Instructional Module: Republic of The Philippines Nueva Vizcaya State University Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya

Republic of the Philippines
NUEVA VIZCAYA STATE UNIVERSITY

Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
INSTRUCTIONAL MODULE
IM No.: IM-GEHIST-1STSEM-2020-2021
College of Arts and Sciences

Bayombong Campus
DEGREE PROGRAM General Education COURSE NO. GE HIST

SPECIALIZATION Philippine History COURSE TITLE Readings in Philippine History
YEAR LEVEL All level TIME FRAME 12 hrs WK NO. 7-10 IM NO. 3
I. CHAPTER 3: “One past but many histories”: Controversies and Conflicting Views in
Philippine History
II. LESSON TITLE:

A. Site of the First Mass
B. Cavite Mutiny
C. Retraction of Rizal
D. Cry of Balintawak or Pugadlawin
III. LESSON OVERVIEW:
This chapter comprises events in Philippine History wherein there are controversies and
conflicting views coming from different authors. Students should learn to analyze text from
various perspectives considering historical sources especially the primary source. The first
lesson is a case study of the place of first Catholic mass in the country followed by the different
accounts on the investigation of Cavite Mutiny, then on the issue about the retraction letter of
Dr. Jose P. Rizal and the place where the first cry of revolution was held.
IV. DESIRED LEARNING OUTCOMES:
At the end of this chapter, you should be able to:
1. to interpret historical events using primary sources;

2. to recognize the multiplicity of interpretation that can be read from a historical context;
3. to identify the advantages and disadvantages in employing critical tools in interpreting
historical events through primary sources; and
4. to demonstrate the ability to argue for or against a particular issue using primary sources
V. LESSON CONTENT
CASE STUDY 1:
WHERE DID THE FIRST CATHOLIC MASS TAKE PLACE IN THE PHILIPPINES?
Site of the First Mass

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.
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 1 of 38

“In accordance with Section 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work of Republic Act 8293, the copyrighted works included in
this material may be reproduced for educational purposes only and not for commercial distribution.
Decades after the debate on where the Catholic mass in the Philippines took place has remained
unsolved, local Butuan historians asked the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines
(CBCP) to resolve the first mass controversy in the city’s favor (Macarinas, 2012). Local
historians in Butuan believed that the first site of the Catholic mass took place in Mazawa, a place
in Butuan now called Masao, not in Limasawa Island in Leyte as stated in history books. 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 April 8, 1521. The Butuan
claim has been based on a rather elementary reading of primary sources from the event.
Local historians and president of the Butuan City Heritage Society (BCHS) Greg Hontiveros said
that the “honor” belongs to the City of Butuan and not in Leyte. He also requested the CBCP to
investigate the first mass controversy since the event is very symbolic and important to the
church.
Here is the detailed historical presentation of the BCHS account of the ceremony:
On March 31, 1521, Easter Sunday, Friar Pedro Valderrama celebrated mass together with
Portugese explorer Ferdinand Magellan and his men. With the Spaniards were the ruler of
Mazawa, Rajah Siaias and his brother Rajah Colambu, the ruler of Butuan. Afterwards, they
planted a cross in the highest hill and stayed in the area for seven days together with more than a
hundred of the Rajah’s men.
Father Joesilo Conalla, curator of Butuan Diocesan Liturgical Museum likewise believed that the
site of the first mass was in Butuan, not in Limasawa because the people who attended the mass
harvested rice for two days, meaning that the place was a huge agricultural area. Limasawa
island was not an agricultural area, therefore there is nothing to harvest there, Amalla further
stated.
He also pointed out that one important evidence is the Yale Codex, which according to
Magellan’s history scholars, is more impressive than the Ambrosiana Codex used in the past to
justify both claims. He further stated that the document (referring to the Yale Codex) is now kept
at Yale University while the other two French manuscripts are in the French National Library.
Another proof, according to Fr. Amalla are the versions of Antonio Pigafetta, Magellan’s voyage
chronicler, because there are subtle indicators that can be used.
However, on March 31, 1998, the National Historical Institute chose to adopt the finding in the
Gancayco Panel which dismissed the Ginés de Mafra account as fake and forthwith unilaterally
reverted the discussion to pre-de Mafra context which was back to whether the site of the first
mass was Limasawa, the isle without anchorage, or Butuan, which is not an islet.
Another evidence to prove that the first Catholic site was held somewhere in Butuan and not in
Limasawa Island was the historical account of Joelito Monzon Ramirez Jr., a local historian and
writer.
(1) There was no island named Limasawa in 1521. On that event, Pigafetta recorded
today’s Limasawa as Gatighan Island, between Bohol and Panaon south of Leyte. Magellan
never landed in Gatighan. The name Limasawa appeared only in 1667, Historia de Mindanao, by
Combes. Pigafette saw these islands on their way out from Mazaua after their departure on April
4, after the first mass was celebrated on March 31. (2) They went to Mazaua from Suluan by
sailing, as recorded, downwards – west. From Suluan, Limasawa can be reached by sailing
northwest – but that is not their course. They sailed downwards – west. (3) Upon their departure,
they sailed northwards for Cebu. Had they been in Limasawa, that direction would have landed
them in Ormoc of Leyte.

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 nuanced 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. 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 viaggio 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 ó derotero del viage de Magallanes esde el cabo se S. Agustin en Brazil hasta el
regreso a Espana de la nao Victoria, escrito por Frandsco Albo,” Document no. xxii in Colleción de
viages y descrubrimientos que hicieron por mar 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 Reexamination of
Evidence” 1981, Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.
1. On the 16th of March (1521) as they sailed in a westerly course from Ladrones, they saw land
towards the northwest; but owing to many shallow places they did not approach it. They found
later that its name is Yunagan.
2. They went instead that 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 two-thirds degrees North latitude.
3. Departing from those two islands, they sailed westward to an uninhabited island of “Gada”
where they took in a supply of wood and water. The sea around that 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 Homonhom, at 10 degrees North latitude.)
4. From that island they sailed westwards towards a large island named Seilani that was inhabited
and was known to have gold. (Seilani – or, as Pigafetta calls it, “ Ceylon” – was the island of
Leyte.)
5. Sailing southwards along the coast of that large island of Seilani, they turned southwest to a
small island called “Mazava”. That island is also at a latitude of 9 and two-thirds degrees North.
6. The people of that island 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 10 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 that channel and then 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 an east-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) in a 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 a 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: A Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.
1. Saturday, 16 March 1521 – Magellan’s expedition sighted a “high land” named “Zamal” which
was some 300 leagues westward of Ladrones (now the 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 island 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 had 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 the raising of 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 named the island and
called it the “Watering Place of Good Omen” (Acquada la di 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 island of
Homonhon. In the ecclesiastical calendar, this day (March 25) was the feast-day of the
Incarnation, also called the feast of the Annunciation 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
“Cenalo” is a misspelling in the Italian manuscript for what Pigafetta in his map calls “Ceilon”
and Albo calls “Seilani”: namely the island of Leyte. “Hiunanghan” (a misspelling of Hinunangan)
seemed to Pigafetta to be a separate island, but is actually on the mainland of Leyte (i.e.,
“Ceylon”). 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 island “lies in a latitude of nine
and two-thirds towards 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 guided thither by the king of
Mazaua who sailed in his own boat. Their route took them past five “islands” namely: “Ceylon,
Bohol, Canighan, Baibai, and Gatighan.”
13. At Gatighan, they sailed westward to the three islands of the Camotes Group, namely, Poro,
Pasihan and Ponson. Here the Spanish ships stopped to allow the king of Mazaua to catch up
with them, since the Spanish ships were much faster than the native balanghai – a thing that
excited the admiration of the king of Mazaua.
14. From the Camotes Islands they sailed southwards towards “Zubu.”
15. Sunday, April 7 – At noon they entered the harbor of “Zubu” (Cebu). It had taken them three
days to negotiate the journey from Mazaua northwards to the Camotes Islands and then
southwards to Cebu.
It must be pointed out that both Albo and Pigafetta’s 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 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: A Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.
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 eight natives, to whom Magellan threw some
trinkets as presents. The natives paddled away, bu two hours later two larger boats (balanghai)
came, in one of which the native king sat under an awning of mats. At Magellan’s 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 king’s village. This Thursday, March 28,
was Thursday in Holy Week, i.e., Holy Thursday.
2. Friday, March 29 – “Next day. Holy Friday.” Magellan sent his slave interpreter ashore in a small
boat to ask the king if he could provide the expedition with food supplies, and to say that they
had come as friends and not as enemies. In reply the king himself came in a boat with six or
eight men, and this time went up Magellan’s ship and the two men embraced. Another
exchange of gifts was made. The native king and his companions returned ashore, bringing with
them two members of Magellan’s expedition as guests for the night. One of the 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 was celebrated, after which a cross was
venerated. Magellan and the Spaniards returned to the ship for the noon-day meal, but in the
afternoon, they returned ashore to plant the cross on the summit of the highest hill. In
attendance both at the4 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 to 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 changed his mind and said that he would himself conduct Magellan
to Zubu but that 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 dfone
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 to 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 Re-examination of Evidence (1891) 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
characteristics of Butuan’s geography that seemed to be too important to be missed.
It must also be pointed out that 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.

