Philippine History: Spaces for
Conflict and Controversies
Learning Objectives:
* To interpret historical events using primary sources.
* To recognize the multiplicity of interpretation than can be read
from a historical text.
«To identify the advantages and disadvantages of not employing
critical tools im imterpreting historical events through primary
sources.
* To demonstrate ability to argue for or against a particular issue
In this chapter, we will analyze four historiographical problems in
Philippine history in an attempt to apply what we have learned thus far
in the work of a historian and the process of historical inquiry. Earlier, we
have been introduced to history as a discipline, the historical method, and
the content and context analysis of primary sources. Two key concepts that
need to be defined before proceeding to the historical analysis of problems in
history are interpretation and multiperspectivity.Making Sense of the Past: Historical Interpretation
History is the study of the past, but a more contemporary definition is
centered on how it impacts the present through its consequences. Geoffrey
Barraclough defines history ac “the attempt to discover, on the bacis of
fragmentary evidence, the significant things about the past.” He also notes
“the history we read, though based on facts, is ctrietly speaking, not factual
at all, but a series of accepted judgments.” Such judgments of historians on
how the pact should be seen make the foundation of historical interpretation.
‘The Code of Kalantiaw is 2 mythical legal code in the epic hictory
Maragtas. Before it was revealed as a hoax, it was a souree of pride for
the people of Alan. In fact, a historical marker was installed in the town
of Batan, Aklan in 1956, with the following text:
“CODE OF KALANTIAW. Datu Bendehara Kalantiaw, third Chief of
Panay, born in Aklan, established his government in the peninsula
of Batang, Aklan Sakup. Considered the First Filipino Laweiver, he
promulgated in about 1483 a penal code now known as Code of Kalantiaw
containing 18 articles. Don Marcelino Orilla of Zaragoza, Spain, obtained
the original manuccript from an old chief of Panay which was later
translated into Spanich by Rafael Murviedo Yzamaney.”
It was only in 1968 that it was proved a hoax, when William Henry Scott,
then a doctoral candidate at the University of Santo Tomas, defended his
research on pre-Hispanic sources in Philippine history. He attributed
the code to a historical fiction written in 1913 by Jose E. Marco entitled
Las Antiguas Leyendas de Ia Isla de Negros. Marco attributed the code
itself to a priest named Jose Maria Pavon. Prominent Filipino historians
id not dissent to Scott's ndings, but there are still come who would like
to believe that the code is a legitimate document.
Historians utilize facts collected from primary courees of history
and then draw their own reading co that their intended audience may
understand historical event, a process that in essence, “makes sense of the
past.” The premise is that not all primary courees are accescible to a general
audience, and without the proper training and background, a non-historian
interpreting a primary source may do more harm than good—a primary
souree may even cause misunderstandings; sometimes, even resulting in
‘more problems.Interpretations of the past, therefore, vary according to who reads the
primary source, when it was read, and how it was read. As students of history,
we must be well equipped to recognize different types of interpretations,
why these may differ from each other, and how to critically sift these
interpretations through historical evaluation. Interpretations of historical
events change over time; thus, it is an important skill fora student of history
to track these changes in an attempt to understand the past.
“Sa Aking Mga Kabata” is a poem purportedly written by Jose Rizal
when he was eight years oldandis probably one of Rizal's most prominent
works, There is no evidence to support the claim that this poem, with the
now immortalized lines “Ang hindi magmahal sa kanyang calita/mahigit
sa hayop at malansang isda” was written by Rizal, and worse, the
evidence against Rizal's authorship of the poem all unassailable.
There exists no manuscript of the poem handwritten by Rizal. The
poem was first published in 1906, in a book by Hermenegildo Cruz Cruz
said he received the poem from Gabriel Beato Francisco, who claimed.
to have received it in 1884 from Rizal's close friend, Saturnino Raselis
Rizal never mentioned writing this poem anywhere in his writings, and
more importantly, he never mentioned of having a close friend by the
person of Raselis.
Further criticism of the poem reveals more about the wrongful
attribution of the poem to Rizal. The poem was written in Tagalog and.
referred to the word “kalayaan.” But it was documented in Rizal's letters
that he first encountered the word through a Marcelo H. del Pilar's
translation of Rizal’s essay “El Amor Patrio,” where it was spelled as
“kalayahan.”
