First Catholic Mass in the Philippines:

 Celebrated on Limasawa Island, Southern Leyte.

 Date: March 31, 1521, according to Antonio Pigafetta’s memoirs.

Controversy on the Location:

 The location of the first mass is debated in Philippine history.

 Some claim the mass took place in Masao, Butuan, not Limasawa

Pigafetta’s Account:

 Antonio Pigafetta’s diaries refer to the location as “Mazaua.”

 Father Pedro de Valderrama officiated the mass near the shores of Mazaua

Official Recognition:

 In 1998, the National Historical Institute acknowledged Limasawa as the official

site of the first Catholic mass in the Philippines

Current Beliefs:

 Despite official recognition, the debate continues. Many still believe the mass
occurred in Masao, Butuan, rather than Limasawa.

Limasawa Version: Evidence and Details

1. Official Recognition:

 Proclaimed a national shrine on June 19, 1960.

 National Historical Institute (NHI) reaffirmed Limasawa in 1995 as the site of the
first Catholic mass.

2. Key Historical Evidence:

 Albo’s Log-Book: Provides navigational details supporting Limasawa as the site.

 Pigafetta’s Testimony:

 Detailed route leading to Mazaua (Limasawa).

 Pigafetta’s Map: Matches Limasawa’s location.

 Mentions two native kings (consistent with Limasawa’s history).

 Stays seven days in Mazaua, aligns with the geography of Limasawa.

 Argument from omission: Details missing in Butuan’s claim.

  Legazpi Expedition: Confirms earlier accounts of the mass location.

3. Commemorations:

 Annual Sinugdan Festival on March 31 commemorates the event.

 A shrine was built in 1984 but destroyed by a storm. A new shrine was dedicated
in 2005.

Masao Version: Evidence and Details

1. Disputed Claims:

 Supported by historian Sonia Zaide using Pigafetta’s diary as the basis.

 Congresswoman Ching Plaza filed a bill in 1995 claiming Masao as the site.

2. Key Historical Evidence:

 Place Name: “Mazaua” is believed to refer to Masao in Butuan.

 Route from Homonhon: Argued to lead to Butuan rather than Limasawa.

 Latitude Position: Claimed alignment with Masao.

 Geographical Features:

 Bonfire: Referenced in Pigafetta’s account, associated with Masao.

 Balanghai Boats: Found in Butuan, matching Pigafetta’s descriptions.

 Houses: Described settlement in Masao.

 Abundance of Gold: Historical wealth aligns with Butuan’s history.

 Developed Settlement: Butuan’s advanced settlement supports the claim.

3. Investigation Outcome:

 NHI, led by Dr. Samuel K. Tan, reaffirmed Limasawa as the official site.
Cavite Mutiny of 1872: Comparison of Evidence Summaries
Spanish Version (Jose Montero y Vidal)

1. Cause of Mutiny:

 Framed as a planned rebellion by dissatisfied native troops and Cavite arsenal

workers aiming to overthrow Spanish power.

2. Justification for Actions:

 Killing of key Spaniards and friars, imprisonment, and deportation of critical

Filipinos deemed legal but morally questionable.

3. Perspective:

 Emphasized rebellion and sedition to justify harsh measures.

 Supported by Governor-General Rafael de Izquierdo, who endorsed the narrative.

4. Outcome:

 Depicted as a deliberate and large-scale revolt against the Spanish regime.

Filipino Version (Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera)

1. Cause of Mutiny:

 Reaction to Governor Izquierdo’s policies ending long-held privileges like

exemption from tribute and forced labor.

 Not a planned rebellion but a localized protest.

2. Exaggeration by Spanish Authorities:

 Authorities amplified the incident into a full-blown revolution to suppress

Filipino aspirations for independence and discredit native clergy.

3. Role of Spanish Friars:

 Collaborated with Izquierdo to maintain their waning authority in civil

governance and education amidst reforms by Madrid.

4. Impact on Filipino Clergy:

 Gomburza priests (Gómez, Burgos, Zamora) unjustly accused and

executed on February 17, 1872.

 Execution served as a turning point, fueling nationalist sentiments.

5. Post-Mutiny Actions:

 Filipino soldiers disarmed and exiled to Mindanao.

Cry of Balintawak/Pugad Lawin Reviewer

Key Points of Debate

1. Dates: Suggested dates include August 20, 23, 24, 25, and 26, 1896.

2. Locations: Disputed sites include:

 Balintawak

 Pugad Lawin (Juan Ramos’ house, Sitio Gulod, Banlat)

 Kangkong

 Bahay Toro (Seminary Road)

 Pasong Tamo (Tandang Sora’s house).