CASE STUDY 2:
WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CAVITE MUTINY?
Cavite Mutiny happened on the night of January 20, 1872 which is a brief uprising or revolt of 200
Filipino troops and workers led by Sgt. La Madrid in Cavite. Almost a month after investigations was
conducted, three priests was said to be the mastermind of the said event. They were executed through
a garrote at Bagumbayan Field (now Rizal Park) on February 30, 1872. They are known as the three
martyr or GOMBURZA namely Mariano Gomez, 85 years old, Jose Burgos, 30 years old and Jacinto
Zamora, 35 years old. Jose P. Rizal dedicated his novel, El Filibusterismo, in memory of the three
martyred priests, a scene Rizal purportedly witness when he was young. Those two are major events
in Philippine history that is an important factor to awaken nationalism among the Filipinos.
There are different sides of the story wherein investigations coming from different sources. The
Spanish version by Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian and the Filipino version by Dr.
Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher. Sources are both based form Chris
Antonette Piedad-Pugay, a history writer. Included here is another version. a primary source, which is
an excerpt by Edmund Plauchut, a French writer.
Spanish Perspective of 1872 Cavite Mutiny
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 accounts complimented and corroborated
with one other, only that the general’s report was more spiteful. Initially, both Montero and Izquierdo
scored out that the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the workers of Cavite arsenal such as non-
payment of tributes and exemption from force labor were the main reasons of the “revolution” as how
they called it, however, other causes were enumerated by them including the Spanish Revolution which
overthrew the secular throne, dirty propagandas proliferated by unrestrained press, democratic, liberal
and republican books and pamphlets reaching the Philippines, and most importantly, the presence of
the native clergy who out of animosity against the Spanish friars, “conspired and supported” the rebels
and enemies of Spain. In particular, Izquierdo blamed the unruly Spanish Press for “stockpiling”
malicious propagandas grasped by the Filipinos. He reported to the King of Spain that the “rebels”
wanted to overthrow the Spanish government to install a new “hari” in the likes of Fathers Burgos and
Zamora. The general even added that the native clergy enticed other participants by giving them
charismatic assurance that their fight will not fail because God is with them coupled with handsome
promises of rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the army. Izquierdo, in his report
lambasted the Indios as gullible and possessed an innate propensity for stealing.
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.
Filipino Perspective 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.
Edmund Plauchut’s, “The Cavite Munity of 1872 and the Martyrdom of Gom-Bur-Za”
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 introduced:

1. Changes in tariff rates at customs, and the methods of collection
2. Removal of surcharges on foreign importations.
3. Reduction of export fees.
4. Permission for foreigners to reside in the Philippines, buy real estate, enjoy freedom of worship, and
operate commercial transforms flying the Spanish flag.
5. Establishment of an advisory council to inform the Minister of Overseas Affairs in Madrid in 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 short-term civil official’s every time there is a change of ministry.
8. Study of direct-tax system.
9. Abolition of the tobacco monopoly
Unraveling the Truth
Considering the four accounts of the 1872 Mutiny, there were some basic facts that remained to be
unvarying: First, there was dissatisfaction among the workers of the arsenal as well as the members of
the native army after their privileges were drawn back by Gen. Izquierdo; Second, Gen. Izquierdo
introduced rigid and strict policies that made the Filipinos move and turn away from Spanish
government out of disgust; Third, the Central Government failed to conduct an investigation on what
truly transpired but relied on reports of Izquierdo and the friars and the opinion of the public; Fourth, the
happy days of the friars were already numbered in 1872 when the Central Government in Spain
decided to deprive them of the power to intervene in government affairs as well as in the direction and
management of schools prompting them to commit frantic moves to extend their stay and power; Fifth,
the Filipino clergy members actively participated in the secularization movement in order to allow
Filipino priests to take hold of the parishes in the country making them prey to the rage of the friars;
Sixth, Filipinos during the time were active participants, and responded to what they deemed as
injustices; and Lastly, the execution of GOMBURZA was a blunder on the part of the Spanish
government, for the action severed the ill-feelings of the Filipinos and the event inspired Filipino patriots
to call for reforms and eventually independence. There may be different versions of the event, but one
thing is certain, the 1872 Cavite Mutiny paved way for a momentous 1898.
The road to independence was rough and tough to toddle, many patriots named and unnamed shed
their bloods to attain reforms and achieve independence. 12 June 1898 may be a glorious event for us,
but we should not forget that before we came across to victory, our forefathers suffered enough. As we
enjoy our freeedom, may we be more historically aware of our past to have a better future ahead of us.
And just like what Elias said in Noli me Tangere, may we “not forget those who fell during the night.”
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 agents of injustice in
the Philippine society.
It is understandable, therefore, that any piece of writing from Rizal that recants everything he wrote
against the friars and the Catholic Church in the Philippines 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 letter was discovered by Father Manuel Garcia, C.M. in 1935. From this time on, the
letter’s content has become a favorite subject of dispute among history writers, history professors, and
academicians. The retraction letter dated December 29, 1896 was said to have been signed by Rizal
himself.
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 Superior Ecclesiastical Authority,
make public this spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to repair the scandal which my acts may
have caused and so that God and people may pardon me.
Manila 29 of December of 1896

Jose Rizal
There are four iterations of the texts of this retraction: the first was published in La Voz Española and
Diaro de Manila on the day of the execution, 30 December 1896. The second text appeared in
Barcelona, Spain, in the magazine La Juventad, 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.
Prelude to Rizal’s Signing of the Retraction Document
Some authors of history books dealing with Life, Works, and Writings of Jose Rizal stated that the
first draft of the retraction letter was sent by Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda to Rizal’s cell in Fort
Santiago the night before his execution. Fort Santiago was the place where Rizal was imprisoned and
where Rizal wrote his 14-stanza poem “Mi Ultimo Adios.” But Rizal was said to have rejected the draft
because it was lengthy and did not like the wordings.
According to a testimony of Fr. Vicente Balaguer who became Rizal’s friend in Dapitan, Rizal accepted
a short retraction document prepared by Fr. Pio Pi, the head of the Jesuit Society of the Philippines.
However, Rizal wrote his own retraction after making some modification in the shorter retraction letter
shown to him. In his own retraction letter, he disavowed masonry and religious thoughts that opposed
Catholic belief.

Concluding Statement on Rizal’s Controversial Retraction
Whether Rizal signed a retraction or not, Rizal is still Rizal. It did not diminish his stature as a great
patriot, the hero who courted death “to prove to those who deny our patriotism that we know how to die
for our duty and our beliefs.” (Jose Diokno’s statement).
Rizal’s retraction or not did not change the fact that his works and writings began the “wheels of
change” in the Philippine colonial society – a change that led to the Philippine independence. The
retraction is just one aspect of the life, works, and writings of Jose Rizal. (Jose Victor Torres).
Torres noted that the controversy in Rizal’s retraction is irrelevant today. The way Rizal is taught today,
the retraction means nothing at all, Torres added.
CASE STUDY 4:
WHERE DID THE FIRST CRY OF REVOLUTION HAPPENED?
Interpreting history requires incorporating source materials that reflect different views of an event in
history. This historical even happened during the struggle for Philippine independence. Andres
Bonifacio and his Katipunan comrades tore their cedulas which is said to be the starting signal of the
revolution in our country.
Sample copy of cedula
The following accounts are derived from different witnesses when the first cry of revolution happened.
Take note that we have to correct history as we analyze what really transpired, in what place according
to different witnesses and author.
a) Lt. Olegario Diaz: officer of the Spanish Guardia Civil, took place in Balintawak on August 25,
1896
b) Teodoro Kalaw (Filipino historian): in his 1925 book The Filipino Revolution, took place during
the last week of August 1896 at Kangkong, Balintawak.
c) Santiago Alvarez: son of Mariano Alvarez, the leader of the Magdiwang in Cavite stated in 1927
that it took place in Bahay Toro now in Quezon City on August 24, 1896.
d) Teodoro Agoncillo: historian, took place in Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896, echoing Pio
Valenzuela's statement
e) Milagros Guerrero, Emmanuel Encarnacion and Ramon Villegas (historians): taken place in
Tandang Sora's barn in Gulod, Barangay Banlat, Quezon City
f) Dr. Pio Valenzuela

 At September 1896, stated that Katipunan meetings took place from Sunday to Tuesday
or August 23 to 25 at Balintawak
 At 1911, states that Katipunan began meeting on August 22 while the "Cry" took place on
August 23 at Apolonio Samson's house in Balintawak
 Stated that "hindi sa Balintawak nangyari ang unang sigaw ng paghihimagsik na

kinalalagian ngayon ng bantayog, kung di sa pook na kilala sa tawag na Pugadlawin."
 Valenzuela memoirs (1964, 1978) states that the Cry took place on 23 August at the
house of Juan Ramos at Pugad Lawin. The NHI influenced by Valenzuela’s memoirs, in
1963, upon the NHI endorsement, President Diosdado Macapagal ordered that the Cry
be celebrated on 23 August and that Pugad Lawin be recognized as its site.
g) John N. Schumacher, S.J, of the Ateneo de Manila University
“I would certainly give much less credence to all accounts coming from Pio Valezuela, and to
the interpretations Agoncillo got from him verbally, since Valenzuela gave so many versions
from the time he surrendered to the Spanish authorities and made various statements not
always compatible with one another up to the time when as an old man he was interviewed by
Agoncillo.”
The story is that on August 23, 1896, in Pugad Lawin, at the backyard house of Juan Ramos (son of
Melchora Aquino aka “Tandang Sora”), the Katipunans listened to the speech of Andres Bonifacio, tore
their cedula and vowed to fight against Spaniards.
A marker at present is found along the Seminary Road, in barangay Bahay Toro of Quezon City.

VI. LEARNING ACTIVITIES

A. Complete the following boxes by writing three information you learned on the account given by Antonio
Pigafetta and Francisco Albo on their claims about the place where the first mass was held in the
country.
BUTUAN MAZAU
1. 1.
2. 2.
3. 3.
B. Answer the following questions briefly but COMPREHENSIVELY.
1. Do you believe that the Cavite Mutiny was instigated by the three priests (GOMBURZA)? Support
your answer.
2. Whose perspective do you believe regarding the Cavite Mutiny? Why?

C. Reflection regarding the Cry of Balintawak or Pugad Lawin. What does the “Cry of Balintawak” or “Cry
of Pugadlawin” signify?

VII. ASSIGNMENT
Write a position paper regarding the Retraction of Dr. Rizal. Support your position or your personal view
(whether he retracted or not) by stating evidences from your readings. (30 points).