While Rizal’s native tongue was Tagalog, he was educated in
Spanish, starting from his mother, Teodora Alonso. Later on, he would.
express disappointment in his difficulty in expressing himself in his
native tongue.
The poem's spelling is also suspect—the use of letters “k” and “w" to
replace “c" and “u,” respectively was suggested by Rizal as an adulc. If
the poem was indeed written during his time, it should use the original
Spanish orthography that was prevalent in his time.‘Many of the things we accept as “true” about the past might not be
the case anymore; just because these were taught to us as “facts” when we
were younger does not mean that it is set in stone—history is, after all, a
construct. And as a construct, it is open for interpretation. There might be
conflicting and competing accounts of the past that need one's attention,
and can impact the way we view our country's history and identity. It is
important, therefore, to subject to evaluation not only the primary source,
but also the historical interpretation of the same, to ensure that the current
interpretation is reliable to support our acceptance of events of the past.
Multiperspectivity
‘With several possibilities of interpreting the past, another important
concept that we must note is multiperspectivity. This can be defined as a way
of looking at historical events, personalities, developments, cultures, and
societies from different perspectives. This means that there is a multitude of
ways by which we can view the world, and each could be equally valid, and
at the same time, equally partial as well. Historical writing is, by definition,
biased, partial, and contains preconceptions. The historian decides on what
sources to use, what interpretation to make more apparent, depending on
what his end is. Historians may misinterpret evidence, attending to those
that suggest that a certain event happened, and then ignore the rest that
goes against the evidence. Historians may omit significant facts about
their subject, which makes the interpretation unbalanced. Historians may
impose a certain ideology to their subject, which may not be appropriate to
the period the subject was from. Historians may algo provide a single cause
for an event without considering other possible causal explanations of said
event. These are just many of the ways a historian may fail in his historical
inference, description, and interpretation. With multiperspectivity as an
approach in history, we must understand that historical interpretations
contain discrepancies, contradictions, ambiguities, and are often the focus
of dissent
Exploring multiple perspectives in history requires incorporating
source materials that reflect different views of an event in history, because
singular historical narratives do not provide for space to inquire and
investigate. Different sources that counter each other may create space for
more investigation and research, while providing more evidence for those
truths that these sources agree on.Different kinds of sources also provide different historical truths—an
official document may note different aspects of the past than, say, a memoir
of an ordinary person on the came event. Different historical agents create
different historical truths, and while this may be a burdensome work for the
historian, it also renders more validity to the historical scholarship.
Taking these in close regard in the reading of historical interpretations,
it provides for the audience a more complex, but also a more complete and
richer understanding of the past.
Case Study I: Where Did the First Catholic Mass Take
Place in the Philippines?
The popularity of knowing where the “firsts” happened in history has
been an easy way to trivialize history, but this case study will not focus
on the significance (or lack thereof) of the site of the first Catholic Mass
in the Philippines, but rather, use it as a historiographical exercise in the
utilization of evidence and interpretation in reading historical events.
Butuan has long been believed as the site of the first Mass. In fact,
this has been the case for three centuries, culminating in the erection of a
monument in 1872 near Agusan River, which commemorates the expedition’s
arrival and celebration of Mass on § April 1521. The Butuan claim has been
based on a rather elementary reading of primary sources from the event.
‘Toward the end of the nineteenth century and the start of the twentieth
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
Spanich and Filipino scholars.
Itmust 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 6 derotero del viage de Magallanes desde el cabo se
S. Agustin en el Brazil hasta el regreso a Espana de la nao Victoria,
escrito por Frandsco Albo.” Document no. xxii in Collecién de viages y
descubrimientos que hicieron por mar los Espafioles 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.
Il, 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 was Yunagan.
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.
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 Homonkon, at 10
degrees North latitude.)
From that island they sailed westwards towards a large island
names Seilani that was inhabited and was known to have gold.
(Geilani — or, as Pigafetta calls it, “Ceylon” — was the island of
Leyte.)
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.
The people of that island of Mazava were very good. There the
Spaniards planted a cross upon a mountain-top, and from there
‘they were chown 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.
§ 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 toa 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 dowm that channel and then tumed westward and
anchored at the town (a 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
somany 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
Jocation of the island of Limasawa, at the southem tip of Leyte, 9°54.
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. HI, 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 cow killed for them. The name of this islandwas “Humunu” (Homonhon). This island was located at 10 degrees
North latitude.
