Mass built on top of a hill overlooking barangay
Magallanes, Limasawa, a building composed of steel, bricks,
and polished concrete. Just a few months later, a big storm
took it away altogether. In 2005, a new shrine was First Mass Shrin in Limasawa
Source: en.wikipedia.org
dedicated.5.
(Continued on next page)
 47
Every March 31, Limasawa hosts a cultural performance and commemorative program called
Sinugdan, which means "beginning," to commemorate the historic and religious arrival of the
Spaniards. However, there is no mention of a Catholic service being conducted on March 31, 1521.

Masao Version
Some historians in the Philippines have
long disputed the claim that Limasawa was the site
of the country's first Catholic mass. Masao (also
Mazaua) in Butuan, according to historian Sonia
Zaide, was the site of the first Christian mass. The
diary of Antonio Pigafetta, Magellan's chronicler,
provides the foundation of Zaide's allegation. In
1995, Agusan del Norte-Butuan City
Congresswoman Ching Plaza submitted a bill in
Congress disputing the Limasawa idea and claiming
The First Catholic Mass in Maso Butuan
Butuan as the "place of the first mass."
Source: en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
The Philippine Congress submitted the case to the National Historical Institute, which would
investigate the situation and provide a recommendation. Dr. Samuel K. Tan, chair of the National
Historical Institute, then reaffirmed Limasawa as the place of the first mass.
Compare and contrast the validity and truth value of the two versions of the summary of
evidences provided below:

Evidences of Limasawa Evidences of Masao

1. The evidence of Albo’s Log-Book 1. The name of the place
2. The Evidence of Pigafetta 2. The route from Homonhon
a) Pigafetta’s testimony regarding 3. The latitude position
the route; 4. The geographical features
b) The evidence of Pigafetta’s map a) the bonfire
c) The two native kings b) the balanghai
d) The seven days at “Mazaua” c) house
e) An argument from omission d) abundance of gold
3. Summary of the evidence of Albo e) a developed settlement
and Pigafetta.
4. Confirmatory evidence from the
Legazpi expedition.

In your own point of view, which of the two accounts or version regarding the
site of the first mass is the most convincing and most reliable? Present your
argumentation.

(Continued on next page)

 48

Assessment: 4.1.1

1. Below is a presentation of a primary source. Make an interpretation of the details presented here and
examine how it can be used to support your argument regarding the location of First Mass in the
Philippines.

Francisco Albo’s Log: Route of Magellan’s Expedition in the Island of Saint Lazarus
(Albo was the author of the Derrotero, or Log-Book . He was the Contramaestre (Boatswain) of
Magellan on the Trinidad, became the Victoria's pilot as it approached Brazil)

“On March 16, 1521 as they sailed in a westerly course from Ladrones or known as Mariana
Island at the present, they saw land towards the northwest but they didn't landed there due to
shallow places and later found its name as Yunagan. On that same day, they went to a small island
called Suluan which is a part of Samar and there they anchored. Leaving those two islands, they sailed
westward to an island of Gada where they took in a supply of wood and water from that island, they
sailed towards west to a large island called Seilani (now Leyte). Along the coast of Seilani, they sailed
southwards and turned southwest until they reached the island of Mazava. From there, they sailed
northwards again towards the Island of Seilani and followed the coast of Seilani towards northwest
and saw three small islands. They sailed westwards and saw three islets where they anchored for the
night. In the morning, they sailed southwest. There, they entered a canal between two island, one of
which was called Subu (now called Cebu) and the other was Matan (now called Mactan). They sailed
towards southwest on that canal then turned westward and anchored at the town of Subu wherein
they stayed there for many days.”