People and Their Accounts

 1. Pio Valenzuela:
Conflicting claims:

 August 23, 1896, at Juan Ramos’ house in Pugad Lawin.

 August 24, 1928, at Tandang Sora’s house in Pasong Tamo.

 Meetings held August 22–25, 1896, in Balintawak.

 His influence led the National Historical Institute (NHI) to adopt August 23, 1896,
in Pugad Lawin.

2. Teodoro Agoncillo:

 Advocated for August 23, 1896, at Pugad Lawin (Juan Ramos’ house).

 Erected a plaque in 1962 at Pugad Lawin; influenced NHI and President Diosdado
Macapagal.

3. Andres Bonifacio:

 Leader of the Cry on August 23, 1896, with ~1,000 Katipuneros in Juan Ramos’
yard.

 Proclaimed the uprising, tore cedulas, and led the cry: “Long live the Philippines!”.

4. Tandang Sora (Melchora Aquino):

 Some accounts place the Cry at her house in Pasong Tamo.

5. Juan Ramos:

 Son of Melchora Aquino; his house in Pugad Lawin was identified as the Cry’s
location by many accounts.

6. Gregoria de Jesus:

 Widow of Bonifacio, associated with Katipunan events and commemorations.

 7. Briccio Brigido Pantas, Alfonso, Cipriano Pacheco:

 Katipunan members present during key events, according to Valenzuela’s

accounts.

8. Santiago Alvarez:

 Historian and revolutionary, contributed to conflicting narratives.

9. Gregorio Zaide:

 Historian, documented Valenzuela’s accounts, including in a footnote about

Pugad Lawin.

10.President Diosdado Macapagal:

 Declared August 23 as the official date of the Cry and Pugad Lawin as the
location.

11.Quezon City Mayor Adelina S. Rodriguez

 Established the Pugad Lawin Historical Committee in 1983 to determine Juan

Ramos’ house location.

NHI and Pugad Lawin Debate

1. 1940 Findings: Pugad Lawin identified as Tandang Sora’s house in Sitio Gulod,
Banlat.

2. 1983 Findings:

 Pugad Lawin site marked in Bahay Toro near Seminary Road.

  Dap-dap tree at the site considered irrelevant as it was not mentioned by
historical accounts.

Event Highlights (August 23, 1896)

 Location: Pugad Lawin (Juan Ramos’ house).

Key Figures Present:

 Andres Bonifacio

 Juan Ramos

 ~1,000 Katipuneros

Legacy

 Cultural Dispute: Balintawak remains popular despite Pugad Lawin being official.

 Symbolism: The Cry unified Filipinos, symbolizing the start of the revolution
against Spanish oppression.

Reviewer on Jose Rizal’s Retraction

Key Points

1. Discovery of the Retraction Document:

 Found by Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M., in 1935 in the Catholic Church’s archives.
  Content: Rizal proclaimed himself Catholic, apologized for his writings against
the Church, and sought forgiveness.

2. Dates and Text Variations:

 Original document had discrepancies:

 December 29, 1890: Changed to 189C.

 Later versions show December 29, 1896 (corrected “C” to “6”).

 Different transcriptions and reproductions were published, adding to the

confusion.

3. Catholic vs. Masonic Rizalists:

 Catholic Rizalists: Believe Rizal retracted and returned to Catholic faith.

 Masonic Rizalists: Assert Rizal remained steadfast in his ideals and never
retracted.

Controversies

1. Forgery Allegations:

 Roman Roque: Alleged forger of Rizal’s signature, also accused of forging

Urbano Lacuna’s signature during the Filipino-American War.

 Lazaro Segovia: Alleged mastermind behind forgery efforts for Spanish friars.
 2. Josephine Bracken’s Autobiography:

 Document claimed she and Rizal were married under Catholic rites.

 Handwriting analysis suggests discrepancies with her authentic letters to Rizal.

3. Church’s Motive:

 Critics argue the retraction was fabricated by friars to undermine Rizal’s heroism
and highlight his submission to Catholic authority.

Key Figures

1. Jose Rizal: Allegedly signed the retraction on December 29, 1896, hours before
his execution.

2. Fr. Manuel Garcia: Discovered the retraction document in 1935.

3. Fr. Pio Pi:

 Claimed to have transcribed Rizal’s retraction word-for-word.