On that came day (Sunday, March 17), Magellan named the entire
aachipelago 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.
Monday, March 18 — In the afternoon of their second day on that
island, they caw a boat coming towards them with nine men in it.
Anexchange of gifts was effected. Magellan asked for food supplies,
and the men went away, promising to bring rice and other supplies
in “four days.”
There were two springs of water on that island of Homonhon.
Also they saw there some indications that there was gold in these
islands. Consequently Magellan renamed the island and called it
the “Watering Place of Good Omen” (Acquada la di bouni segnialli).
Friday, March 29 — At noon the natives returned. This time they
were in two boats, and they brought food supplies.
Magellan's expedition stayed eight days at Homonhon: from
Sunday, March 17, to the Monday of the following week, March 25.
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.
‘The route taken by the expedition after leaving Homonhon was
“toward the west southwest, between fourislands: 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
(Le., “Ceylon’). On the other hand, Hibuson (Pigafetta’s Ibusson) is
an island east of Leyte's southern tip.10.
iL.
uw
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.”
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 (ie., North) and in a longitude
of one hundred and sixty-two degrees from the line of demarcation.
Ir is twenty-five leagues from the Acquada, and is called Mazaua.”
They remained seven days on Mazaua Island.
‘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.”
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.
From the Camotes Islands they sailed southwards towards “Zubu.”
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. TI, 1-35.were available in that island. They relied 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 done that day because the two kings
were sleeping off their drinking bout the night before.
7. Tuesday, April 2 and Wednesday, April 3 — Work on the harvest
during the “nest to days,” ie, Tuesday and Wednesday, the 2nd
and 3rd of April.
8. Thursday, April 4— They leave Mazaua, bound for Cebu.
‘Using the primary sources available, Jesuit priest Miguel A Bernad in
‘his work Butuan or Limasawa: The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines:
A Reexamination of Evidence (1981) lays down the argument that in the
‘Pigafetta account, a crucial aspect of Butuan was not mentioned—the river.
Butuan is a riverine settlement, situated on the Agusan River. The beach of
‘Macao is in the delta of said river. It is a curious omission in the account of
the river, which makes part of a distinct characteristic of Butuan's geography
‘that seemed to be too important to be missed.
‘The Age of Exploration is a period of competition among European
rulers to conguer and colonize lands outside their original domains.
Initially, the goal was to find alternative routes by sea to get to Asia,
the main source of spices and other commodities. Existing routes to Asia
‘were mainly by land and costs very expensive. A cea route to Asia means
that Europeans could access the spice trade directly, greatly reducing
costs for traders. Spain's major foray into the exploration was through
Christopher Columbus, who proposed to sail westward to find a shortcut
to Asia. He was able to reach the Americas, which was then cut-off from
the rest of the known world.
Spain colonized parts of North America, Mexico, and South America in
the sixteenth century. They were also able to reach the Philippinesand claim it for the Spanish crown. Later on, other European rulers
would compete with the activities of exploring and conquering lands.
Tt 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?
The year 1872 is a historic year of two events: the Cavite Mutiny and
the martyrdom of the three priests: Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and
Jacinto Zamora, later on immortalized as GOMBURZA. These events are
very important milestones in Philippine history and have caused ripples
throughout time, directly influencing the decisive events of the Philippine
Revolution toward the end of the century. While the significance is
unquestioned, what made this year controversial are the different sides to
the story, a battle of perspectives supported by primary sources. In this case
study, we zoom in to the events of the Cavite Mutiny, a major factor in the
awakening of nationalism among the Filipinos of that time.
Spanish Accounts of the Cavite Mutiny
‘The documentation of Spanish historian Jose Montero y Vidal centered
on how the event wasan attempt in overthrowing the Spanish government in
the Philippines, Although regarded as a historian, his account of the mutiny
was criticized as woefully biased and rabid for a scholar. Another account
from the official report written by then Governor General Rafael Izquierdo
implicated the native clergy, who were then, active in the movement toward,
secularization of parishes. These two accounts corroborated each other.
Primary Source: Excerpts from Montero’s Account of the Cavite
Mutiny
Source: Jose Montero y Vidal, “Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny
of 1872,” in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of
Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 269—
278.