VIII. REFERENCES
De Viana, Augusto and Picadizo, Ma. Venice (2018). Pahiwatig. A Guide for Understanding Readings in
Philippine History. Books Atbp. Publishing Corp.
Furay, Conal and Salevouris, Michael. 2000. The Methods and Skills of History: A Practical Guide. Illinois:
Harlan Davison Inc.
Howell, Martha and Prevenier, Walter. 2001. From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods.
Michigan: Cornell University Press.
Hull, C. (1914). The Service of Statistics to History. Publications of the American Statistical

Association, 14(105), 30-39. doi:10.2307/2965084
Schumacher, John. 1991. The Making of a Nation: Essays on 19th Century Nationalism. Quezon City: Ateneo
University Press.
Szasz, Ferenc. (1974). The Many Meanings of History, Part I. The History Teacher, 7(4), 552-563.
doi:10.2307/492061
Veneracion, J. B. 1998. Ang Kasaysayan sa Kasalukuyang Henerasyon. In Santillan and Conde, Kasaysayan
at Kamalayan: Mga Piling Akda Ukol sa Diskursong Pangkasaysayan (pp. 1-15). Quezon City:
Limbagang Pangkasaysayan.
Ariola, M. et.al. (2018). Readings in Philippine History. Unlimited Books Library Services & Publishing
Inc.
Retrieved on September 22, 2020 from ttps://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/
Retrieved on September 22, 2020 https://www.coursehero.com/file/p2ofrlm/Primary-Source-Excerpts-

from-Plauchuts-Account-of-the-Cavite-Munity-Edmund/
Videolink: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CwmcUCwuv8
Mariano M. Ariola, “The Life of Dr. Jose Rizal,” (December 29, 1896 at 10:00 p.m. (draft of retraction
letter shown to Rizal at his prison cell in Fort Santiago), Philippine History and Government, p.57.
Hand-outs given during the training-seminar held at Polytechnic University of the Philippines on
November 2019.
Retrieved from https://prezi.com/p/r9v71jn3dekg/cry-of-pugadlawin-or-balintawak/ 2014-11-24

Xiao_Time_Via_Crucis_ni_Andres_Bonifacio_Ang_Tejeros_Convention visitpinas.com

College of Arts and Sciences

Bayombong Campus
DEGREE PROGRAM General Education COURSE NO. GE HIST

SPECIALIZATION Philippine History COURSE TITLE Readings in Philippine History
I. CHAPTER 4: Social, Political, Economic, and Cultural Issues in Philippine History

(Part 1)
II. LESSON TITLE:
A. Definition of Constitution
B. The Structure of the Philippine Government
C. The Philippine Constitution
 1899 (Malolos) Constitution
 1925 Constitution
III. LESSON OVERVIEW:
This chapter is dedicated to enduring issues in Philippine society specifically the evolution of the
Philippine constitution. The Constitution, whether written or unwritten is recognized as the supreme law of the
land as it serves as the basis for the legitimacy of any governmental acts necessary for its existence. It is a
codified law that determines the powers and duties of a government and it embodies certain rights of the
people. Basically, the purpose is to examine the development and content of the constitutions we adapted
since the Proclamation of Independence on June 12, 1898 until the present.
IV. DESIRED LEARNING OUTCOMES:
At the end of this chapter, you should be able to:
1. Examine the context, content, and perspective of the constitutions that the Philippines adapted;
2. Determine the contribution of different constitutions in understanding Philippine history;
3. Appraise the prevailing conditions when such constitution was promulgated; and
4. To propose recommendations to present-day problems in the context of the Philippine government
in light of your understanding of the past through the lens of the different constitutions
V. LESSON CONTENT:
THE NATURE OF A CONSTITUTION

The term constitution was derived from the word “constitutuo” which means fixed, established, or settled. It is
defined as “the body of rules and principles on which the government and its exercise of sovereignty over its
people is founded.” The constitution is the highest law of the land which purposes are:
1. To prescribe the permanent framework of the system of government;

2. To assign to the different departments of government their respective powers and duties; and
3. To establish the basic principles on which the government is founded.
THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT
Three Branches of the Government
1.Executive Branch
Its primary task is the implementation of laws. In the Philippines, the Executive power is vested in the hands of
the President together with its Cabinet members.
2.Legislative Branch
Its function is to craft or formulate laws. The exercise of Legislative power, in the Philippines, is vested in our
Congress which is composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives
is in turn composed of the District Representatives and the Party-list Representatives.
Example of District Representative: Congresswoman of the District of Nueva Vizcaya, Hon. Banti Cuaresma;
Example of Party-list: Gabriela
3.Judiciary Branch
This branch is vested with the main function of interpreting our laws. The Supreme Court is the highest court
and is tasked to exercise the Judicial power of our state.
THE EVOLUTION OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

Andres Bonifacio spearheaded the organization of KKK (Kataastaasan, Kagalanggalangang Katipunan ng Mga
Anak ng Bayan) which signaled the birth of the Philippine Revolution. The Katipunan served as the first
revolutionary government. Unfortuntely, the power struggle between Andres Bonifacio and Emilio Aguinaldo
divided the loyalty of the Katipuneros. It led to the emergence if two Katipunan factions – the “Magdalo” group
whose members support the leadership of Aguinaldo and the “Magdiwang” group whose members remain
loyal to the leadership of Bonifacio – and eventually, to the disintegration of the organization.
Consequently, a new revolutionary government was formed in the Tejeros Convention in March 1897 with the
following set of elected officers:
Emilio Aguinaldo ……………………………….….. President

Mariano Trias …………………………………….… Vice President
Artemio Ricarte ………………………………...….. Captain General
Emilio Riego de Dios ……………………………… Director of War
Andres Bonifacio ……………………………...…… Director of the Interior
There would have been no issue on the reorganization of Katipunan were it not due to insult hurled by a
Magdalo member (Daniel Tirona) to Andres Bonifacio. Apparently questioning the qualification of Bonifacio as

the Director of the Interior, Tirona intimated that a lawyer’s diploma is needed for the position and
recommended another person to take Bonifacio’s place. This angered Bonifacio who went on to declare the
dissolution of the proceedings in the Tejeros Convention. Subsequently, he formed a new revolutionary
government under the Naik Military Agreement. For so doing, he was charged with treason and sedition,
together with his brother Procopio. Aguinaldo (who went on to lead the revolutionary government formed in the
Tejeros Convention) ordered the arrest and execution of the Bonifacio brothers. The death of Bonifacio
centered the leadership of the revolution to Aguinaldo.
On November 1, 1897, a provisional constitution (which established the Biak-na-Bato Republic) was made
under the leadership of Aguinaldo.
CONSTITUTION OF BIAK-NA-BATO (1897)
 a provisionary constitution made on 1 November 1897 under the leadership of Emilio Aguinaldo
 written by Isabelo Artacho and Felix Ferrer
 borrowed from Cuba
 dissolved on 15 December 1897 by the virtue of the “Pact of Biak-na-Bato”
“Pact of Biak-na-Bato” was an agreement that was entered by the Revolutionary Government and the
Governor General through the intervention of Pedro Paterno. The agreement calls for the cessation of war
between the Filipinos and the Spaniards. It was likewise stipulated that Aguinaldo and his followers must go on
a voluntary exile in Hongkong (and in return, they received ₱400,000.00 from the Governor-General). Hence,
the Spanish-Filipino War grounded to a halt in the meantime.
How was the Philippine Government Structured Under This Constitution?
LEGISLATIVE EXECUTIVE JUDICIARY
Asemblea de The Supreme Council Consejo Supremo de

Representantes Gracia Y Justicia
(President, Vice President
Cabinet Secretaries: Foreign
Relations, War, Interior, and
Treasury.
The Biak-na-Bato Constitution provided for the establishment of a Supreme council that would serve as the
highest governing body of the Republic. It also outlined certain basic human rights, such as freedom of religion,
freedom of the press, and the right to education. Emilio Aguinaldo and Mariano Trias were elected Supreme
Council president and vice president, respectively. However, this constitution was never fully implemented,
since a truce, the Pact of Biak-na-Bato was signed between the Spanish and the Philippine Revolutionary
Army.
Primary Source: Preamble of the Biak-na-Bato Constitution

“The separation of the Philippines from the Spanish monarchy and their formation into an
independent state with its own government called the Philippine Republic has been the end sought
by the Revolution in the existing war, begun on the 24th of August, 1896; and , therefore, in its
name and by the power delegated by the Filipino people, interpreting faithfully their desires and
ambitions, we the representatives of the Revolution, in a meeting at Biac-na-bato, November 1,
1897, unanimously
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 adopted the following articles for the constitution of the State.”Page 19 of 38
(081220)
The outbreak of the Spanish-American on April 21, 1898 renewed the strength of the Filipinos to fight the
Spaniards for independence. Aguinaldo returned to the Philippines and established the Dictatorial Government
on May 1898. Later, on September 15, 1898, a fifty-member Revolutionary Congress was convened at the
Barasoain Church in Malolos, Bulacan. Pedro Paterno was elected as the President of the Congress. The
Congress proposed the drafting of a constitution that will establish the first Philippine Republic.
THE MALOLOS CONSTITUTION (1899)
 a Revolutionary Congress convened at Barasoain Church, Malolos, Bulacan and proposed the drafting
of a constitution to establish the First Philippine Republic
 official title: The Political Constitution of 1899
 it is patterned after the Spanish Constitution of 1812
 Felipe Calderon was the main author
 it was drafted September 15, 1898 and promulgated on 21 January 1899
 it only lasted until 23 March 1901
Assembly of The President Supreme Court