Source: en.wikipedia.org

REFERENCES:
1. Zaide, Gregorio and Sonia Zaide, (1990) Documentary Sources of Philippine History. 12
vols. Manila: National Bookstore.
2. Aguinaldo, T. A. (1990). History of the Filipino People (18th ed). Quezon City: Garotech
Publishing.
3. Candelaria, J.L, Alporha V. Readings in Philippine History First Edition, (2018), Rex Book
Inc. Store, 856 Nicanor Reyes Sr. St., Sampaloc, Manila
4. Halili, M. C. N. (2010). Philippine History. Quezon City: All Nations Publishing
5. De Guzman, R. & Reforma, M. (1998). Government and Politics of the Philippines. New
York: Oxford University Press.
6. Zaide, S. M. (1999). The Philippines a Unique Nation. And ed. Quezon City: All-Nations
Publishing Co., Inc.
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Mass_in_the_Philippines
8. https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1960/ra_2733_1960.html
 49

LESSON LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the end of this lesson, the student should be
able to:
LESSON 2: 1. Examine the basis of the different version
of account about the Cavite Mutiny.
2. Interpret historical events using primary
CAVITE MUTINY sources.
3. Appreciate the advantages and
disadvantages of employing critical tools in
interpreting historical events through
primary sources.

STARTING POINT
The National Historical Institute was tasked by the Philippine Congress to study the matter
and make a recommendation. The chair of the National Historical Institute, Dr. Samuel K. Tan, then
reaffirmed Limasawa as the site of the first mass. Compare and contrast the two versions of the
evidence summary presented below in terms of validity and truth value:

The insurgency was quickly put down, but the Spanish government, led by conservative
governor Rafael de Izquierdo, exaggerated the incident and used it to justify cracking down on
Filipinos who demanded change. Several intellectuals from the Philippines were arrested and
charged with conspiring with the mutineers. After a brief trial, three priests, José Burgos, Jacinto
Zamora, and Mariano Gómez, were publicly executed. The three became martyrs in the war for
Philippine independence after that.

The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 has two known versions, one from the Spanish camp and the
other from the Filipino camp.

WARMING UP
What do you expect someone to say about his opponent? Can you say that person is credible?
Justify your answer.

CONTENT DEVELOPMENT
Spanish Version

Jose Montero y Vidal narrates the Spanish

account of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872. His story is
based on the idea that the fatal incident of
January 20, 1872 occurred as a result of a planned
attempt by dissatisfied native troops and
employees of the Cavite arsenal who voluntarily
revolted to destroy Spanish power, and so were
guilty of rebellion and sedition.
Source: www.slideshare.net
(Continued next page)
 50
The killing of important Spaniards and friars by Spanish authorities is justified by such deeds,
and the sentencing of life imprisonment and deportation of certain indigenous critical of their
incongruent authority is definitely legal, if morally ambiguous. Jose Montero y Vidal's story was even
corroborated by none other than Rafael de Izquierdo, the governor-general at the time of the
rebellion of 1872.

Filipino Version

The Filipino version is told by Trinidad H.

Pardo de Tavera. According to him, the so-called
Cavite Mutiny was merely a response by native
soldiers and laborers to the harsh policy of the
new governor-general, Rafael de Izquierdo, who
whimsically terminated old-time privileges such
as exempting them from paying annual tribute
and from performing forced labor or polo.

According to the accounts, the mutiny

was blown up into a revolution by Spanish
authorities and friars as a method for Filipinos
to seek independence from the Spanish crown.
On January 27, 1872 Governor-General Rafael
Izquierdo approved the death sentences on
forty-one of the mutineers. (en.wekipedia.org)
Tavera believed that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a powerful
lever to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines by magnifying it as a full-blown
conspiracy involving not only the native army but also residents of Cavite and Manila, and most
importantly, the native clergy. It's worth noting that the Central Governance in Madrid stated at the
time that the friars would be stripped of all rights of interference in areas of civil government and
educational direction and management. This change of events, according to Tavera, drove the friars
to take extreme measures in their desperate attempt to preserve authority in the Philippines..

Following the rebellion, some Filipino troops were disarmed

and transported to Mindanao, a small island off the coast of the
Philippines. Those accused of assisting the mutineers directly were
apprehended and executed. The colonial administration and Spanish
friars exploited the rebellion to accuse three secular priests known as
Gomburza: Mariano Gómez, José Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora. On
February 17, 1872, they were killed by garrote at Luneta, popularly
known as Bagumbayan in Tagalog. [1]:107 Because of the murky
nature of the proceedings, these executions, particularly those of the
Gomburza, were expected to have a tremendous impact on the
public.
The Three Martyr
Priests
Source: en.wekipedia.org (Continued on next page)
 51
Below is the comparison of historical details of the same event, Cavite Mutiny of 1872, as
taken from two contending versions:

Spanish Version Circumstanc Filipino Version

es
20 January 1872 at In the night of 20
Date
9:30 in the January 1872
happened
evening
Jose Burgos, Jacinto Jose Burgos, Jacinto
Zamora, Mariano Gomez, Zamora, Mariano
Francisco Saldua, and Gomez, P. Mendoza,
several other Filipino Guevarra, Mariano
priests are among the Sevilla, Feliciano
native clergy. Jose People Gomez, Ballesteros,
Mauricio de Leon, Enrique involved Jose Basa, (lawyers)
Paraiso, Jose Basa, Pio Carillo, Basa,
Basa, Crisanto Reyes, Enriquez, Crisanto
Maximo Paterno, Antonio Reyes, Maximo
Maria Regidor, Joaquin Paterno, Antonio M.
Pardo de Tavera, Pedro Regidor, Joaquin Pardo
Carillo, Gervacio Sanchez, de Tavera, and others.
Jose Mauricio de Leon,
Jose Mauricio de Leon,
Jose Mauricio de Leon,
Jose Mauricio de Leon,
Jose Mauricio de Leon,
Jose Mauricio de Leon, La
Madrid, Sergeant
 The illustrados studying  Despotic governor
in Spain propagate and captain general
liberal principles from Rafael de Izquierdo's
Europe. harsh policy of
 Revolt against Spanish revoking their
power in order to gain privilege of being
independence from Reason/s free from paying
monarchical of annual tribute and
governance. mutiny having to perform
 Exemption from paying forced labor or polo.
annual tribute and
forced labor were among
the privileges enjoyed
by the native soldiers
and laborers of the
Cavite arsenal (polo)
Sentence by execution: Sentence by execution:
 41 rebels (27 January  Sergeant La
1872) Madrid
 Camerino (08  GomBurZa
February 1872) Sentence to life
 Jose Burgos, imprisonment to the
Jacinto Zamora, Casualties Marianas Islands:
Mariano Gomez,  Antonio M.
Francisco Saldua Regidor
 52

Based on the evidences presented by the primary sources, which of

the two versions is more reliable? Prove your answer.

Assessment: 4.2.1

1. Write a critical essay on the possible biases of both versions regarding Cavite mutiny.
2. In your opinion, what are the advantages and disadvantages of employing critical tools in
interpreting historical events through primary sources? Justify your answer.

REFERENCES:
1. Zaide, Gregorio and Sonia Zaide, (1990) Documentary Sources of Philippine History. 12 vols.
Manila: National Bookstore.
2. Aguinaldo, T. A. (1990). History of the Filipino People (18th ed). Quezon City: Garotech
Publishing.
3. Candelaria, J.L, Alporha V. Readings in Philippine History First Edition, (2018), Rex Book Inc.
Store, 856 Nicanor Reyes Sr. St., Sampaloc, Manila
4. Halili, M. C. N. (2010). Philippine History. Quezon City: All Nations Publishing
5. De Guzman, R. & Reforma, M. (1998). Government and Politics of the Philippines. New York:
Oxford University Press.
6. Zaide, S. M. (1999). The Philippines a Unique Nation. And ed. Quezon City: All-Nations
Publishing Co., Inc.
7. https://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/
8. https://www.slideshare.net/KyleHydenManalo/readings-in-the-philippine-history-what-
happened-in-the-cavite-mutin
 53
LESSON LEARNING OUTCOMES
LESSON 3: At the end of this lesson, the student should be
able to:
1. Recognize the multiplicity of interpretation
THE FIRST CRY OF that can be read from a historical text
about the first cry of the revolution
THE REVOLUTION 2. Demonstrate ability to argue for or against
a particular issue using primary sources.

STARTING POINT
The discrediting of the Grito de Balintawak legend was one of Agoncillo's main themes. It has been
commonly assumed since the turn of the century that the first scream of the revolution took place at
Balintawak, Caloocan. Then came Agoncillo, who cited the exact date of the shout as August 23, 1896, and
the precise location as Pugadlawin, not Balintawak. Despite these being academic facts, the Balintawak
culture is still alive and well. Nick Joaquin continues to advocate for Balintawak. According to revolutionary
sources, the Balintawak tradition was more popular than the Pugadlawin tradition.