The abolition of privilezes enjoyed by the laborers of the Cavite arsenal
of exemption from the tribute was, according to some, the cause of the
insurrection. There were, however, other causes.The Spanish revolution which overthrew a secular throne; the
propaganda carried on by an unbridled press against monarchical
principles, attentatory [sic] of the most sacred respects towards the
dethroned majesty; the democratic and republican books and pamphlets:
the speeches and preachings of the apostles of these new ideas in Spain;
the outbursts of the American publicists and the criminal policy of
the senseless Governor whom the Revolutionary government sent to
govern the Philippines, and who put into practice these ideas were the
determining circumstances which gave rise, among certain Filipinos, to
the idea of attaining their independence. It was towards this goal that
they started to work, with the powerful assistance of a certain section
of the native clergy, who out of spite toward friars, made common cause
with the enemies of the mother country.
At various times but especially in the beginning of year 1872, the
authorities received anonymous communications with the information
thata great uprising would break out against the Spaniards, the minute
the fleet at Cavite left for the South, and that all would be assassinated,
including the friars. But nobody gave importance to these notices. The
conspiracy had been going on since the days of La Torre with utmost
secrecy. At times, the principal leaders met either in the house of
Filipino Spaniard, D. Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, or in that of the native
priest, Jacinto Zamora, and these meetings were usually attended by the
curate of Bacoor, the soul of the movement, whose energetic character
and immense wealth enabled him to exercise a strong influence.
Primary Source: Excerpts from the Official Report of Governor
Izquierdo on the Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Source: Rafael Izquierdo, “Official Report on the Cavite Mutiny,” in
Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine
History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 981-286.
It seems definite that the insurrection was motivated and prepared
by the native clergy, by the mestizos and native lawyers, and by those
known here as abogadillos..
‘The instigators, to carry out their criminal project, protested against
the injustice of the government in not paying the provinces for their
tobacoo crop, and against the usury that come practice in documents
that the Finance department gives crop owners who have to sell them
at a loss. They encouraged the rebellion by protesting what they called
the injustice of having obliged the workers in the Cavite arsenal to paytribute starting January 1 and to render personal service, from which
they were formerly exempted...
Upto nowit has not been clearly determined if they planned to establish
a monarchy or a republic, because the Indios have no word in their
language to describe this different form of government, whose head in
Filipino would be called hari; but it turns out that they would place at
the head of the government a priest... that the head selected would be
D. Jose Burgos, or D. Jacinto Zamora.
Such is... the plan of the rebels, those who guided them, and the means
they counted upon for its realization.
Tt is apparent that the accounts underscore the reason for the
“revolution”. the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the workers of the Cavite
arsenal such as exemption from payment of tribute and being employed in
polos yy servicios, or force labor. They also identified other reasons which
seemingly made the issue a lot more serious, which included the presence of
the native clergy, who, out of spite against the Spanish friars, “conspired and
supported” the rebels. Izquierdo, in an obviously biased report, highlighted
that attempt to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines to
install a new “hari” in the persons of Fathers Burgos and Zamora. According
to him, native clergy attracted supporters by giving them charismatic
assurance that their fight would not fail because they had God's support,
aside from promises of lofty rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks
in the army.
In the Spaniard’s accounts, the event of 1872 was premeditated, and
was part of a big conspiracy among the educated leaders, mestizos, lawyers,
and residents of Manila and Cavite. They allegedly plan to liquidate high-
ranking Spanish officers, then kill the friars. The signal they identified
among these conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the rockets fired from
Intramuros_
The accounts detail that on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc
celebrated the feast of the Virgin of Loreto, and came with it were some
fireworks display. The Caviteiios allegedly mistook this as the signal to
‘commence with the attack. The 200-mencontingent ledby Sergeant Lamadrid
attacked Spanish officers at sight and seized the arsenal. Inquierdo, upon
learning of the attack, ordered the reinforcement of the Spanish forces in
Cavite to quell the revolt. The “revolution” was easily crushed, when the
‘Manileiios who were expected to aid the Caviteiios did not arrive. Leaders of
the plot were killed in the resulting skirmish, while Fathers Gomez, Burgos,and Zamora were tried by a court-martial and sentenced to be executed.
Others who were implicated such as Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma.
Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa, and other Filipino lawyers were suspended
from the practice af law, arrested, and sentenced to life imprisonment at
the Marianas Island. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery
and ordered the creation of an artillery force composed exclusively by
Peninsulares.