Representatives
The Malolos Constitution is the first important Filipino document ever produced by the people's
representatives. It is anchored in democratic traditions that ultimately had their roots in American soil. It
created a Filipino state whose government was "popular, representative and responsible" with three distinct
branches -- the executive, the legislative and the judicial.
The constitution specifically provided for safeguards against abuses, and enumerated the national and
individual rights not only for the Filipinos and of the aliens such as universal and direct elections, separation of
church and state, compulsory and free education, and equal legal status for the languages of all the Philippine
nationalities.
The legislative powers were exercised by the Assembly of Representatives composed of delegates elected
according to law. To make the function of Congress continuous, the document provided for a Permanent
Commission which would sit as a law-making body when Congress was not in session. The assembly elected
the President of the Republic. The Cabinet, composed of the Secretaries of the different Departments of the
government, was responsible not to the President, but to the Assembly. The administration of justice was
vested in the Supreme Court and in inferior courts to be established according to law. The Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court was to be elected by the Assembly with the concurrence of the President and the Cabinet.
The constitution as a whole is a monument to the capacity of the Filipinos to chart their own course along
democratic lines. In a period of storm and stress, it symbolized the ideals of a people who had emerged from
the Dark Ages into the Light of Reason. But because of the war against the Philippine Republic launched by

the USA in February 1899 and the subsequent seizure of the Philippines by the USA, the constitution never
became widely effective. However it left a profound mark on the consciousness of the people, and when the
US introduced a law in 1902 on the governance of the Philippines, several provisions from the Malolos
Constitution relating to civil rights had to be adopted.
Primary Source: Preamble of the Malolos Constitution
“We, the Representatives of the Filipino people, lawfully convened, in order to establish justice,
provide for common defense, promote the general welfare, and insure the benefits of liberty,
imploring the aid of the Sovereign Legislator of the Universe for the attainment of these ends, have
voted, decreed, and sanctioned the following Political Constitution.”
By virtue of the Treaty of Paris (where Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States in consideration of the
amount of US$ 20 million), the American annexation of the Philippines was legalized. Filipinos who were then
eager to live free from foreign colonizers met this with opposition. The desire of the Filipinos for freedom and
the determination of the Americans to annex the Philippines resulted to the Filipino-American hostilities.
The Filipino-American War did not stop the United States from extending its sovereignty over these islands.
Then US President McKinley, in his capacity as the commander-in-chief of the US Armed Forces, instructed
his military commander in the Philippines to assume the control of the Philippine Government. Consequently, a
military government was established, under which the American Military Governor was authorized to exercise
all the basic powers of government throughout the entire duration of the Filipino-American War.
The capture of Aguinaldo resulted to the termination of the American Military Government, paving the way to
the inauguration of the Civil Government in July 1901. Under the American Civil Government, the executive
power was vested to the Civil Governor who likewise served as the President of the Philippine Commission,
the lawmaking body of the Philippines from 1901 – 1907. The Philippine Commission (which was
predominantly American), in turn, acted as the Cabinet members of the Governor.
In 1907, the lawmaking body of the Philippines became bicameral with the creation of the Philippine Assembly.
This chamber of the Philippine Legislature was intended for the Filipino lawmakers (particularly the Filipino elite
group known as the “illustrados”) to create an impression that the Filipinos are given an opportunity to actively
participate in the administration of the government. The Philippine Assembly was later baptized as the “lower
house” of the Philippine Legislature, while the Philippine Commission was designated as the “upper house”.
In 1916, the Jones Law was passed by the US Congress resulting to the reorganization of the government.
Pursuant to its provisions, the Governor-General was authorized to exercise executive power, while the
exercise of legislative power was vested in the Philippine Legislature. The latter was composed of a 24-
member Senate and a House of Representatives. All the members of the Philippine Legislature were elected.
However, the Governor-General was authorized to appoint two senators from the non-Christian sector. Except
for the Governor-General, the Philippine Government was gradually “Filipinized”.
The trend of “Filipinization” in the Philippine Government was primarily credited to the administration of
the Democratic Governor-General Francis Burton Harrison. Even the judiciary was not spared from this trend.
The growing number of Filipino lawyers eventually led to the displacement of American judges in the judiciary.
Thanks to Justice George Malcolm of the Philippine Supreme Court who took the initiative to put up the
College of Law of the University of the Philippines.
On March 24, 1934, the US Congress passed the Tydings-McDuffie Law, otherwise known as the
Philippine Independence Act. Under its precepts, the Philippine Legislature was authorized to call a
constitutional convention that will draft a constitution for the Philippines. Thus, the Philippine Legislature
created a constitutional convention preside by Claro M. Recto. The draft prepared by the convention was

approved by the US Government and was ratified by the Filipino electorate on May 14, 1935. This became the
1935 Constitution.
Also, the Tydings-McDuffie Law provided for a 10-year transition period during which the Commonwealth
Government become operative. The Commonwealth Government moved the 1935 Constitution in its
experimental operation, where the Filipinos gained control over their internal affairs (except foreign affairs
which remained under the control of the Americans).
THE COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION (1935)
 On March 24, 1934, the US Congress passed the Tydings-McDuffie Law, otherwise known as the
Philippine Independence Act. Under its precepts, the Philippine Legislature was authorized to call a
constitutional convention that will draft a constitution for the Philippines. Thus, the Philippine Legislature
created a constitutional convention presided by Claro M. Recto
 established the Commonwealth Government of the Philippines
 influenced by the American Constitution
 inaugurated on 15 November 1935 under the presidency of Manuel L. Quezon
 From 1935 – 1940
National Assembly President and Vice Supreme Court

President
From 1940 – 1946 (after its amendment)
 Supreme Court
Congress President and Vice
President
Senate and House of
Representatives
The 1935 Constitution of the Philippines which created the Commonwealth of the Philippines was based on
the principle of separation of powers among the three branches of government. Executive power is vested to
the President which shall serve for a single-six year term. Legislative power is vested in a unicameral
National Assembly, and judicial power is exercised by the Supreme Court.
In 1940, the 1935 Constitution was amended by the National Assembly of the Philippines. The legislature was
changed from a unicameral assembly to a bicameral congress. The amendment also changed the term limit of
the President of the Philippines from six years with no reelection to four years with a possibility of being
reelected for a second term.

Accordingly, the 1935 Constitution was written with an eye to meeting the approval of the United States
Government so as to ensure that the U.S. would live up to its promise to grant the Philippines independence.
It was also on this day in 1910, that the then Commissioner (to the U.S. House of Representatives) Manuel
L. Quezon delivered an eloquent speech in the United States Congress, pleading for Philippine
independence.
Primary Source: Preamble of the 1935 Constitution
“The Filipino people, imploring the aid of Divine Providence, in order to establish a government that
shall embody their ideals, conserve and develop the patrimony of the nation, promote the general
welfare, and secure to themselves and their posterity the blessings of independence under a régime
of justice, liberty, and democracy, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.”
The defeat of the Japanese lead to the restoration of the Commonwealth Government which operated for a
while until July 4, 1946 when the Philippine independence was proclaimed pursuant to the provisions of the
Tydings-McDuffie Law. With the grant of the independence, the 1935 Constitution became fully operational,
thus, marking the start of the Third Republic of the Philippines.
Manuel Roxas was the President when the Third Philippine Republic began. He was succeeded by Elpidio
Quirino upon his death. Thereafter, Ramon Magsaysay, Carlos Garcia and Diosdado Macapagal successively
took the helm. Likewise, Marcos was elected under the provisions of the 1935 Constitution in 1965. He was
fully cognizant that upon his re-election in 1969, the two-term-limitation of the Constitution will impede him from
seeking another term. Hence, to perpetuate himself in office, he promulgated Proclamation No. 1081 placing
the Philippines under Martial Law. Also, he commissioned the Constitutional Convention (CON-CON) of 1971
to draft a new constitution that will replace the 1935 Constitution – a constitution that perfectly suits the political
ambition of the risen dictator. The by-product of that CON-CON was ratified on January 17, 1973 and is now
popularly known as the 1973 (or Marcos) Constitution.
THE 1973 CONSTITUTION
 established the Fourth Republic of the Philippines or “Ang Bagong Lipunan”

 approved on 17 January 1973 under the rule of President Ferdinand Emmanuel Edralin Marcos Sr.
 it established a Parliamentary form of government
Batasang Pambansa The President Supreme Court
Prime Minister
and
Cabinet Secretaries
The 1973 constitution established a parliamentary government which, unlike the presidential system posed no
impediment as to presidential term (thus, enabling Marcos to cling on to power for as long as 20 years). Under

its provisions, the Batasang Pambansa (the legislature) was empowered to elect, from among its members the
President and the Prime Minister. The President served as the symbolic head of the State while the Prime
Minister acted as the head of the Government. The latter exercised executive power together with the Cabinet,
majority of whom must be members of the Batasang Pambansa. It is important to stress that under the
Charter, the President may (upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister) dissolve the Batasang
Pambansa. If that happens, the Prime Minister will be authorized to exercise legislative powers. Thus, Marcos,
promulgated laws in such capacity on the form of Presidential Decrees.
Primary Source: Preamble of the 1973 Constitution
“We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Divine Providence, in order to establish a
Government that shall embody our ideals, promote the general welfare, conserve and develop the
patrimony of our Nation, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of democracy
under a regime of justice, peace, liberty, and equality, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.”
In the 1935 Constitution, in effect at the time of Marcos’s first and second terms of office, limited the
Presidency to a total of 2 four-year terms.He then promulgated a change of Constitution, which included the
replacement of Congress with the single-chamber Batasang Pambansa (National Assembly). One crucial
provision was that the Prime Minister would retain his powers unless the assembly made it known that they
had lost their confidence in him or the President nominated a successor. Moreover, transitory provisions in the
1973 Constitution assigned Marcos a term extension as President.
Even before the declaration of Martial Law, a Constitutional Convention had already been put in place since
1971 to review and propose amendments to the existing constitution. On November 29, 1972, the Convention
approved their proposed Constitution, and the following day it was submitted by the President for ratification by
the Filipino people.
The President ordered the organization of Citizen Assemblies, wherein citizens would be asked whether they
approved of the New Society, whether they liked the reforms instituted under Martial Law, whether Congress
should be opened again, and when the Constitution should be ratified.
In Proclamation No. 1102, Marcos announced that 95% of citizens at the Citizen Assemblies approved of the
new Constitution therefore allowing the 1973 Constitution to take full effect.
After transitory provisions lived out their course, Marcos was named the Prime Minister. The 1973 Constitution
allowed him to hold this position indefinitely, and he did so until 1981, at which point he appointed his finance
minister Cesar Virata to the post.
On January 17, 1981 President Marcos lifted Martial Law through Proclamation No. 2045. However, two
important events precipitated a revolution that will oust Marcos from power – the assassination of Benigno
Aquino and the hideous result of the 1986 snap election between him and Cory Aquino.
When opposition leader Benigno Aquino Jr. was assassinated upon returning from exile in 1983, widespread
outrage forced Marcos to hold “snap” elections a year early. The election was marked by fraud on the part of
Marcos and his supporters but Marcos had himself declared the winner constitutionally, amidst international
condemnation and nationwide domestic protests. A small band of military rebels tried to mount a coup, which
failed because of its discovery, but this triggered what became internationally celebrated as the “People
Power” revolution, when droves of people spilled out onto the streets to protect the rebels, eventually
numbering well over a million. Under pressure from the United States, Marcos and his family fled into exile. His
election opponent, Benigno Aquino Jr.’s widow Corazon, was installed as president on February 25, 1986.
THE FREEDOM CONSTITUTION (1986)