 Accused of mediating between Aguinaldo and the Spanish for a ceasefire.

4. Roman Roque: Alleged forger of Rizal’s signature.

5. Lazaro Segovia: Allegedly orchestrated the forgeries for Spanish friars.

6. Antonio K. Abad: Heard the forgery story directly from Roman Roque.

7. Josephine Bracken: Supposed autobiography used to confirm her Catholic

marriage to Rizal, but authenticity is questioned.
Arguments Against Retraction

1. Discrepancies in Dates: Conflicting records (1890, 189C, 1896).

2. Forgery Claims: Alleged involvement of friars, Roman Roque, and Lazaro Segovia.

3. Symbolic Undermining: Seen as an effort to reduce Rizal’s revolutionary impact.

Arguments for Retraction

1. Jesuit Witnesses: Several claimed to see Rizal sign the document.

2. Publication: Retraction text published in Spain (1907) and Manila (later years).

3. Religious Context: Rizal’s upbringing and ties to Catholicism made his return
plausible.

Unresolved Nature

 The debate remains inconclusive, driven by ideological beliefs of the opposing

camps.
CHAPTER 5

Constitution Overview

 Definition: Fundamental principles or precedents governing a state or

organization (Oxford, Collins dictionaries).

 Purpose: Outlines government organization, power distribution, and authority

wielders.

Historical Background

1. 1987 Constitution:

 Drafted by the Constitutional Commission led by Cecilia Muñoz Palma.

 Finalized October 12, 1986; ratified February 2, 1987; signed into law February 11,
1987.

 Oversaw by President Corazon C. Aquino; restored democracy and human rights

protection.

2. 1986 Freedom Constitution:

 Promulgated March 25, 1986, by President Corazon C. Aquino.

3. 1973 Constitution:

 Drafted by the 1971 Constitutional Convention; presented to President Ferdinand

Marcos on December 1, 1972.
 Ratified through Citizen’s Assemblies (January 10–15, 1973); amended in 1976,
1980, and 1981.

 Transitioned to a parliamentary government, consolidating Marcos’ power under

Martial Law.

4. 1943 Constitution:

 Approved September 4, 1943, by the Preparatory Committee on Philippine

Independence, led by José P. Laurel.

 Ratified September 7, 1943, by KALIBAPI; functioned under the Japanese-

sponsored Second Philippine Republic.

5. 1935 Constitution:

 Drafted February 8, 1935, by Claro M. Recto.

 Ratified May 14, 1935; approved by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

 Women’s suffrage introduced; remained effective until 1972, except during

Japanese occupation.

6. Philippine Organic Act of 1902:

 Enacted by U.S. Congress on July 1, 1902; first framework for Philippine

governance under U.S. colonial rule.

7. Jones Law of 1916:

 Enacted August 29, 1916, by U.S. Congress; provided a bicameral legislature for
the Philippines.

8. 1899 Malolos Constitution:

  Written by Felipe Calderón y Roca and Felipe Buencamino.

 Approved by the Malolos Congress November 29, 1898, and formally adopted
January 20, 1899.

 Promulgated by President Emilio Aguinaldo on January 21, 1899.

9. 1897 Biak-na-Bato Constitution:

 Written by Isabelo Artacho and Felix Ferrer; modeled after the Cuban Constitution
of Jimaguayu.

 Lasted until the Pact of Biak-na-Bato, signed by Emilio Aguinaldo and Governor-
General Primo de Rivera.

Features of Past Constitutions

1897 Biak-na-Bato Constitution:

 Established the Biak-na-Bato Republic.

 Dissolved after the Pact of Biak-na-Bato.

1935 Constitution:

 Established the Commonwealth of the Philippines.

 First inclusion of women’s suffrage.

1943 Constitution:
  Created under José P. Laurel during Japanese occupation.

 Aimed to legitimize Japanese control and promised independence.

1973 Constitution:

 Changed government to a parliamentary system.

 Consolidated Ferdinand Marcos’ power during Martial Law.

1987 Constitution:

 Restored democracy, human rights, and checks on executive power.

 Introduced party-list representation and abolished capital punishment.