On 17 February 1872, the GOMBURZA were executed to serve as. a
threat to Filipinos never to attempt to fight the Spaniards again.
Differing Accounts of the Events of 1872
Two other primary accounts exist that seem to counter the accounts
of Izquierdo and Montero. First, the account of Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo
Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher, who wrote a Filipino
version of the bloody incident in Cavite.
Primary Source: Excerpt from Pardo de Tavera’s Account of the
Cavite Mutiny
Source: Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, “Filipino Version of the Cavite
Mutiny,” in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources
of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990),
274-280.
This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as a powerful level
by the Spanish residents and by the friars... the Central Government
in Madrid had announced its intention to deprive the friars in these
islands of powers of intervention in matters of civil government and of
the direction and management of the university... it was due to these
facts and promises that the Filipinos had great hopes of animprovement
in the affairs of their country, while the friars, on the other hand, feared
that their power in the colony would soon be complete a thing of the
past.
_.Up to that time there had heen no intention of secession from Spain,
and the only aspiration of the people was to secure the material and
education advancement of the country...
According to this account, the incident was merely a mutiny by Filipino
soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal. Soldiers and laborers ofthe arsenalto the dissatisfaction arising from the draconian policies of Izquierdo, such
as the abolition of privileges and the prohibition of the founding of the school
of arts and trades for Filipinos, which the General saw as a smokescreen to
creating political club
Tavera is of the opinion that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the
Cavite Mutiny as a way to address other issues by blowing out of proportion
the isolated mutiny attempt. During this time, the Central Government in
‘Madrid was planning to deprive the friars of all the powers of intervention
in matters of civil government and direction and management of educational
institutions. The friars needed something to justify their continuing
dominance in the country, and the mutiny provided such opportunity.
However, the Central Spanish Government introduced an educational
decree fusing sectarian schools run by the friars into a school called the
Philippine Institute. The decree aimed to improve the standard of education
in the Philippines by requiring teaching positions in these schools to be filled
by competitive examinations, an improvement welcomed by most Filipinos.
Another account, this time by French writer Edmund Plauchut,
complemented Tavera’s account and analyzed the motivations of the 1872
Cavite Mutiny.
Primary Source: Excerpts from Plauchut’s Account of the Cavite
Mutiny
Source: Edmund Plauchut, “The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 and the
Martyrdom of Gom-Bur-Za,” in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide,
Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National
Book Store, 1990), 251-268
General La Torre... created a junta composed of high officials..
including some friars and six Spanish officials... At the same time there
was created by the government in Madrid a committee to investigate
the same problems submitted to the Manila committee. When the two
finished work, it was found that they came to the same conclusions. Here
is the summary of the reforms they considered necessary to introduce:
1. Changes in tariff rates at customs, and the 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
transports flying the Spanish flag.
5. Establishment of an advisory council to inform the Minister
of Overseas Affairs in Madrid on the necessary reforms to be
implemented.
6 Changes in primary and secondary education.
7. Establishment of an Institute of Civil Administration in the
Philippines, rendering unnecessary the sending home of short-
term civil officials every time there is a change of ministry.
8. Study of direct-tax system.
9. Abolition of the tobacco monopoly.
The arrival in Manila of General Izquierdo... put a sudden end to all
dreams of reforms... the prosecutions instituted by the new Governor
General were probably expected as a result of the hitter disputes
between the Filipino clerics and the friars. Such a policy must really
end in a strong desire on the part of the other to repress cruelly.
In regard to schools, it was previously decreed that there should be in
‘Manila a Society of Arts and Trades to be opened in March of 1871... to
repress the growth of liberal teachings, General Izquierdo suspended the
opening of the school... the day previous to the scheduled inauguration...
The Filipinos had a duty to render service on public reads construction
and pay taxes every year. But those who were employed at the
maestranza of the artillery, in the engineering chops and arsenal of
Cavite, were exempted from this obligation from time immemorial.
‘Without preliminaries of any kind, a decree by the Governor withdrew
from such old employees their retirement privileges and declassified
them into the ranks of those who worked on public roads.
The friars used the incident as a part of a larger conspiracy to cement
‘their dominance, which had started to show cracks because of the discontent
of the Filipinos. They showcased the mutiny as part ofa greater conspiracy
in the Philippines by Filipinos to overthrow the Spanish Government.