WARMING UP
What would you say to a witness of an event that changed his or her testimony pertaining to
the details of the event he or she witnessed? For you, is he or she still trustworthy? Justify your
answer.

CONTENT DEVELOPMENT

Pio Valenzuela’ Account

Except in our textbooks, this debate remains unsolved. What was startling was learning that
the Cry had five distinct dates – August 20, 23, 24, 25, and 26 – and five different places for the first
cry: Balintawak, Pugadlawin, Kangkong, Bahay Toro, and Pasong Tamo, depending on which book
one read.

Pio Valenzuela had numerous Cry variations. It

will be able to identify what happened only when they
have been compared and reconciled with the other
accounts.

Was there a gathering on the 23rd of August

1896 at Pugad Lawin, after the conference at Apolonio
Samson's house in Hong Kong? At Kangkong or Pugad
Lawin, were the cedulas torn? (ontiued on next page)
Dr. Pio Valenzuela

Source: wikipedia.com
Continued on next page)
 54
Valenzuela said only that Katipunan meetings took held from Sunday to Tuesday or 23 to 25
August in Balintawak before the Olive Court in September 1896, which was entrusted with
investigating those implicated in the revolt.

According to Valenzuela, the Katipunan began gathering on August 22, 1911, and the Cry took
place on August 23, 1911, at Apolonio Samson's residence in Balintawak.

Valenzuela said that the Cry took place on August 24, 1928, in the residence of Tandang Sora
(Melchora Aquino) at Pugad Lawin, which he currently owns near Pasong Tamo Road. A photograph
of Bonifacio's widow, Gregoria de Jesus, and Katipunan members Valenzuela, Briccio Brigido Pantas,
Alfonso, and Cipriano Pacheco, published in La Opinion in 1928 and 1930, was captioned both times
as having been taken at the site of the Cry on August 24, 1896 at Tandang Sora's house on Pasong
Tamo Road. (https://sites.google.com/site/katipunandocumentsandstudies/studies/notes-on-the-
cry-of-august-1896)

“Na hindi sa Balintawak nangyari ang unang sigaw ng paghihimagsik na kinalalagian ngayon
ng bantayog, kung di sa pook na kilala sa tawag na Pugad Lawin,” declared Valenzuela, Pantas, and
Pacheco in 1935. (Not in Balintawak, where the monument is located, but in Pugad Lawin, where the
revolution's initial cry was heard.)

The specific location of Pugad Lawin was determined as part of sitio Gulod, Banlat, Kalookan
City, by a study team of the Philippines Historical Committee (a predecessor of the National Historical
Institute or NHI) in 1940, which included Pio Valenzuela. The location of the Cry was Tandang Sora's,
not Juan Ramos', according to the NHI's Minutes of the Katipunan in 1964, and the date was August
23.

According to Valenzuela's memoirs (1964, 1978), the Cry occurred on August 23 at Juan
Ramos' residence in Pugad Lawin. Valenzuela's memoirs had a clear impact on the NHI. Following the
NHI's approval, President Diosdado Macapagal decreed that the Cry be commemorated on August 23
and that Pugad Lawin be designated as the location.

The Cry took place on August 23 in Juan Ramos'

home in Pugad Lawin, according to Valenzuela's
memoirs (1964, 1978). The memoirs of Valenzuela
had a significant effect on the NHI. Following the
ratification of the NHI, President Diosdado Macapagal
said that the Cry would be celebrated on August 23
John N. Schrumacher, S.J
and that Pugad Lawin would be the site.
Source: docplayer.net
Pio Valenzuela took a step back on another point. Valenzuela testified in 1896 that when the
Katipunan asked Jose Rizal if the moment had come to rebel, Rizal was adamantly opposed to it.
Valenzuela later reversed his assertion in Agoncillo's Revolt of the People, claiming that Rizal was
supporting the revolt provided certain conditions were satisfied. Valenzuela had lied to save Rizal,
Agoncillo reasoned.
(Continued on net page)
 55
On the morning of August 23rd, more than 1,000 Katipunan members gathered in the yard of
Juan A. Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino. The question of whether the uprising against the Spanish
government should begin on the 29th was debated extensively. Only one individual objected...
However, he was overridden in his position... The decision was then revealed by Bonifacio, who
screamed, "Brothers, it was agreed to continue with the insurrection plan." Do you pledge to oppose
the oppressive government, my brothers?” And the rebels screamed, “Yes, sir!” as one guy
answered. “Bring out your cedulas and rip them to pieces to signify our desire to take arms!” Bonifacio said.
With tear-streaked eyes, the rebels shouted: “Long live the Philippines!” during the event. Katipunan!arms!
Long live the Katipunan!arms!

