READINGS

IN
PHILIPPINE
HISTORY
 Lesson 2
TOPIC: PHILIPPINE HISTORY:
SPACES FOR CONFLICT AND
CONTROVERSIES
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this lesson, students will have completed the
following objectives:
1. Interpret historical events using primary sources.
2. Recognize the multiplicity of interpretation that can be read
from a historical text.
3. Identify the advantages and disadvantages of employing
critical tools in interpreting historical events through primary
sources.
4. Demonstrate ability to argue for or against a particular
issue using primary sources.
 Historical interpretation is the process by which we
describe, analyze, evaluate, and create an explanation of
past events. We base our interpretation on primary and
secondary historical sources. We analyze the evidence,
contexts, points of view, and frames of reference. Historical
Interpretation requires synthesizing (combining) a variety of
evidence, primary and secondary (critical thinking).
 Historical thinking involves the ability to arrive at meaningful and
persuasive understandings of the past by applying all the other
historical thinking skills, by drawing appropriately on ideas from
different fields of inquiry or disciplines and by creatively fusing
disparate, relevant (and perhaps contradictory) evidence from
primary sources and secondary works. Additionally, synthesis may
involve applying insights about the past to other historical contexts or
circumstances, including the present. These insights (secondary
sources) may come from social science theories and perspectives
and/or the writings of other historians (historiography).
Case Study 1: Where Did the First Catholic Mass Take Place in the
Philippines?
The popularity of knowing where the “firsts” happened in the history has been an easy way to
trivialize history, but this case study will not focus on the significance of the site of the First
Catholic Mass in the Philippines, but rather, use it as a historiographical exercise in the utilization
of evidence and interpretation in reading historical events.
– Antonio Pigafetta - was an Italian scholar and explorer from the Republic of Venice.
• He joined the expedition to the Spice Islands led by explorer Ferdinand Magellan.
• He served as Magellan's assistant and kept an accurate journal.
• Pigafetta was one of the 18 men out of 240 who returned to Spain in 1522.
–Toward the end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th
century, together with the increasing scholarship on the
history of the Philippines, a more noun reading of the
available evidence was made, which brought to light more
considerations in going against the more accepted
interpretation of the first mass in the Philippines, made both
by Spanish and Filipino scholars
–It must be noted that there are only two primary sources that historians refer to
in identifying the site of the first mass.
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 account by Antonio Pigafetta, Primo viaggio intornoal mondo(First
Voyage Around the World).
He was a member of Magellan Expedition and an eyewitness of the Events,
particularly, of the first mass
Historical controversies
– Some Filipino historians have long contested the idea that Limasawa was the site of the first
Catholic mass in the country.

A.Masao
– Historian Sonia Zaide identified Masao (also Mazaua) in Butuan as the location of the first
Christian mass.
The basis of Zaide's claim is the diary of Antonio Pigafetta, chronicler of Magellan's
voyage. In 1995 then Congresswoman Ching Plaza of Agusan del Norte-Butuan City
filed a bill in Congress contesting the Limasawa hypothesis and asserting the "site of the
first mass" was Butuan. The Philippine Congress referred the matter to the National
Historical Institute for it to study the issue and recommend a historical finding.
 B. Bolinao
– Odoric of Pordenone, an Italian and Franciscan friar and
missionary explorer, is heartily believed by many Pangasinenses
to have celebrated the first mass in Pangasinan in around 1324
that would have predated the mass held in 1521 by Ferdinand
Magellan. A marker in front of Bolinao Church states that the
first Mass on Philippine soil was celebrated in Bolinao Bay in
1324 by a Franciscan missionary, Blessed Odorico.
 C. Limasawa, Southern Leyte
– Francisco Albo’s Log Book, one of the pilot in the voyage of Magellan, who
is included in 18 survivors, writes on his book that they erected a cross on a
mountain that overlooks the island.
– On June 19, 1960, the Philippine Congress enacted a bill R.A. No. 2733
declaring Limasawa as the place where Magellan celebrated the first
recorded mass in the Philippines on Easter Sunday, March 31, 1521.
– In 1996, The first ever Christian Mass in the country on March 31, 1521 was
celebrated in the island of Limasawa, south of Leyte and not in Butuan City,
so declared the National Historical Institute.