Structure of the 1987 Constitution

1. Preamble

2. Articles:

 Article I: National Territory

 Article II: Declaration of Principles and State Policies

 Article III: Bill of Rights

 Article IV: Citizenship

 Article V: Suffrage

 Article VI: Legislative Department

 Article VII: Executive Department

 Article VIII: Judicial Department

 Article IX: Constitutional Commissions

  Article X: Local Government

 Article XI: Accountability of Public Officers

 Article XII: National Economy and Patrimony

 Article XIII: Social Justice and Human Rights

 Article XIV: Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports

 Article XV: The Family

 Article XVI: General Provisions

 Article XVII: Amendments or Revisions

 Article XVIII: Transitory Provisions

Governance Structure (1987 Constitution)

1. Executive:
 President: Directly elected; powers include executing
laws, declaring martial law, and contracting loans.
 Cabinet: Appointed by the President and confirmed by
the Commission on Appointments.
 2. Legislative:
 Senate: Elected nationwide.
 House of Representatives: Elected by district and
party-list system.
 Powers: Pass laws, declare war (two-thirds vote), and
oversee the budget.

3. Judicial:
 Supreme Court: Appointed by the President;
jurisdiction over constitutional cases and public
officials.

Challenges and Issues

 Economic: Inequitable growth, wealth disparity.
 Governance: Corruption, weak law enforcement,
ineffective justice system.
 Human Rights: Poor protection of vulnerable groups
 (women, children, minorities).
 Regional Development: Uneven progress; insurgency
in Mindanao.

Agrarian reform
1. Pre-Spanish Period

 Philippine society was divided into barangays: Datus (nobility), maharlikas

(freemen), aliping mamamahay (serfs), and aliping saguiguilid (slaves).

2. Spanish Period

 Encomienda System: Spanish colonizers granted land to encomienderos, who

exploited native labor, leading to share tenancy and loss of land for indigenous
farmers.
3. First Philippine Republic (1899)

 Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo: Proposed confiscation of big estates (Friar lands), which
was not carried out due to the short-lived republic.

4. American Period (1898-1946)

 Philippine Bill of 1902: Set land acquisition limits (16 has. For individuals, 1,024
has. For corporations).

 Land Registration Act of 1902: Introduced Torrens system for land registration.

 Public Land Act of 1903: Established the homestead system.

 Tenancy Act of 1933: Regulated landlord-tenant relations in rice and sugarcane

lands.

5. Commonwealth Period (1935-1946)

 President Manuel L. Quezon: Advocated “Social Justice” to address tenant

grievances.

 Commonwealth Act No. 178 (1936): Amended the Rice Tenancy Act, giving more
control over landlord-tenant relations.

 National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC) (1936): Established price controls
for rice and corn.

 Commonwealth Act No. 461 (1937): Set conditions for tenant dismissal, requiring
approval from the Tenancy Division.

6. Japanese Occupation (1942-1945)

 Hukbalahap Movement: Peasants took control of land from Japanese-supporting

landlords but lost these gains post-war.

7. Philippine Republic (1946-1965)

 President Manuel A. Roxas (1946-1948):

 Republic Act No. 34: Established a 70-30 share-tenancy arrangement.

  Republic Act No. 55: Protected tenants from arbitrary eviction.

President Elpidio R. Quirino (1948-1953):

 Executive Order No. 355 (1950): Replaced the National Land Settlement
Administration with the Land Settlement Development Corporation (LASEDECO).

President Ramon Magsaysay (1953-1957):

 Republic Act No. 1160 (1954): Established the National Resettlement and
Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA), focusing on resettling landless farmers
and insurgents in Mindanao and Palawan.

 Advocated for land distribution and improving rural living conditions.

8. Post-World War II and Early Republic (1965-1986)

President Ferdinand Marcos (1965-1986):

 Presidential Decree No. 27 (1972): Implemented land reform by distributing rice

and corn lands to tenants.

 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) (1988): Created during his

administration, continued under Corazon Aquino.

President Corazon Aquino (1986-1992):

 Republic Act No. 6657 (1988): CARP aimed at land distribution and support
services for farmers.

 Republic Act No. 8532 (1998): Extended CARP for 10 more years with an
additional P50 billion for funding.

9. President Fidel V. Ramos (1992-1998):

 Republic Act No. 7881 (1995): Exempted fishponds and prawns from CARP
coverage.
 Republic Act No. 7905 (1995): Strengthened CARP’s implementation.

 Executive Order No. 363 (1997): Set limits on land conversion, protecting
agricultural lands

 Republic Act No. 8532 (1998): Provided additional funds for CARP and extended
its implementation.

10. President Joseph E. Estrada (1998-2001):

 Executive Order No. 151 (1999): Allowed consolidation of small agricultural

operations into medium and large enterprises.

 Established the Magkabalikat para sa Kaunlarang Agraryo (MAGKASAKA)

program for joint ventures in agriculture.