Agoncillo utilized his enormous clout to

lobby for a change in the recognized
site to Pugad Lawin, as well as a change
in the date to August 23, 1896. Without
official discussions or
recommendations to President
Macapagal, the National Heroes
Commission (a predecessor of the NHI)
was established in 1963.
Source: scribd.com
Teodoro Agoncillo and the UP Student Council erected a plaque at the Pugad Lawin site in
1962. In 1896, the home of Juan Ramos stood there, according to Agoncillo, while the house of
Tandang Sora stood in Pasong Tamo. The Pugad Lawin Historical Committee was established by
Quezon City Mayor Adelina S. Rodriguez on June 30, 1983, to determine the site of Juan Ramos'
1896 home in Pugad Lawin.

The NHI files on the committee’s findings show the following:

 In August 1983, Pugad Lawin in barangay Bahay Toro was inhabited by squatter colonies.
 The NHI believed that it was correct in looking for the house of Juan Ramos and not of Tandang Sora.
However, the former residence of Juan Ramos was clearly defined.
 There was an old dap-dap tree at the site when the NHI conducted its survey I 1983. Teodoro
Agoncillo, Gregorio Zaide and Pio Valenzuela did not mention a dap-dap tree in their books.
 Pio Valenzuela, the main proponent of the “Pugad Lawin” version, was dead by the time the
committee conducted its research.
 Teodoro Agoncillo tried to locate the marker installed in August 1962 by the UP Student Council.
However, was no longer extant in 1983.
 In spite of the above findings and in the absence of any clear evidence, the NHI disregarded its own
1964 report that the Philippine Historical Committee had determined in 1940 that the Pugad Lawin
residence was Tandang Sora’s and not Juan Ramos’s and that the specific site of Pugad Lawin was
Gulod in Banlat.

The presence of the dap-dap tree at the

Pugad Lawin site established by Agoncillo and the
NHI is irrelevant, because none of the principals,
such as Pio Valenzuela, Santiago Alvarez, and others,
historians such as Zaide—and even Agoncillo himself
before that instance—mentioned such a tree. Pugad Lawin Monument in Quezon City
mentioned such a tree.
Source: wikipedia.com
(Continued on next page)
 56
The NHI installed a marker on Seminary Road in barangay Bahay Toro, behind Toro Hills High
School, the Quezon City General Hospital, and the San Jose Seminary, on August 23, 1984, based on
the conclusions of the 1983 committee. Ang Sigaw ng Pugad Lawin (1896) Sa paligid ng pook na ito, si
Andres Bonifacio at mga isang libong Katipunero at nagpulong noong umaga ng ika-23 Agosto 1896,
at ipinasyang maghimagsik laban sa Kastila sa Pilipinas, at ipinasyang maghi Ang kanilang mga sedula
na naging tanda ng pagkaalipin ng mga Pilpino ay pinag-pupunit ang kanilang mga sedula na naging
tanda ng pagkaalipin ng mga Pilpino. Ito ang kaunaunahang sigaw ng Bayang Api na pinatibayan sa
pamamagitan ng paggamit ng sandata laban sa bansang Espanya.

(On this site, Andres Bonifacio and a thousand Katipuneros met on the morning of August 23,
1896, and decided to revolt against the Spanish colonial government in the Philippines; as a symbol
of their resolve, they tore up their tax receipts, which were symbols of the Filipinos' oppression; this
was the first Cry of the Oppressed Nation against Spain that was enforced with the use of arms.)

However, the name "Pugad Lawin" is controversial. Zaide recounts Valenzuela's reference of
the place in a footnote rather than in the body of text in History of the Katipunan (1939), implying
that the Historian considered the subject unresolved.

Given the number of different accounts of the First Cry of the

revolution, can you still believe the decision of the National Historical
Institute to believe that it was held at Pugadlawin rather than
Balintawak? Justify your answer.