Upon assumption of Presidency, Aquino ordered the dissolution of the 1973 Constitution and promulgated
Proclamation No. 9 which created a Constitutional Commission that will draft a new constitution. In the
meantime, Aquino promulgated a provisional constitution – The Freedom (1986) Constitution – that will
become operative pending the adoption of the new constitution.
THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
 established our present republic – The Fifth Republic of the Philippines

 officially adopted on 2 February 1987
How was the Philippine Government Structured Under this Constitution?
President Supreme Court

Congress (Senate and
and
the House of
Cabinet
Representatives)
The 1987 Constitution established a representative democracy with power divided among three
separate and independent branches of government: the Executive, a bicameral Legislature, and the Judiciary.
There were three independent constitutional commissions as well: the Commission on Audit, the Civil Service
Commission, and the Commission on Elections. Integrated into the Constitution was a full Bill of Rights, which
guaranteed fundamental civil and and political rights, and it provided for free, fair, and periodic elections. In
comparison with the weak document that had given Marcos a legal fiction behind which to hide, this
Constitution seemed ideal to many Filipinos emerging from 20 years of political repression and oppression.
Primary Source: Preamble of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
“We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and
humane society and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote
the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity
the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice,
freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.”
The 1987 Constitution, drafted by a Constitutional Commission formed by former president Corazon
Aquino after the 1986 EDSA revolution. This is the Constitution in effect today. Aquino had a choice to rule
under the 1973 Constitution after she was installed as president, but chose to abrogate the very same
document that helped facilitate the declaration of martial law.In effect, the 1987 Constitution — evident in its
provisions limiting the declaration of martial law, among others — is a direct response against Marcosian
dictatorship and tyranny.
Aquino began her term by repealing many of the Marcos-era regulations that had repressed the people
for so long. In March, she issued a unilateral proclamation establishing a provisional constitution. This
constitution gave the President broad powers and great authority, but Aquino promised to use them only to
restore democracy under a new constitution. This new constitution was drafted in 133 days by an appointed
Constitutional Commission of 48 members and ratified by the people in a plebiscite held on February 2, 1987.

It was largely modelled on the American Constitution which had so greatly influenced the 1935 Constitution,
but it also incorporated Roman, Spanish, and Anglo law.
Executive branch
The Executive branch is headed by the President and his appointed Cabinet. The President is the head
of the state and the chief executive, but he is subject to significant checks from the other branches, especially
in times of emergency, which, given the history of the country, was obviously intended to be a safeguard
against a repeat of Marcos’ martial law despotism. For example, in cases of national emergency, the President
can still declare martial law, but not for a period longer than 60 days. Congress can revoke this decision by a
majority vote, or it can also extend it for a period to be determined by the Congress. Additionally, the Supreme
Court can review the declaration to decide if there were sufficient facts to justify martial law. The President can
grant pardons and amnesty. He is also empowered to make or accept foreign loans. He cannot, however,
enter into treaties without the consent of the Senate. The President and Vice-President are elected at large by
a direct vote, but the President may only serve one 6-year term. The Cabinet, consisting of the President’s
advisers and heads of departments, is appointed by the President and it assists him in his governance
functions.
Legislative branch
The legislative power is vested in a Congress which is divided into two Houses, the Senate and the
House of Representatives. The 24 members of the Senate are elected at large by a popular vote and can
serve no more than two consecutive 6-year terms. The House is composed of 250 elected members. Most of
these Representatives are elected by district for 3-year terms, but 20% of the total membership is chosen in
proportion to party representation. Besides the exclusive power to legislate, one of the most important powers
of Congress is the ability to declare war, which it can through a two-thirds vote in both houses. Even the power
to legislate, however, is subject to an executive check. The President retains the power to veto a bill passed by
both houses, and Congress may override this veto only with a two-thirds vote in both houses.
Judicial branch
The Court system in the Philippines exercises the judicial power of government and it is made up of a
Supreme Court and lower courts created by law. The Supreme Court is a 15-member court appointed by the
President without need for confirmation by Congress. Appointment, however, is limited to a list of nominees
presented to the President by a constitutionally-specified Judicial and Bar Council. This Council consists of 7
members: the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Secretary of Justice, a representative from Congress, a
representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired member of the Supreme Court, and a
representative of the private sector. The first four serve for four years, the law professor for three, the retired
Justice for two, and the private sector representative for one year. The Supreme Court Justices may hear, on
appeal, any cases dealing with the constitutionality of any law, treaty, or decree of the government, cases
where questions of jurisdiction or judicial error are concerned, or cases where the penalty is sufficiently grave.
It may also exercise original jurisdiction over cases involving government or international officials. The
Supreme Court also is charged with overseeing the functioning and administration of the lower courts and their
personnel.
The Constitution also establishes three independent Constitutional Commissions. The Civil Service
Commission acts as a central agency in charge of government personnel. The Commission on Elections
enforces and administers all election laws and regulations to ensure that they are free and fair for all involved.
Finally, the Commission on Audit examines all funds, transactions, and property accounts of the government
and its agencies. Each of these Commissions is given governing and financial autonomy from the other
branches of government to ensure unbiased decision-making. All decisions made by these Commissions are
reviewable by the Supreme Court.
To further ensure the ethical and lawful functioning of the government, the Constitution also creates an
Office of the Ombudsman to investigate complaints regarding public corruption, unlawful behaviour of public
officials, and other public misconduct. The Ombudsman can then charge such misbehaving public officials

before a special court called the Sandiganbayan. The Ombudsman is also independent administratively and
financially from the other branches of government, although the President is vested with the power to appoint
the Ombudsman and his Deputies (from a list also prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council) for single 7-year
terms. Only the House has the power to initiate impeachment of the President, the members of the Supreme
Court, and a few other constitutionally protected public officials like the Ombudsman. The Senate is then
supposed to try the impeachment case. Each of these aforementioned independent agencies was created for
the purpose of promoting moral and ethical conduct in government.
A Call for Constitutional Change
Initiatives to change a constitution are part and parcel of being a constitutional democracy. Resisting
such an initiative, provided it is supported by a rational public consensus-building process, is an integral
component of constitutional democracy as well. As a constitutional democracy, the Philippines finds itself
perfectly within this constitutional reform context.
For the 1987 constitution, there have been calls for Constitutional change (or charter change, more
known as ‘cha-cha’) as early as Fidel Ramos’ administration, which succeeded Aquino’s. Since then, lawyers,
politicians, economists, and academics have criticized it for the following: its weak provisions on party systems,
absence of a definite prohibition on political dynasties, restrictive foreign ownership, and lack of efficiency
among branches of government, among many others.
The call right now is to shift the form of government to a federal government, one where power in the
national government is shared with smaller, local governments, with local governments granted more
autonomy.
What do changes to the Constitution look like?
Proposals may come in the form of amendments or revision.
Amendment is “an alteration of one or few specific and separable provisions,” thus entailing a Constitutional
change that does not affect the whole document. An example would be a provision added to allow same-sex
marriage in the Philippines or to clearly prohibit discrimination against the LGBTQIA+ and other minorities.
Revision, on the other hand, may involve rewriting the Constitution anew, or major changes that cannot be
implemented without affecting the provisions of the Constitution as a whole. The most relevant example is the
shift to another type of government, such as federal.

A. Textual Analysis / Essay Requirements:
a.) Malolos Constitution
1.How does the Malolos Constitution define sovereignty?
2.What is republic? Do you think it is the most appropriate form of government for the Philippines?
Explain your answer.
3. How should a republic exercise its power based on the Malolos Constitution?
4. Why do you think does the Malolos Constitution put so much emphasis on the protection and
promulgation of the rights of citizens?
b.) 1987 Constitution

1. Why do you think that instead of ruling under the 1973 Constitution after she was installed as president,
Cory Aquino chose to abrogate the very same document (1973 constitution) ?

2. If you are the president now, what regulations during the Marcos era do you want to repeal? Explain
your answer.
3. In your own opinion, what can be possible drawbacks if we go for constitutional change for the 1987
constitution? Explain clearly.
4. Would you also call to change our current form of government to federal form ? Explain clearly.
VII. ASSIGNMENT
A. In light of your understanding of the past through the lens of the different constitutions adapted, make a
list of your recommendations or solutions to the following present-day political problems:
a. Corruption
b. Political Dynasties
c. Qualifications of Public Officials
B. Assuming that you are to revise our current constitution (1987 constitution), present a revised
content/parts of the constitution.
REFERENCES
Candelaria, J. P., & Alphora, V. C. (2018). Readings in Philippine History. Manila, Philippines: Rex Book Store,
Inc
Del Rosario F. G., & Dacles, D. M. (2018). Readings in Philippine History: A Workbook. Bayombong, Nueva
Vizcaya: SMU Publishing House.
Macaraeg, Stephen. (n.d.) Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista: The Unsung Hero of the Act of Proclamation of
Independence by the Filipino People. Retrieved September 24, 2020, from https://academia.edu.
National Historical Institute Centennial Publication (n.d.). The Philippine Revolution: The Act of Declaration of
Philippine Independence. Retrieved September 24, 2020, from https://filipino.biz.ph/history/declaration.html.
Guber, A. A. Filippinskaia respublika 1898 goda i amerikanskii imperializm, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1961. (The
text of the constitution is on pp. 355-66.)
Palafox, Q.J. (2012). The Constitution of the Philippine Commonwealth. Retrieved from
http://msc.edu.ph/centennial/malolos.html

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

Bayombong Campus
DEGREE PROGRAM General COURSE NO. GE HIST

Education
SPECIALIZATION Phil. History COURSE TITLE Readings in Philippine History
I. CHAPTER 4: Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Issues in Philippine History

(Part 2)
II. LESSON TITLE:

A. Agrarian Reform
B. History of Agrarian reform in the Philippines
III. CHAPTER OVERVIEW
This section presents the evolution and development of agrarian reform in the Philippines. Land is
considered vital in the lives of the common Filipino as the Philippines depend on traditional economy.
Different polices and laws implemented by previous Philippine government administrations are described
and discussed. Extracts of some policies are included in order for students to analyse and evaluate their
contents. After the exposure to such issues, the students are expected to have clarified about some
issues in land distribution and ownership.
IV. DESIRED LEARNING OUTCOMES
At the end of the chapter, the students should be able to: (based on CHED’s prescribed syllabus)
1. Understand the root causes of significant problem or issue that affected the lives of Filipinos like
agrarian reform;
2. Relate some policies implemented by the Philippine government relative to this issue; and
3. Recommend or present solutions to this contemporary issue based on their understanding of root
causes and their anticipation of related forthcoming scenarios.
V. LESSON CONTENT
A. Agrarian Reform in the Philippines