‘Unintentionally, and more so, prophetically, the Cavite Mutiny of 1872
resulted in the martyrdom of GOMBURZA, and paved the way to the
revolution culminating in 1898.‘The GOMBURZA is the collective name of the three martyred priests
‘Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, who were tagged as
the masterminds of the Cavite Mutiny. They were prominent Filipino
priests charged with treason and sedition, It is believed that the Spanish
clergy connected the priests to the mutiny as part of a conspiracy to
stifle the movement of secular priests who desired to have their own
parishes instead of being merely assistants to the regular friars. The
GOMBURZA were executed by garrote in public, a scene purportedly
witnessed by a young Jose Rizal.
‘Their martyrdom is widely acceptedas the dawnofPhilippinenationalism
in the eighteenth century, with Rizal dedicating his second novel, El
Filibusterismo, to their memory:
“The Government, by enshrouding your trial in mystery and pardoning
‘your co-accused, has suggested that some mistake was committed when
‘your fate was decided; and the whole of the Philippines, in paying homage
to your memory and calling you martyrs, totally rejects your guilt. The
Church, by refusing to degrade you, has put in doubt the crime charged
against you.”
Case Study 3: Did Rizal Retract?
Jose Rizal is identified as a hero of the revolution for his writings that
center on ending colonialism and liberating Filipino minds to contribute
to creating the Filipino nation. The great volume of Rizal's lifework was
committed to this end, particularly the more influential ones, Noli Me
Tangere and El Filibusterismo. His essays vilify not the Catholic religion,
‘but the friars, the main 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 a
“The Retraction,” declares Rizal's belief in the Catholic faith, and retracts
‘everything he wrote against the Church,
Primary Source: Rizal's Retraction
Source: Translated from the document found by Fr. Manuel Garcia,CM. on 18 May 1935.
I declare myself a catholic and in this Religion in which I was born and
educated I wich to live and die.
Tretract 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 Espafiola and Diario de Manila on the day of the
‘execution, 30 December 1896. The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain,
‘onthe magazine La Juventud, a few months after the execution, 14 February
1897, from an anonymous writer who was later on revealed to be Fr. Vicente
Balaguer. However, the “original” text was only found in the archdiocesan
archives on 18 May 1935, after almost four decades of disappearance.
The Balaguer Testimony
Doubts on the retraction document abound, especially because only
one eyewitness account of the writing of the document exists—that af the
Jesuit friar Fr. Vicente Balaguer. According to his testimony, Rizal woke up
several times, confessed four times, attended a Mass, received communion,
and prayed the rosary, all of which seemed out of character. But since it is,
‘the only testimony of allegedly a “primary” account that Rizal ever wrote
a retraction document, it has been used to argue the authenticity of the
document.
The Testimony of Cuerpo de Vigilancia
Another eyewitness account surfaced in 2016, through the research of
‘Professor Rene R. Escalante. In his research, documents of the Cuerpo de
Vigilancia included a report on the last hours of Rizal, written by Federico
‘Moreno. The report details the statement of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia to
Moreno.Primary Source: Eyewitness Account of the Last Hours of Rizal
Source: Michael Charleston Chua, “Retraction mi Jose Rizal: Mga
bagong dokumento at pananaw.” GMM News Online, published 29
December 2016.
‘Most [lustrious Sir, the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia stationed in
Fort Santiago to report on the events during the [illegible] day in prison
of the accused Jose Rizal, informs me on this date of the following:
At 7.30 yesterday morning, Jose Rizal entered death row accompanied
by his counsel, Sefior Taviel de Andrade, and the Jesuit priest Vilaclara.
‘At the urgings of the former and moments after entering, he was served
a light breakfast. At approximately 9. the Assistant of the Plaza,
Sefior Maure, asked Rizal if he wanted anything. He replied that at
the moment he only wanted a prayer book, which was brought to him
shortly by Father March
Sefior Andrade left death row at 10 and Rizal spoke for a long while with
the Jesuit fathers, March and Vilaclara, regarding religious matters,
it seems. It appears that these two presented him with a prepared
retraction on his life and deeds that he refused to sign. They argued
about the matter until 12-30 when Rizal ate some poached egg and a
little chicken. Afterwards he asked to leave to write and wrote for a long
time by himself
At 3 in the afternoon, Father March entered the chapel and Rizal
handed kim what he had written. Immediately the chief of the firing
squad, Sefior del Fresno and the Assistant of the Plaza, Sefior Maure,
were informed. They entered death row and together with Rizal signed
the document that the accused had written.