11.President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (2001-2010):

 Land Tenure Improvement: Continued CARP’s land distribution and leasing

components.

 Promoted the KALAHI Agrarian Reform (KAR) zones for rural economic
development.

 Focused on agrarian justice, including hiring more paralegals and implementing a

quota system for case resolution.

12.President Benigno Aquino III (2010-2016):

 Promised to finish CARP, including the distribution of Hacienda Luisita (family

estate).

 Launched the Agrarian Production Credit Program (APCP) to support credit for
farmers.

 Executive Order No. 26 (2011): Created the National Greening Program to

promote environmental sustainability.

 Developed the Agricultural Reform Community Connectivity and Economic

Support Services (ARCCESS) project.
CHAPTER 6
Key Points on Local History in the Philippines:

What is Local History:

 Focuses on history within specific geographical areas, often documented by

local groups.

 Tends to have fewer resources compared to national histories.

Local History as a Microcosm:

 Reflects broader historical events on a small scale, offering a personal

perspective.

 Example: The Russian refugees in Tubabao, Guiuan, highlight larger global events.

Qualities of Local History:

 Originality: Should present new information or insights.

 Historical Value: Focuses on significant, transformative events.

 Community-based Research: Best researched by local people with direct

connections.

Reasons to Study Local History:

 Enhances interest in national history by connecting it to real-life experiences.

 Fosters a sense of realism and preservation.

 Encourages critical thinking and a deeper engagement with historical data.

Importance of Local History in Philippine History:

 National history often overlooks the diverse experiences of regions outside

Central Luzon.
  Local history addresses the gaps and distortions in the national narrative.

Challenges in Philippine Historiography:

 Philippine history has been shaped by colonial sources, neglecting local and oral
traditions.

 Written records are scarce, especially in rural areas, leading to incomplete

national histories.

Role of Local History in National History:

 National history can only be fully understood by integrating local histories from
all regions.

 Local histories reflect the identities and contributions of communities to nation-

building.

Contribution of Local History:

 Enriches national history and promotes unity by including diverse regional

experiences.

 Local communities must document their own histories to ensure accurate

representation in the national narrative.
The Role of the Internet in Historical Research

 The internet is a primary tool for students conducting historical research, offering
vast amounts of information with a simple search. To make the most of it, one
must know how to search effectively, using refined search strings for specific
results. Platforms like Google Scholar, Google Books, and Wikipedia provide
useful resources, with government websites also offering relevant historical data.

Types of Local History

 Institutional History: Focuses on the histories of schools, corporations, and

religious groups.

 Biography: Chronicles the lives of prominent local figures.

 Town Histories: Covers the historical development of towns.

 Social and Political Issues: Discusses local socio-political matters.

Institutional History: Eastern Samar State University (ESSU)

 Founded as Eastern Samar National Regional Agricultural School (ESNRAS) in

1960, the institution evolved over the years, becoming Eastern Samar State
University (ESSU) in 2004. It expanded its programs from agricultural education
to include teacher education, business, engineering, and more. ESSU’s campuses
in Can-avid, Guiuan, Salcedo, and Maydolong each have unique histories, with the
university contributing significantly to local development.

Biography: Eugenio Daza y Salazar (1870-1954)

 Born in Borongan, Eastern Samar, Daza was a prominent revolutionary figure. He

led the Filipino forces during the Philippine-American War and was integral in the
 Battle of Balangiga. Daza later served as a representative in the Philippine
Assembly. His efforts were honored with a monument in Borongan after his
death.

The History of Eastern Samar

 Eastern Samar, once part of Samar province, became an independent province in

1965. The region is notable for historical events like Magellan’s landing in Guiuan
in 1521 and the Balangiga Massacre in 1901, a significant act of resistance
against American forces. Eastern Samar’s rich history continues to influence
local identity.

Local Socio-Political Issues

 Misunderstandings of founding anniversaries are common in municipalities like

Guiuan, Maslog, and Quinapondan. For example, Maslog was mistakenly
recognized as a municipality in 1965, though it was still a district at the time.

The Pulahanes Movement

 The Pulahanes were a religious and military movement active in Samar, known
for their fervent beliefs and skilled use of indigenous martial arts, such as
Derobio Eskrima. They were involved in numerous battles, including the
Balangiga Massacre, but were often perceived as lacking strategic warfare skills.
Their legacy as fierce fighters is integral to the history of Samar’s resistance
against colonial forces.