Land reform is used interchangeably with agrarian reform. The redistribution of ownership to achieve
more equitable access to land and water refers to land reform (Liamzon, 1996). On the other hand,

agrarian reform concerns the distribution of land plus supporting measures designed to make
agriculture more productive. It thus refers to an integrated package of delivery systems to strengthen
the agricultural sector of the economy. Agrarian reform is encompassing for it involves land reform and
other complementary socio-economic and political reforms (Borras et.al, 2007).
In the Philippines, cycles of agrarian reform initiatives took place in many of the government
administrations that it had in the past up to the present. It is one of the few countries worldwide where
agrarian reform is still considered to be a major on-going government programme. Peasant unrest was
evident as a result of high level of land concentration. Peasants, with their dream of one day owning
their land, became the nucleus of the Philippine revolt for independence beginning in 1896, and the
nationalist struggle during World War II, which formed the base for the Communist Party and New
People’s Army. Peasant unrest pressured previous governments to institute certain reforms in the
agrarian sector (Liamzon, 1996). As such, the legislature of the Philippines passed several laws aimed
at redistributing land and ensuring security of tenure for tenant farmers.
B. History of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines
1. Pre-colonial Times
Land is treated as a communal property during the early times in the Philippines. Meaning,
everybody has access to the land. Land is considered to be a very important means for familial and
communal subsistence. Filipinos lived in villages or barangays ruled by chiefs or datus. However,
despite the existence of different classes in society, everyone has access to the fruits of the soil.
It is colonialism which introduced the concept of private property.
2. Colonial Times
a. Spanish Period
The concept of private ownership was only introduced to the Philippines during the Spanish colonial
period. A system called repartiamentos was introduced in which vast tracts of lands were granted to
Spanish soldiers as reward for their efforts during the conquest. Friar lands were also given to the
religious orders and huge tracts of land were distributed to Spaniards (known as encomiendero) to
manage and have the right to receive tributes from the inhabitants tilling the soil. In 1865, the
Spanish crown passed a law requiring landholders to register their landholdings. Other decrees
which required the registration of properties/agricultural lands were the Ley Hipotecaria or the
Mortgage Law of 1893 and the Maura Law or the Royal Decree of 1894. The Ley Hipotecaria or the
Mortgage Law of 1893 provided the systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as ownership
claims. This law was mainly a law on registration of properties rather than a mortgage law. On the
other hand, the Maura Law or Royal Decree of 1894 was the last Spanish Land Law passed in the
Philippines wherein farmers and landholders were given one year to register their agricultural lands
to avoid declaration of it as a state property. With these decrees, the caciques (leaseholders of
land) and the Filipino peasants were ordered to secure legal titles for their lands or suffer forfeiture.
Filipino peasants, either ignorant of the processes of the law or of the Spanish language instruction,
were not quick to respond. On the other hand, Spanish officials and caciques took advantage of the
situation and claimed and registered their own landholdings including those lands adjacent to their
holdings which are owned by the peasants. These resulted to the accumulation of lands by few
families and the dispossession of other Filipino farmers of their lands. The Filipinos were
dispossessed of their lands since documented titles prevailed over verbal claims. The Filipinos
became mere tillers working for a share of crops (Pedrosa, 1989).
The purchase of real estates at cheap price from peasants who were badly in need of finances was
another way as to why some Filipinos obtained more lands than others. The mortgage system or
pacto de retroventa further aggravated the condition of the Filipinos in which a peasant who has
borrowed some money from a landowner becomes this landowner’s tenant. This scenario

happened because the peasant’s land served as loan collateral. As a tenant, the peasant paid the
landlord rent for the use of his own land until the loan was paid. The exploitation of Filipinos of their
land rights was one of the factors which fuelled the revolution in 1898 where people clamoured for
agrarian reform and a just society. Thus, with the government established by then General Emilio
Aguinaldo, large landed estates particularly the friar lands were confiscated and declared these as
properties of the government (Department of Agrarian Reform, 2013).
b. American
When the United States acquired the Philippines in 1898, they realized that landlessness was the
main cause of political instability at that time. Thus, they pass some policies to distribute land
among the greater number of Filipino tenants and farmers. For landless peasants to have an
opportunity to become independent small-scale farmers, public land grants were provided. Its goal
is to boost the economy by using land ownership as an incentive, which would eventually serve as
leverage to achieve political stability at that time (Martin, 1999). On the other hand, colonial
authorities were committed to preserving the existing structure of private property rights, and
reassured land owners that private property rights would remain valid under the new colonial legal
framework. These twofold principles are evident in the Public Land Act (PLA) of 1902 and the Friar
Lands Act of 1903.
Under the Public Land Act of 1902, anyone who is at least 21 years of age is provided with
homestead plots not exceeding 16 hectares of public land in areas in Northern Luzon and
Mindanao. However, given the ambiguity of potential beneficiaries, the landless peasants
competed but failed to obtain land entitlements against members of the landed families,
businessmen, and immigrants. Moreover, for the average peasant, the five year requirement of
continuous presence and cultivation imposed additional costs and uncertainty to the security of
land ownership. As known, some farmers were not able to continue tilling the land due to financial
constraints. The opening of public lands to large scale agribusiness encouraged plantation farming,
which hindered effective land distribution (Martin, 1999). The lack of adequate farm-to-market
roads, high incidence of malaria and other diseases, and the fear of attack from threatening locals
hindered the success of land distribution (Jarapa, et al. 1986).
With an aim to specifically break-up the landed estates registered to the friars and redistribute the
land to tenant farmers, the Friar Lands Act of 1904 was conceived. The US government in the
Philippines purchased 166,000 hectares of agricultural land owned by the Catholic Church and
distributed to 60,000 tenant beneficiaries. However, they were required to pay the purchase price
of the land plus interest. Eventually, most tenant beneficiaries lost their land to creditors because
access to credit and agricultural support services was lacking (Riedinger, 1995). Since most tenant
farmers were not able to participate in the said purchase, the remaining areas that were not
acquired were handed directly by sale or lease to American or Filipino businessmen. The Friar
Lands Act did not solve the agrarian problem but provided landowners and other business interests
an opportunity to increase their land holdings and thereby perpetuate the pattern of plantation
agriculture in the country (Martin, 1999). Like the Spanish government, the American colonial
authorities favoured the Filipino landowning elites.
c. Commonwealth Period
Under the leadership of President Manuel L. Quezon, a significant law was passed called the
Philippine Rice Share Tenancy Act of 1933. The Philippine Rice Share Tenancy Act was enacted
and implemented under the Social Justice Program of then Pres. Quezon. It was the first law which
aimed to regulate the landlord-tenant relationship by establishing minimum standards in crop
sharing. It also required that share contracts be written in the vernacular language. In terms of
sharing and lending, the act provided for a 50-50 share crop arrangements and set an interest
ceiling of ten per cent per agricultural year on loans, and safeguarded tenants from arbitrary

dismissal and abuses (Narayanasamy, 1983). However, the Rice Share Tenancy Act of 1933 did
not succeed because municipal councils who should implement it were dominated by local
landowners who chose not to enforce it (Pedrosa, 1989). It was apparent that the landowners
preferred to secure their property interests and evaded land reform laws. Like the Public Land Act of
1902 and the Friar Lands Act of 1904, the Rice Share Tenancy Act of 1933 provided safeguards to
landholders. Potential beneficiaries were not able to successfully secure entitlements against
landlords who effectively utilized land reform laws for their own vested interests.
Other policies implemented during the Commonwealth government included the 1935 Constitution.
This constitution provided specific provisions on social justice and expropriation of landed estates
for distribution to tenants as a solution to the land ownership and tenancy problems. This solution is
known as the Commonwealth Act No. 461 whereby dismissal of a tenant should only take place
upon the approval of Tenancy Division of the Department of Justice and the Commonwealth Act
No. 608 that was enacted to establish security of tenure between landlord and tenant and prohibited
the common practice among landowners of ejecting tenants without clear legal grounds
(Department of Agrarian Reform, 2013).
d. Japanese Period
During this occupation, the Hukbong Bayan Laban sa mga Hapon (HUKBALAHAP) was founded on
March 29, 1942 comprising of peasants and workers. This peasant group succeeded in controlling
and temporarily redistributing substantial portions of land to the people in Central Luzon
(Sawchenco, 2000). They regarded the Second World War as a golden opportunity to push pro-
poor programs like land reform. They overpowered the landlords but through the help of the
government forces and civilian guards, the landlords were able to retrieve their lands (Department
of Agrarian Reform, 2013).
3. Post-Colonial Period
After the granting of Independence in 1946, four major land reform programs were implemented by
the Philippine government namely the Republic Act 1400 (RA 1400) or the Land Reform Act under
President Ramon Magsaysay in 1955; Republic Act 3844 (RA 3844) or the Agricultural Land
Reform Code in 1963 under President Diosdado Macapagal; Presidential Decree 27 (PD 27) under
the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos in 1972; and the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP) under President Corazon Aquino in 1987 (Martin, 1999).
Republic Act 1400 (RA 1400) or the Land Reform Act of 1955
Regarded as the “Land to the Landless” program, RA 1400 was passed as a response to the
Hukbalahap rebellion. Because of the prevalence of discontentment in rural areas and the demands
of peasants for better land reform, the rebellion continued even after the war. Its principal objective
is the creation of “family-size farms” through the redistribution of public lands and for the
expropriation of tenanted landed estates exceeding 300 hectares and corporate lands exceeding
600 hectares of contiguous area to landless farmers. It provided for a Land Tenure Administration
(LTA) directly under the President to administer the law. However, few land holdings were over 300
contiguous hectares and landowners evaded reform by simply breaking up the continuity of their
lands by selling some of these in between thus circumventing the 300 contiguous hectares as
provided in the law. In effect, nothing left for the government but to purchase the land which gave
landowners good profits. Pres. Magsaysay’s land reform program was a direct response to the
political pressures brought by peasant unrest. However, because landowners dominated the
Philippine Congress, RA 1400 failed to redistribute lands for potential beneficiaries.
Republic Act 3844 (RA 3844) or Agricultural Land Reform Code of 1963