– Jesuit Priest Miguel A. Bernard , studied pigafetta’s maps and
notice that in pigafetta’s journal he didn’t mention the crucial aspect
of Butuan- the river, which makes a distinct characteristics of
Butuan’s geography that seemed to be much important to be
missed .
– Therefore, the First Catholic Mass in the Philipines was held
on March 31, 1521, Easter Sunday .It was officiated by a priest
named Father Pedro Valderrama in the shore of Mazaua in
Pigafetta’s journal , whom people believe is the town specifically in
the shore of Limasawa in Southern Leyte. It is popularly known as
the birthplace of the Church in the Philippines.
Case Study 2: What happened in the Cavite Mutiny?
The year 1872 is a historic year of two events: The
Cavite Mutiny and the martyrdom of the three priests
later on immortalized as GOMBURZA. What made this
year controversial are the different sides to the story, a
battle of perspectives supported by primary sources
which in effect a major factor in the awakening of
nationalism among the Filipinos.
1872 Cavite Mutiny: Spanish Perspective
– Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian
documented the event and highlighted it as an attempt of
the Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the
Philippines.
– Meanwhile, Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo’s official report
magnified the event and made use of it to implicate the
native clergy, which was then active in the call for
secularization.
– The two Spaniards deemed that the event of 1872 was
planned earlier and was thought of it as a big conspiracy
among educated leaders, mestizos, abogadillos or native
lawyers, residents of Manila and Cavite and the native
clergy. They insinuated that the conspirators of Manila and
Cavite planned to liquidate high-ranking Spanish officers to
be followed by the massacre of the friars. The alleged pre-
concerted signal among the conspirators of Manila and
Cavite was the firing of rockets from the walls of
Intramuros.
– According to the accounts of the two, on 20 January 1872, the
district of Sampaloc celebrated the feast of the Virgin of Loreto,
unfortunately participants to the feast celebrated the occasion
with the usual fireworks displays. Allegedly, those in Cavite
mistook the fireworks as the sign for the attack, and just like what
was agreed upon, the 200-men contingent headed by Sergeant
Lamadrid launched an attack targeting Spanish officers at sight
and seized the arsenal.
– When the news reached the iron-fisted Gov. Izquierdo, he readily ordered
the reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The
“revolution” was easily crushed when the expected reinforcement from Manila
did not come ashore. Major instigators including Sergeant Lamadrid were
killed in the skirmish, while the GOMBURZA were tried by a court-martial and
were sentenced to die by strangulation. Patriots like Joaquin Pardo de
Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa and other abogadillos were
suspended by the Audencia (High Court) from the practice of law, arrested
and were sentenced with life imprisonment at the Marianas Island.
Furthermore, Gov. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and
ordered the creation of artillery force to be composed exclusively of the
Peninsulares.
– On 17 February 1872 in an attempt of the Spanish
government and Frailocracia to instill fear among
the Filipinos so that they may never commit such
daring act again, the GOMBURZA were executed.
This event was tragic but served as one of the
moving forces that shaped Filipino nationalism.
A Response to Injustice: The Filipino Version of the Incident
– Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and
researcher, wrote the Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite.
– In his point of view, the incident was a mere mutiny by the native Filipino
soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal who turned out to be dissatisfied
with the abolition of their privileges. Indirectly, Tavera blamed Gov. Izquierdo’s
cold-blooded policies such as the abolition of privileges of the workers and
native army members of the arsenal and the prohibition of the founding of
school of arts and trades for the Filipinos, which the general believed as a
cover-up for the organization of a political club.
– On 20 January 1872, about 200 men comprised of soldiers,
laborers of the arsenal, and residents of Cavite headed by Sergeant
Lamadrid rose in arms and assassinated the commanding officer
and Spanish officers in sight. The insurgents were expecting support
from the bulk of the army unfortunately, that didn’t happen. The
news about the mutiny reached authorities in Manila and Gen.
Izquierdo immediately ordered the reinforcement of Spanish troops
in Cavite. After two days, the mutiny was officially declared subdued.
– Tavera believed that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite
Mutiny as a powerful lever by magnifying it as a full-blown conspiracy
involving not only the native army but also included residents of Cavite and
Manila, and more importantly the native clergy to overthrow the Spanish
government in the Philippines. It is noteworthy that during the time, the
Central Government in Madrid announced its intention to deprive the friars of
all the powers of intervention in matters of civil government and the direction
and management of educational institutions. This turnout of events was
believed by Tavera, prompted the friars to do something drastic in their dire
sedire to maintain power in the Philippines.
– Meanwhile, in the intention of installing reforms, the Central
Government of Spain welcomed an educational decree authored by
Segismundo Moret promoted the fusion of sectarian schools run by
the friars into a school called Philippine Institute. The decree
proposed to improve the standard of education in the Philippines by
requiring teaching positions in such schools to be filled by
competitive examinations. This improvement was warmly received by
most Filipinos in spite of the native clergy’s zest for secularization.
– The friars, fearing that their influence in the Philippines
would be a thing of the past, took advantage of the
incident and presented it to the Spanish Government as a
vast conspiracy organized throughout the archipelago with
the object of destroying Spanish sovereignty. Tavera sadly
confirmed that the Madrid government came to believe
that the scheme was true without any attempt to
investigate the real facts or extent of the alleged
“revolution” reported by Izquierdo and the friars.
– Convicted educated men who participated in the mutiny were
sentenced life imprisonment while members of the native clergy
headed by the GOMBURZA were tried and executed by garrote.
This episode leads to the awakening of nationalism and eventually to
the outbreak of Philippine Revolution of 1896. The French writer
Edmund Plauchut’s account complimented Tavera’s account by
confirming that the event happened due to discontentment of the
arsenal workers and soldiers in Cavite fort. The Frenchman,
however, dwelt more on the execution of the three martyr priests
which he actually witnessed.
Case Study 3: Did Rizal Retract?
Jose Rizal is identified as a hero of the revolution for his writings that
center on ending on colonialism and liberating Filipino minds to contribute to
creating the Filipino nation.
It is understandable, therefore, that any piece of writing from Rizal that
recants everything he wrote against the friars and the Catholic Church in the
Philippines could deal heavy damage to his image as a prominent Filipino
revolutionary. Such document purportedly exists, allegedly signed by Rizal a
few hours before his execution. This document, referred to as “The Retraction,”
declares Rizal’s belief in the Catholic Faith and retracts everything he wrote
against the Church.
Rizal’s Retraction
on 18 May 1935
I declare myself a Catholic and in this Religion in which I was born and educated I wish to
live and die.
I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct has
been contrary to my character as son of the Catholic Church. I believe and I confess whatever
she teaches and I submit to whatever she demands. I abominate Masonry, as the enemy
which is of the Church, and as a Society prohibited by the Church. The Diocesan Prelate may,
as the Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, make public this spontaneous manifestation of mine in
order to repair the scandal which my acts have caused and so that God and people may
pardon me.
Manila 29 of December of 1896
Jose Rizal
The document of the retraction of Jose Rizal
– On May 18, 1935, the lost "original" document of Rizal’s retraction was
discovered by the archdiocesan archivist Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. The
discovery, instead of ending doubts about Rizal’s retraction, has in fact
encouraged it because the newly discovered text retraction differs significantly
from the text found in the Jesuits’ and the Archbishop’s copies. And, the
fact that the texts of the retraction which appeared in the Manila newspapers
could be shown to be the exact copies of the "original" but only imitations of it.
This means that the friars who controlled the press in Manila had the "original"
while the Jesuits had only the imitations.
Significant differences between the "original" and the texts “copies” of the retraction:
1. Instead of the words "mi cualidad" (with "u") which appear in the original and the
newspaper texts, the Jesuits’ copies have "mi calidad" (with "u").
2. The Jesuits’ copies of the retraction omit the word "Catolica" after the first "Iglesias"
which are found in the original and the newspaper texts.
3. The Jesuits’ copies of the retraction add before the third "Iglesias" the word "misma"
which is not found in the original and the newspaper texts of the retraction.
4. With regards to paragraphing which immediately strikes the eye of the critical reader, Fr.
Balaguer’s text does not begin the second paragraph until the fifth sentences while the
original and the newspaper copies start the second paragraph immediately with the
second sentences.
5. Whereas the texts of the retraction in the original and
in the manila newspapers have only four commas, the
text of Fr. Balaguer’s copy has eleven commas.
6. The most important of all, Fr. Balaguer’s copy did not
have the names of the witnesses from the texts of the
newspapers in Manila.
– Neither the Archbishop nor Fr. Pi saw the original document of
retraction. What they saw was a copy done by one who could
imitate Rizal’s handwriting while the original (almost eaten by
termites) was kept by some friars. Both the Archbishop and Fr. Pi
acted innocently because they did not distinguish between the
genuine and the imitation of Rizal’s handwriting.
– Surely, we must put the question of retraction to rest, though
Rizal is a hero, whether he retracted or not, we must investigate if
he really did a turn-around. If he did not, and the documents were
forgeries, then somebody has to pay for trying to deceive a nation.
Case Study 4: Where Did the Cry of Rebellion
Happen?
The “Cry of Rebellion” marks the start of the revolutionary
events that swept the Spanish colonies in the late 19th century.
This happens on August 1896, northeast of Manila, where they
declared rebellion against the Spanish colonial government.
Controversies arise as to when and where this event happened.
Teodoro Agoncillo said it was when Bonifacio tore the cedula
before the Katipuneros while others say it was when Aguinaldo
commissioned the “Himno de Balintawak” after the pact of
Biak – na – Bato failed.
 A monument for the heroes of 1896 was erected at the corner of
Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA) and in Bonifacio Drive on
1962 and then on the Cry was celebrated every 26th of August.
Different Dates and Places of the Cry
– Lt. Olegario Diaz
The Cry happened in Balintawak on August 25, 1896
according to him.
– Teodoro M. Kalaw (a historian)
Says it happens in Kangkong, Balintawak, last week of
August 1896.
– Santiago Alvarez
A Katipunero and son of Mariano Alvarez, a leader of Magdiwang Faction in
Cavite said it happened in Bahay Toro in Quezon City on August 24, 1896.
– Pio Valenzuela
Also a Katipunero and privy in many events concerning Katipunan said it
happened at Pugad Lawin on 23rd of August.
– Gregorio Zaide
Identified that it happened at Balintawak, 26th of August.
– Teodoro Agoncillo
Put it at Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896 in accordance to Pio Valenzuela’s
account.
– Guillermo Masangkay’s Account
August 26, 1896
A big meeting was held at Antonio Samson, Cabeza of
Balintawak in Caloocan.
Present were Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Aguedo del
Rosario, Tomas Remigio, Briccio Pantas, Teodoro Plata, Pio
Valenzuela, Enrique Pacheco and Francisco Carreon: all
leaders of Katipunan and Board of Directors of the organization.
Also present are delegates from Bulacan, Cabanatuan, Cavite
and Morong.
 The meeting was opened by Bonifacio at 9 o’clock in the morning while
Jacinto act as secretary with the agenda of when the uprising would take
place.
Plata, Pantas , and Valenzuela opposed the idea for it is too early for
the rebellion for them. Bonifacio went out sensing he would lose the
discussion.
Bonifacio appealed to the people outside saying his speech:
The people responded shouting:
“You remember the fate of our countrymen who were shot at Bagumbayan
…Our organization has been discovered and we are marked men. If we don’t
start the uprising the Spaniards will get us anyway. What then you say?”
“Revolt!”
Bonifacio asked the people’s pledge and told them that the sign
of Spanish slavery to Filipinos were the cedula.
“If it is true that you are ready to revolt …. I want to see you
destroy your cedulas. It will be a sign that all of us have
declared our severance from the Spaniards”
After the turbulent meeting, many of those present tore their
cedula certificates and shouted:
“Long live the Philippines! … Long live the Philippines!”
Analysis and Conclusion
With the accounts presented, there is a remarkable disagreement to
where and when the Cry happened. Using primary and secondary sources, it
happened in four places: Balintawak, Kangkong,

Pugad Lawin and Bahay Toro, while the dates differ: 23, 24, 25, or 26th of
August 1986. The differences is due to Bonifacio’s movement from different
place from time to time in evading the Spanish Government who were
pursuing the Katipuneros.
"YOU HAVE TO KNOW THE

PAST,
TO KNOW THE
PRESENT"
-CARL SAGAN