Assessment: 4.3.1

1. Based on evidences and argumentations presented in different primary sources, what do you think of
the most valid and precise assertion, those who are saying that the First Cry of the Katipunan
happened in Pugad Lawin or those says that it happened in Balintawak? Support your answer with
evidences.
 57
LESSON LEARNING OUTCOMES
At the end of this lesson, the student should be able
to:
LESSON 4: 1. Identify the advantages and disadvantages of
employing critical tools in interpreting historical
RETRACTION OF events through primary sources.
2. Determine the possible biases of the primary
RIZAL sources utilized by the different accounts about
the allege retraction of Rizal by writing a position
paper.

STARTING POINT
The validity of Jose Rizal's retraction paper is also a major topic of discussion. Since Father
Manuel Garcia, C.M. found Rizal's retraction letter in 1935, its substance has been a source of debate
among academics and Catholics. The National Hero himself was believed to have signed the letter,
which was dated December 29, 1896.

WARMING UP
If you know someone you respect and admire because of its firm stand on its principle, which
declares that the principle it once held is being revoked, how will you react?

CONTENT DEVELOPMENT
The Content of the Document

“I proclaim myself a Catholic, and I desire to

live and die in this religion in which I was born and
educated,” it said. Whatever in my words, thoughts,
publications, and actions has been antithetical to my
character as a son of the Catholic Church, I apologise
wholeheartedly.”

The debate over whether the National Hero

actually wrote a retraction document is largely a
matter of opinion, as no amount of evidence is likely
to persuade the two opposing groups—the Masonic
Rizalists (who are convinced Rizal did not retract) and
the Catholic Rizalists (who are convinced Rizal did
retract)—to agree. Jose Rizal’s Retraction Letter

Source: scribd.com
(Continued on next page)
 58
Jose Rizal was said to have signed it just before his death. There were several witnesses, the
most of them were Jesuits. On May 13, 1935, the document was made public for the first time. Fr.
Manuel A. Gracia discovered it in the Catholic hierarchy's archive in Manila. However, only copies of
the original document were revealed to the public. However, according to Fr. Pio Pi, a Spanish Jesuit,
Rizal's retraction was transcribed precisely and published in Spain in 1907, and then republished in
Manila. Fr. Gracia, who discovered the original manuscript, transcribed it word for word. There were
different variations of the text in both copies. Furthermore, the date of the signature was clearly
stated in the original Spanish paper that Rizal allegedly signed. The year was 1890, and the date was
“December 29, 1890.” Later, an allegedly genuine paper with the date "December 29, 189C"
emerged. The number "0" was clearly changed to resemble the letter C. Then, later, another
ostensibly original version surfaced. The date is “December 29, 1896.” The “0” became a “6” this
time. So, which one is it?

Those who felt the Rizal retraction paper was faked said that the forger of Rizal's signature
was Roman Roque, the same guy who forged Urbano Lacuna's signature, which was used to capture
Aguinaldo. Lazaro Segovia, they claim, was the brains behind both Lacuna's and Rizal's signature
forgeries. During the closing days of the Filipino-American conflict, they were contacted by Spanish
friars who wanted to fake Rizal's signature.

Antonio K. Abad told the story after hearing it from Roman

Roque himself, as they were neighbors. The retraction debate
continues to rage like a wildfire in the middle of the night. Others
think that the friars manufactured Rizal's alleged retraction in order
to divert Rizal's heroism, which was concentrated on the friar
abuses.

Fr. Pio Pi, who reproduced Rizal's retraction precisely, was

also a major figure during the revolution. Andres Bonifacio said that
Antonio K. Abad it was he who informed Aguinaldo of the halt of agitation in
Source: wikipedia.com exchange for amnesty.

Many people believe that Josephine Bracken's autobiography, written on February 22, 1897, was
likewise faked, and that it was forged horribly. The notion that they were married according to Catholic rites
was confirmed by a document purportedly written by Josephine herself. However, a thorough examination
reveals a significant discrepancy between the document's handwriting and those of previous letters sent by
Josephine to Rizal.

Do you believe that Rizal did the

retraction? Prove your answer by
presenting the strongest evidence
and argument that you can.
 59

Assessment: 4.4.1

1. Write a Position Paper. Below is the guideline on how to organize it:

Organization of a Position Paper

(Sample Outline}

I. Introduction
___A. Introduce the topic
___B. Provide background on the topic to explain why it is important
___C. Assert the thesis (your view of the issue). More on thesis statements can be found below.

The aim of your introduction is to both identify the topic and your approach to it (the thesis statement),
as well as to pique your reader's interest in what you have to say. Putting a topic in context – providing a type of
backdrop that puts it in context – is an efficient way of presenting it. You should start by discussing the general
region in which your issue falls, and then go on to your specialized topic. (re: your thesis statement).

II. Counter Argument

___A. Summarize the counterclaims

___B. Provide supporting information for counterclaims
___C. Refute the counterclaims
___D. Give evidence for argument

You can come up with counterarguments by imagining what someone who disagrees with you would
say about each of your points or your whole stance. Consider how you'll reply to your opponent's
counterarguments if you've come up with some. Will you acknowledge that your opponent has a point but
explain why your audience should still accept your argument? Will you dismiss the counter-argument and
explain why it's incorrect? In any case, you'll want to give your reader the impression that your argument is
stronger than the opposition's.
Be compassionate when describing conflicting points of view. Rather of trying to make each viewpoint
appear dumb, present it honestly and objectively. You want to demonstrate that you've thought about both
sides of the argument and aren't just criticizing or insulting your opponents.
It is typically preferable to focus on one or two important counterarguments rather than providing a
large but superficial list of several counterarguments and responses.
Make sure your response is in line with your original point. If you change your mind after contemplating
a counterargument, you'll need to go back and update your initial argument.
III. Your Argument
___A. Assert point #1 of your claims
1. Give your educated and informed opinion
2. Provide support/proof using more than one source (preferably three)
___B. Assert point #2 of your claims
1. Give your educated and informed opinion
2. Provide support/proof using more than one source (preferably three)
___C. Assert point #3 of your claims
1. Give your educated and informed opinion
2. Provide support/proof using more than one source (preferably three)
 60
REFERENCES:
1. Zaide, Gregorio and Sonia Zaide, (1990) Documentary Sources of Philippine History. 12 vols.
Manila: National Bookstore.
2. Aguinaldo, T. A. (1990). History of the Filipino People (18th ed). Quezon City: Garotech
Publishing.
3. Candelaria, J.L, Alporha V. Readings in Philippine History First Edition, (2018), Rex Book Inc.
Store, 856 Nicanor Reyes Sr. St., Sampaloc, Manila
4. Halili, M. C. N. (2010). Philippine History. Quezon City: All Nations Publishing
5. De Guzman, R. & Reforma, M. (1998). Government and Politics of the Philippines. New
York: Oxford University Press.
6. Zaide, S. M. (1999). The Philippines a Unique Nation. And ed. Quezon City: All-Nations
Publishing Co., Inc.
7. Readings in Philippine History: Selected Historical Texts presented with a commentary. By
Horacio de la Costa, S.J. Manila: Bookmark, Inc., 1965. [xii], 351. Sources, Index, n.p. - The
Background of Nationalism and Other Essays. By Larena, P. “Content and Contextual
Analysis of Selected Primary Sources in Philippine History” www.slideshare.net. Retrieved 9
June 2020.
8. APA Style: Philippines. (2014). Britannica Student Library. Encyclopædia Britannica
Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Mass_in_the_Philippines
10. Crave, J. (2019). Cavite Mutiny of 1872 as Told in Two Ways. Retrieved from
https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/cebu-normal-university/bachelor-of-science-in-nursing/
lecture-notes/cavite-mutiny-of-1872-as-told-in-two-ways/5897695/view
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cry_of_Pugad_Lawin
12. Guerrero, M., et al. (2003). In Focus: Balintawak: The Cry for a Nationwide Revolution. Retrieved
from https://ncca.gov.ph/about-culture-and-arts/in-focus/balintawak-the-cry-for-a-nationwide-
revolution/
13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Mass_in_the_Philippines
14. https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1960/ra_2733_1960.html
15. https://www.slideshare.net/KyleHydenManalo/readings-in-the-philippine-history-what-
happened-in-the-cavite-mutiny