This act was implemented under the term of then Pres. Diosdado Macapagal who is considered as
the “Father of Agrarian Reform”. It was regarded to be the most comprehensive piece of agrarian
reform legislation ever enacted in the country that time. It tried to abolish share tenancy in the
Philippines prescribing a program converting tenant farmers to lessees and eventually into owner-
cultivators. It aimed to free tenants from the bondage of tenancy and gave hope to poor Filipino
farmers to own the land they are tilling. It emphasized owner- cultivatorship and farmer
independence, equity, productivity improvement and the public distribution of land (Department of
Agrarian Reform, 2013). In its effort to increase agricultural productivity by creating owner-
cultivatorship, a two-step procedure was stipulated. First is the so-called “Operation Leasehold,”
which was to convert share tenancy to leasehold with the fixed rent at 25% of the average harvest
in the three normal years preceding the operation. Second is through “Operation Land Transfer,” in
which the government was to expropriate land in excess of the retention limit of 75 hectares, with
compensation to landowners of 10 percent of the land value in cash and the rest in interest-free
Land Bank bonds, and then to resell to tenants for annual amortization payments within twenty five
years (Fuwa, 2000). However, such reforms only apply to land planted with rice or corn. While the
Code can be seen as a turning point in land reform legislation, there were serious limitations in
design as well. For instance, the reform Code covered only rice and corn land thus lands planted
with sugar, coconut, fruits, and other crops were not included. This also meant that landowners
could avoid land reform implementation simply by shifting their crop away from rice or corn. There
were also no sanctions against landowners evading the law by transforming land use or transferring
ownership to family members, which were common means of sabotaging land reform
implementation (Fuwa, 2000).
Presidential Decree 27 (P.D. 27) of 1972

Considered as the “heart of the Marcos reform”, this law provided for tenanted lands devoted to rice
and corn to pass ownership to the tenants, and lowered the ceilings for landholdings to 7 hectares.
Under P.D. 27, any tenant living on a rice or corn farm whose landlord had more than seven
hectares of land was eligible to purchase a piece of the land he had previously tilled while share
tenants on land less than 7 hectares would become leaseholders (Department of Agrarian Reform,
2013). In particular, P.D. 27 required that all tenants were to be sold the land they tilled at two and a
half times the average annual production, with a fifteen-year payment plan through the Land Bank.
While landlords were compensated by payment of 10 percent in cash and 90 percent in Land Bank
bonds, the tenant beneficiary received a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) (Sinclair, 1986). Under
P.D. 27, tenant beneficiaries would have to show proof of membership in a village level association
and current cultivation of the land in question, before obtaining his or her CLT. However, until land
valuation and landowner compensation were completed, tenants were still obligated to pay rents to
their landowners. A beneficiary received title to the land once he made final payment to the Land
Bank (Riedinger, 1995). However, the were still some issues in its implementation like beneficiaries
still incurred substantial costs in the transfer of title; the law did not completely dissolve the legal
relationship between landlord and tenant so that tenants were not only paying rents while waiting for
the completion of land valuation and landlord compensation; once a beneficiary received a
Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT), he was also treated as the owner of the land and therefore
obligated to pay for real property taxes on the land which is an added cost; and under P.D. 27,
landlords were given due process through the land valuation process, right to compensation, and by
permitting them to negotiate the land price directly with tenants (pp. 198). This allowed landlords to
manipulate tenants. Aside from the fact that valuation is snail-paced due to extensive legal battles
between landlords and lawyers of beneficiaries (Cornista, 1988).
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 or RA 6657

It is an act establishing a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) to promote social
justice for landless farmers and farm workers and to prepare the Philippines for future growth. It
focuses on land ownership as an important social determinant in the Philippines. The scope of
CARP includes all types of land, including both public and private that are suitable for agricultural
use irrespective of tenurial arrangement (Sawchenco, 2000).

The program’s retention limit provision allows landowners to keep five hectares of land and to give
three hectares to each of his or her children. They had to register their property with the Department
of Agrarian Reform (DAR). The department is the agency to determine which lands would be
subjected to redistribution. Initially, the target for land redistribution under CARP was 10.3 million
hectares, including 3.8 million hectares to be redistributed by the DAR and 6.5 million hectares by
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). It was later reduced to 7.8 million
hectares as a result of various legislative, executive, administrative and judicial rulings that
amended or further limited CARP (ibid.).
CARP’s duration was targeted for ten years between 1988 and 1998 but it fell short of its objectives.
Thus on February 1998, Congress enacted RA 8532, An Act Strengthening Further the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Providing An Additional P50 Billion for the Program and
Extending the Land Distribution Until 2008. Cognizant of the residual “CARPable” lands and as a
response to the continuing peasant unrest, on August 2009, Congress again extended the
program’s implementation until June 2014 by virtue of RA 9700 – An Act Strengthening the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, (CARP), Extending the Acquisition and Distribution of
All Agricultural Lands, Instituting Necessary Reforms, Amending for the Purpose Certain Provisions
of Republic Act No. 6657, Otherwise Known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988,
As Amended, and Appropriating Funds Therefor. This is known as the CARP Extension with
Reform or CARPER (Legislative Budget Research and Monitoring Office, 2014). The
implementation of the program thus extended from Aquino up to Estrada Administration.
A. Implementation of CARP under the Aquino Administration (1988-1992)
The pace of redistribution and the number of exemptions granted to corporate agribusiness were
the primary failings of CARP under Aquino. Implementation was slowed by scandals that forced
several leadership changes in the DAR. Many plantation owners followed the lead of President
Aquino's family, who maintained control of their lands by electing to distribute stock to their tenants
instead of physically redistributing the land.120 The DAR was not prepared to, and in fact did not,
make any significant acquisitions of private lands. According to one DAR secretary who held office
during the Aquino administration, not one hectare of private land had been expropriated after three
years of CARP.
B. Implementation of CARP under the Ramos Administration (1992-1998)
During the Ramos regime public lands were efficiently redistributed and the process of expropriating
private lands was started. Specifically, the Ramos administration distributed more public land in five
years (2.7 million hectares) than had been distributed in the previous 20 years (1.9 million
hectares).
The Ramos government also did well in collaborating with other governmental and non-
governmental agencies in administering CARP. For example, DAR Secretary Ernesto Garilao
succeeded in establishing and stabilizing connections between the DAR and the President's Office,
and between the DAR and peasant organizations. Moreover, the Ramos administration successfully
renewed the CARP legislative mandate for 10 additional years. At the close of his term, Secretary
Garilao worked with peasant organizations to pass Republic Act No. 8532 (1998) (RA 8532), which
extended CARP through 2008. Although the money allocated by RA 8532 was insufficient to fund
the remaining land acquisition, the ten-year extension was a victory for reformists who battled to
save CARP.
The most obvious failure of the Ramos administration was its inability to redistribute a significant
amount of the private land that was subject to compulsory acquisition under CARP. Most of the
lands redistributed under Ramos were not private lands. Only about 126,000 hectares, or 2% of
private lands targeted for compulsory acquisition were expropriated. These statistics led to

uncertainty among foreign and domestic observers about the Philippine government's ability to
accomplish any significant land reform.
C. Implementation of CARP under the Estrada Administration
The administration under President Joseph Estrada laid ambitious goals for land redistribution and
began preparing for the anticipated administrative difficulties of redistributing the remaining CARP
lands. However, the administration's recent commitment to increasing foreign investment in
agriculture has created concern among some land reform advocates. Further obstacles to swift and
extensive land redistribution included:
1) Continuing landowner resistance to redistribution. Landowners have slowed the land transfers in
several ways. First, physical harassment of potential beneficiaries of expropriated commercial
farms by former landowners has interfered with CARP implementation in some areas. Second, the
widespread practice of land use conversions by landowners, often with the assistance of local DAR
officials, has interfered with redistribution. Since CARP applies only to agricultural lands, an
incentive exists for agricultural landowners to convert their land to industrial or commercial uses.
Land use conversion has occurred legally through agricultural land to embark on industrial
enterprises in order to take advantage of government investment in industrial support services.
Third, landowners with lands subject to CARP are demanding higher compensation rates to
increase their personal profit from CARP transactions although on average, CARP compensation
rates exceed estimated market prices. Finally, the DAR has worked against redistribution by
cancelling or confiscating many previously granted temporary ownership documents.
2) Lack of budgetary support for CARP and collaboration between peasant groups. With regards to
budget, instead of increasing allocations for land reform, the latest national budget allocations by
the Philippine Congress dispensed a "crippling blow" to CARP land acquisition and redistribution.
This budget cut implied a "complete cessation of the major land acquisition and distribution
activities of the DAR. Landbank officials also threatened that the recent budget cuts could force the
suspension of new land transfers in order to service existing bonds, and could also cause the
Philippines to default on World Bank loans.
3) Foreign investment policies. The Estrada administration also casted doubt on the sincerity of its
commitment to extensive land redistribution when it planned to increase foreign investment in
agriculture. This was through a program entitled Convergence Strategy for Sustainable Rural
Development. With this, the administration aimed to achieve two-fold objectives of increasing
investment in agriculture and redistributive land reform. This involved increased collaboration
between the DAR, the Department of Agriculture (DA), and the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) in specified convergence zones. The administration hopes to attract
private investment in the model agribusinesses within these convergence zones. To the
displeasure of peasant organizations, a large portion of CARP funds have already been spent on
other similar investment-inducing projects and the production of non-traditional crops. Recent
demonstrations by farmers have sent the message that peasants are concerned about the increase
in production of cash crops and the increase in foreign ownership of land. In short, peasant
organizations fear that the programs currently in place to attract foreign investment will perpetuate
power imbalances in the rural areas and will thereby work against the DAR's commitment to swiftly
expropriate private lands under CARP.
4) Judicial action taken to reverse prior CARP land allocations. The Philippine judiciary has also
earned an anti-reform reputation through a series of decisions that provide ways for landowners to
evade CARP. Specifically, the judiciary has consistently construed the provisions defining the
scope of CARP narrowly while construing rights of landowners vis-a-vis peasants broadly.
5) Global trends towards neoliberalism. The Neoliberalist theory of economic reform also hindered
equitable land redistribution. This theory suggests that freeing international and domestic markets

from over-regulation will eventually achieve the greatest economic benefit to citizens of all
countries by increasing overall economic activity. The influence of neoliberalism can be seen in
many current administrative and legislative policies in the Philippines. Neoliberalism poses a threat
to extensive land redistribution under traditional land reforms like CARP because of its emphasis
on unrestricted markets and the protection of established property ownership.