At 5 this morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal arrived at the prison ...
dressed in mourning. Only the former entered the chapel, followed by a
military chaplain whose name I cannot ascertain. Donning his formal
clothes and aided by a soldier of the artillery, the nuptials of Rizal and
the woman who had been his lover were performed at the point of death
Gin articulo mortis). After embracing him che left, flooded with tears.
This account corroborates the existence of the retraction document,
giving it credence. However, nowhere in the account was Fr. Balaguer
mentioned, which makes the friar a mere secondary source to the writing of
the document.‘The retraction of Rizal remains to this day, a controversy; many scholars,
however, agree that the document does not tarnish the heroism of Rizal. His
relevance remained solidified to Filipinos and pushed them to continue the
revolution, which eventually resulted in independence in 1898.
Rizal's Connection to the Katipunan is undenisble—in fact, the
precursor of the Katipunan as an organization is the La Liga Filipina,
an organization Rizal founded, with Andres Bonifacio as one of its
members. But La Liga Filipina was chortlived as the Spaniards exiled
Rizal to Dapitan. Former members decided to band together to establish
the Katipunan a few days after Rizal's exile on 7 July 1892.
Rizal may not have been officially part of the Katipunan, but the
Katipuneros showed great appreciation of his work toward the same
goals. Out of the 28 members of the leadership of the Katipunan (mown
as the Kataas-taasang Sanggunian ng Katipunan) from 1892 to 1896, 13
were former members of La Liga Filipina. Katipuneros even used Rizal's
name as a password.
In 1896, the Katipuneros decided to inform Rizal of their plans to
launch the revolution, and cent Pio Valenzuela to visit Rizal in Dapitan.
Valenzuela’s accounts of his meeting with Rizal have been greatly
doubted by many scholars, but according to him, Rizal objected to the
plans, saying that doing so would be tantamount to suicide since it would
be difficult to fight the Spaniards who had the advantage of military
resources. He added that the leaders of the Katipunan must do everything
they could to prevent the spilling of Filipino blood. Valenzuela informed
Rizal that the revolution could inevitably break out if the Katipunan
were to be discovered by the Spaniards. Rizal advised Valenzuela that
the Katipunan chould first secure the support of wealthy Filipinos to
strengthen their cause, and suggested that Antonio Luna be recruited to
direct the military movement of the revolution.
Case Study 4: Where Did the Cry of Rebellion Happen?
‘Momentous events swept the Spanish colonies in the late nineteenth
century, including the Philippines. Journalists of the time referred to the
phrase “El Grito de Rebelion” or “Cry of Rebellion” to mark the start of
these revolutionary events, identifying the places where it happened. In the
Philippines, this happened in August 1896, northeast of Manila, where they
declared rebellion against the Spanish colonial government. These eventsare important markers in the history of colonies that struggled for their
independence against their colonizers.
The controversy regarding this event stems from the identification of
the date and place where the Cry happened. Prominent Filipino historian
‘Teodoro Agoncillo emphasizes the event when Bonifacio tore the cedula or
tax receipt before the Katipuneros who also did the same. Some writers
identified the first military event with the Spaniards as the moment of the
Cry, for which, Emilio Aguinaldo commissioned a “Himno de Balintawak”
to inspire the renewed struggle after the Pact of the Biak-na-Bato failed. A
monument to the Heroes of 1896 was erected in what is now the intersection
of Epifanio de los Santos (EDSA) Avenue and Andres Bonifacio Drive-North
Diversion road, and from then on until 1962, the Cry of Balintawak was
celebrated every 26th of August. The site of the monument was chosen for
an unknown reason.
Different Dates and Places of the Cry
‘Various accounts of the Cry give different dates and places. A guardia
civil, Lt. Olegario Diaz, identified the Cry tohave happened in Balintawak on
25 August 1896. Teodoro Kalaw, Filipino historian, marks the place to be in
Kangkong, Balintawak, on the last week of August 1896. Santiago Alvarez,
a Katipunero and son of Mariano Alvarez, leader of the Magdiwang faction
in Cavite, put the Cry in Bahay Toro in Quezon City on 24 August 1896.
Pio Valenzuela, Inown Katipunero and privy to many events concerning
the Katipunan stated that the Cry happened in Pugad Lawin on 23 August
1896. Historian Gregorio Zaide identified the Cry to have happened in
Balintawak on 26 August 1896, while Teodoro Agoncillo put it at Pugad
Lawin on 23 August 1896, according to statements by Pio Valenzuela.
Research by historians Milagros Guerrero, Emmanuel Encarnacion, and
Ramon Villegas claimed that the event tock place in Tandang Sora’s bam in
Gulod, Barangay Banlat, Quezon City, on 24 August 1896.
Primary Source: Accounts of the Cry
Guillermo Masangkay
Source: Guillermo Masangkay, “Cry of Balintawak” in Gregorio Zaide
and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 8
(Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 307-309.On August 26th, a big meeting was held in Balintawak, at the house of
Apolonio Samson, then cabeza of that barrio of Caloocan. Among those
who attended, I remember, were Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Aguedo del
Rosario, Tomas Remizio, Briccio Pantas, Teodoro Plata, Pio Valenzuela,
Enrique Pacheco, and Francisco Carreon. They were all leaders of the
Katipunan and composed the board of directors of the organization.
Delegates from Bulacan, Cabanatuan, Cavite, and Morong were also
present.
At about nine o'clock in the morning of August 26, the meeting was
opened with Andres Bonifacio presiding and Emilio Jacinto acting as
secretary. The purpose was to discuss when the uprising was to take
place. Teodoro Plata, Briccio Pantas, and Pio Valenzuela were all
opposed to starting the revolution too early... Andres Bonifacio, sensing
that he would lose in the discussion then, left the session hall and talked
to the people, who were waiting outside for the result of the meeting of
the leaders. He told the people that the leaders were arguing against
starting the revolution early, and appealed to them in a fiery speech
in which he said: “You remember the fate of our countrymen who were
shot in Bagumbayan. Should we return now to the towns, the Spaniards
will only shoot us. Our organization has been discovered and we are all
marked men. If we don't start the uprising, the Spaniards will get us
anyway. What then, do you say?”
“Revolt!” the people shouted as one.
Bonifacio then acked the people to give a pledge that they were to
revolt. He told them that the sign of clavery of the Filipinos were (sic)
the cedula tax charged each citizen. “If it is true that you are ready to
revolt... I want to see you destroy your cedulas. It will be a sign that all
of us have declared our severance from the Spaniards.”
Pio Valenzuela
Source: Pio Valenzuela, “Cry of Pugad Lawin,” in Gregorio Zaide and
Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 8
(Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 301-302.
The first place of refuge of Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Procopio
Bonifacio, Teodoro Plata, Aguedo del Rosario, and myself was
Balintawak, the first five arriving there on August 19, and J, on August
20, 1996, The first place where some 500 members of the Katipunan
met on August 22, 1896, was the house and yard of Apolonio Samson atKangkong. Aside from the persons mentioned above, among those who
were there were Briccio Pantas, Alejandro Santiago, Ramon Bernardo,
Apolonio Samson, and others. Here, views were only exchanged, and no
resolution was debated or adopted. It was at Pugad Lawin, the house,
store-house, and yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino, where
over 1,000 members of the Katipunan met and carried out considerable
debate and discussion on August 23, 1896. The discussion was on
whether or not the revolution against the Spanish government should
be started on August 29, 1896... After the tumultuous meeting, many of
those present tore their cedula certificates and shouted “Long live the
Philippines! Long live the Philippines!”
From the eyewitness accounts presented, there is indeed marked
disagreement among historical witnesses as to the place and time of the
occurrence of the Cry. Using primary and secondary sources, four places
have been identified: Balintawak, Kangkong, Pugad Lawin, and Bahay
Toro, while the dates vary: 23, 24, 25, or 26 August 1896.
Valenzuela’s account should be read with caution: He once told a
Spanich investigator that the “Cry” happened in Balintawak on Wednesday,
26 August 1896, Much later, he wrote in his Memoirs of the Revolution that
it happened at Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896. Such inconsistencies in
accounts should always be seen as a red flag when dealing with primary
sources.
According to Guerrero, Encarnacion, and Villegas, all these places are
in Balintawak, then part of Caloocan, now, in Quezon City. As for the dates,
Bonifacio and his troops may have been moving from one place to another
to avoid being located by the Spanish government, which could explain why
there are several accounts of the Cry.