Read the 2 articles below and answer the questions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genuine agrarian reform for farmers
05:01 AM October 25, 2017
SHARLENE LOPEZ, national coordinator, Assert Socio Economic Initiatives Network of the Philippines,
ascentph@gmail.com
Every October, Filipino farmers celebrate Peasant Month coinciding with the issuance of Presidential Decree
No. 27 by then president Ferdinand Marcos on Oct. 21, 1972. It was supposed to be for “the emancipation of
tenants from the bondage of the soil.”
However, certain provisions of the law actually protected the interests of landlords, such as granting them a
retention limit of seven hectares and including only tenanted rice and corn lands. Moreover, the value of the
land was fixed at two and a half times the average harvest of three normal crop years immediately preceding
its promulgation. It was then made to be paid for 15 years of 15 annual payments with 6 percent interest per
annum.
Because of the inherent limitations of the law in actually giving lands to the farmers, PD 27 ultimately failed in
giving social justice to the poor peasants. It thus comes as no surprise that they commemorate the event with a
series of protests and long marches to Mendiola. They want to highlight the sad fact that the various so-called
agrarian reform programs by the government have failed to give them their own land to till.
According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “land is not a mere
commodity, but an essential element for the realization of many human rights.” Aside from preventing them
from achieving the right to adequate food, the lack of a genuine agrarian reform program actually prevents the
farmers from achieving their economic, social, and cultural rights (ESC) and consequently, the right to
development. These refer to human rights relating to livelihood, social security, family life, participation in
cultural life, and access to food, water, housing, healthcare, and education. Thus, forced displacement of rural
communities due to mining, mega dams, or agricultural plantations result to homelessness, loss of livelihood,
and even the wellbeing of the people.
Aside from ESC rights, the fundamental right to life is being violated by the state in its perpetuation of
landlessness among farmers. According to Karapatan, 91 farmers have been killed since President Duterte’s
presidency and many others suffered from harassment, illegal arrest, and trumped-up charges. They
experienced these horrendous acts because they were defending the right to own the very land they are tilling.
As a member of the United Nations, the Philippine government is responsible in ensuring that every Filipino will
be able to enjoy his/her basic human rights. Hence, it is the state’s duty to enact a genuine agrarian reform law
that guarantees land to the poorest peasant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genuine land reform will lead to rice self-sufficiency

12:03 AM May 09, 2017

ELMER “KA BONG” LABOG, chair, Kilusang Mayo Uno, kilusangmayouno@gmail.com
President Duterte’s position against the importation of rice continues to provoke negative responses from the
country’s probusiness economists, even those within his Cabinet.
These economists argue that while the government must continue to support domestic agriculture, it must be
open to importation because the country remains far from being self-sufficient in rice production. And they also
suggest that the private sector must be allowed to engage in rice importation. Their position is contrary to the
current policy under which only government can import rice and solely through the National Food Authority.
In this debate, the stand of President Duterte has more wisdom. Private importation of rice will surely flood the
market with imported rice—to the detriment of the country’s farmers. Worse, it will kill our farmers and most
likely lead to the creation of a monopoly wherein a few big capitalists have full control over rice importation and
pricing, thus putting most Filipinos at a disadvantage.
Making the government the country’s sole rice importer is more consistent with the primary policy of supporting
domestic rice production and agriculture.
To get to the bottom of the debate, we say: The Philippines can work toward being self-sufficient in rice. Only
through self-sufficiency in rice can we refute the detractors of President Duterte’s anti-importation stand.
The peace talks between the Philippine government and the National Democratic Front are making progress
on the issues of land reform and rural development. In the last round of their peace talks, land reform through
free distribution of agricultural lands to farmers was agreed on by both parties.
The government should uphold this commitment in the peace talks. It should carry out genuine land reform and
provide all the support our farmers need. It should encourage rice production and aim at self-sufficiency in rice.
Genuine land reform will provide numerous incentives for the country’s farmers to produce more and meet the
country’s rice demands.
Free land distribution to tillers is an important component of this program as it will liberate a great number of
our poor farmers from the bondage and exploitation of the compraderos and landlords.
It will give them the earnings that, under current land ownership conditions, are being pocketed by the
country’s parasitic landlords. More than food security, we should strive for food sovereignty where control over
food production is in the hands of the Filipino people.
Free land distribution was one of the demands our workers aired in the Labor Day commemoration last May 1.
Questions:
Write a 700-word essay by answering the guide questions below. Use the two essays above as
your basis.
1. How important is land to you?
2. What is the relevance of agrarian reform relative to national development?
3. What solutions do you suggest to address the problem of land in the Philippines?
VII. ASSIGNMENT

Create a poster showing your vision of a perfect agrarian reform or condition in the Philippines. Output must
be drawn in a short bond paper.
VIII. REFERENCES
Liamzon, Cristina M. (1996). Agrarian reform, Development in Practice, 6:4, 315-
323, DOI: 10.1080/0961452961000157924
Borras, Saturnino M. Jr, Kay, Cristobal and Akram-Lodhi, A. Haroon (2007). Agrarian reform and rural
development Historical overview and current issues. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.ph/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=XW4nq9wqbaQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=history+of+agrarian+reform+in+
+the+Philippines&ots=P8unbQTiaE&sig=f7ECEmaedbpf1e8UKgH8RLP_sDI&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&
q=history%20of%20agrarian%20reform%20in%20%20the%20Philippines&f=false
Martin, A. (1999). Philippine Land Reform Cycles: Perpetuating U.S. Colonial Policy. Philippine Studies, 47(2),
181-205. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42634313
Cornista, Luzviminda. B. 1988. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program: An Analysis of its Policies and
Processes. Philippine Journal of Public Administration , Vol XXXII, No. 3 and 4.
Department of Agrarian Reform. 2013. FAQS on Agrarian History. Retrieved from

www.dar.gov.ph/downloads/category/82-faqs?download=837:faqs-on-ar-history.
Fuwa, Nobuhiko. 2000. Politics and Economics of Land Reform in the Philippines: A Survey. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.521.9714&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Jarapa, Sison Q., Rafael B. Perez and Tito S. Segarra. 1986. Taxation, Agrarian Reform and Cooperatives.
Quezon City: Rex Book Store.
Legislative Budget Research and Monitoring Office. 2014. 25 Years of CARP. Retrieved from
https://www.senate.gov.ph/publications/LBRMO%20July%202014%20-%2025%20YEARS_CARP(final)
%20PDF.pdf
Narayanasamy, C.1983. Agrarian Reform in the Philippines: An Assessment. Manila: ____.
Pedrosa, Fernando. 1989. Repormang Pansakahan at Pagbubuwis. Maynila: UST Printing Office.
Riedinger, Jeffrey M. 1995. Agrarian reform in the Philippines: Democratic Transitions and Redistributive
Reform. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Sawchenco, Andre. 2000. Choosing a Mechanism for Land Distribution in the Philippines. Pacific Rim Law &
Policy Journal, 682-720.
Sinclair, John D. 1986. Land reform legislation in the Philippines. Special paper for Prof. Roy Prosterman, 12
June.



Instructional Module: Republic of The Philippines Nueva Vizcaya State University Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Instructional Module: Republic of The Philippines Nueva Vizcaya State University Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

NUEVA VIZCAYA STATE UNIVERSITY

College of Arts and Sciences

DEGREE PROGRAM General Education COURSE NO. GE HIST

II. LESSON TITLE:

III. LESSON OVERVIEW:

IV. DESIRED LEARNING OUTCOMES:

At the end of this chapter, you should be able to:

1. to interpret historical events using primary sources;

Site of the First Mass

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 1 of 38

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 2 of 38

Primary Source: Albo’s Log

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 3 of 38

Primary Source: Pigafetta’s Testimony on the Route of Magellan’s Expedition

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 4 of 38

11. They remained seven days on Mazaua Island.

Primary Source: Pigafetta and Seven Days in Mazaua

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 5 of 38

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

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 6 of 38

Spanish Perspective of 1872 Cavite Mutiny

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 7 of 38

Filipino Perspective of the Incident

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 8 of 38

Here is the summary of the reforms they considered necessary to introduced:

Unraveling the Truth

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 9 of 38

DID RIZAL RETRACT?

Primary Source: Rizal’s Retraction

Manila 29 of December of 1896

Prelude to Rizal’s Signing of the Retraction Document

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 10 of 38

Concluding Statement on Rizal’s Controversial Retraction

Sample copy of cedula

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 11 of 38

 Stated that "hindi sa Balintawak nangyari ang unang sigaw ng paghihimagsik na

g) John N. Schumacher, S.J, of the Ateneo de Manila University

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 12 of 38

VI. LEARNING ACTIVITIES

B. Answer the following questions briefly but COMPREHENSIVELY.

2. Whose perspective do you believe regarding the Cavite Mutiny? Why?

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 13 of 38

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 14 of 38

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 15 of 38

Hull, C. (1914). The Service of Statistics to History. Publications of the American Statistical

Retrieved on September 22, 2020 from ttps://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/

Retrieved on September 22, 2020 https://www.coursehero.com/file/p2ofrlm/Primary-Source-Excerpts-

Retrieved from https://prezi.com/p/r9v71jn3dekg/cry-of-pugadlawin-or-balintawak/ 2014-11-24

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 16 of 38

College of Arts and Sciences

DEGREE PROGRAM General Education COURSE NO. GE HIST

I. CHAPTER 4: Social, Political, Economic, and Cultural Issues in Philippine History

II. LESSON TITLE:

III. LESSON OVERVIEW:

IV. DESIRED LEARNING OUTCOMES:

At the end of this chapter, you should be able to:

THE NATURE OF A CONSTITUTION

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 17 of 38

1. To prescribe the permanent framework of the system of government;

THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT

Three Branches of the Government

THE EVOLUTION OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION