III.

Controversies & conflicting view in Philippine History

A) site of the first mass

●
Other Filipino historians has long contested the idea of Limasawa as the site of
the first Catholic mass in the country. Historian Sonia Zaide identified Masao (also
Mazaua) in Butuan as the location of the first Christian mass. Basis of Zaide's claim is
the diary of Antonio Pigafetta, chronicler of Magellan's voyage.

● In 1995 then Congresswoman Ching Plaza of Agusan del Norte-Butuan City

filed a bill in Congress contesting the Limasawa hypothesis and asserting the
"site of the first mass" was Butuan. The Philippine Congress referred the matter to
the National Historical Institute for it to study the issue and recommend a
historical finding. Then NHI chair Dr. Samuel K. Tan reaffirmed Limasawa as the
site of the first mass.

● Decades after the debate on where the first Catholic mass in the archipelago
took place has still unresolved , local historians has been said they have new
data and evidences to prove that the “honor” belongs to the city.
They said they are hoping that the Catholic Bishops Conference of the

Philippines (CBCP) would finally declare that the first mass was held in Mazaua,

a place in Butuan now called Masao, not in Limasawa Island in Leyte as stated in

history books.

● The first mass site was torn between in Limasawa or Butuan, it has been a well
known controversy since before. Pigafetta tells us that it was held on Easter
Sunday , the 31st of March 1521, on an island called “Mazaua”.
● The subject of the controversy is the identity of this place, there are two
conflicting claims as to its identity: one points to the little island south of Leyte
which is in the maps called Limasawa; the other rejects that claim and points
instead to the beach called Masao at the mouth of the Agusan River in northern
Mindanao, near what was then the village (now the city) of Butuan.
There are evidence in favor of Limasawa which outlined as:
1.The evidence of Albo’s Log-Book
2. The evidence of Pigafetta
 (a) Pigafetta’s testimony regarding the route;
(b) The evidence of Pigafetta’s map;
(c) The two native kings;
(d) The seven days at “Mazaua”;
(e) An argument from omission
3.Summary of the evidence of Albo and Pigafetta
4. Confirmatory evidence from the Legazpi expedition
B)cavite mutiny
● In 1872 is the controversy of Cavite mutiny where the Filipino soldier and the
labourer often portrayed as a new start by the friars with the intention or planning
of eliminating the people who were involved in the incident.
 ● 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 BCD Regional Trial Court
AFTER 3 HOURS
● 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.

C) retraction of rizal
● For decades, the authenticity of Jose Rizal’s retraction documents have raised
issues, skepticism,and heated debates among those who seek to know the truth
regarding this controversy.

● The Retraction Document is said to be a forgery.

1. First of all there is the matter of the handwriting

2. A second argument directed against the authenticity of the document itself
is based on the principles of textual criticism
 3. A third argument applies to the Retraction itself is that its content is in part
strangely worded
4. Finally, there is the “confession” of “the forger.”
● The second main line of argument against the Retraction is the claim that other
acts and facts do not fit well with the story of the Retraction.
● The third chief line of argument against the Retraction is that it is out of character
● To conclude, whether or not Jose Rizal retracted, the researchers believe that the
retraction document was more of Rizal taking a moral courage to recognize his
mistakes. Perhaps it may be true
that he retracted and reverted to his faith, but this does
not diminish Rizal’s stature as a great hero with
such greatness.

D) cry of balintawak
.

● The controversy among historians continues to the present day. The “Cry of
Pugad Lawin” (August 23, 1896) cannot be accepted as historically accurate. It
lacks positive documentation and supporting evidence from the witness. The
testimony of only one eyewitness (Dr. Pio Valenzuela) is not enough to
authenticate and verify a controversial issue in history. Historians and their living
participants, not politicians and their sycophants, should settle this controversy
● It is not clear why the 1911 monument was erected there. It could not have been
to mark the site of Apolonio Samson’s house in barrio Kangkong; Katipuneros
marked that site on Kaingin Road, between Balintawak and San Francisco del
Monte Avenue.
● Neither could the 1911 monument have been erected to mark the site of the first
armed encounter which, incidentally, the Katipuneros fought and won. A
contemporary map of 1896 shows that the August battle between the Katipunan
rebels and the Spanish forces led by Lt. Ros of the Civil Guards took place at
sitio Banlat, North of Pasong Tamo Road far from Balintawak. The site has its
own marker.
● It is quite clear that first, eyewitnesses cited Balintawak as the better-known
reference point for a larger area. Second, while Katipunan may have been
 massing in Kangkong, the revolution was formally launched elsewhere.
Moreover, eyewitnesses and therefore historians, disagreed on the site and date
of the Cry.
● In September 1896, Valenzuela stated before the Olive Court, which was
charged with investigating persons involved in the rebellion, only that Katipunan
meetings took place from Sunday to Tuesday or 23 to 25 August at Balintawak.
● In 1911, Valenzuela averred that the Katipunan began meeting on 22 August
while the Cry took place on 23 August at Apolonio Samson’s house in
Balintawak.
● From 1928 to 1940, Valenzuela maintained that the Cry happened on 24 August
at the house of Tandang Sora (Melchora Aquino) in Pugad Lawin, which he now
situated near Pasong Tamo Road. A photograph of Bonifacio’s widow Gregoria
de Jesus and Katipunan members Valenzuela, Briccio Brigido Pantas, Alfonso
and Cipriano Pacheco, published in La Opinion in 1928 and 1930, was captioned
both times as having been taken at the site of the Cry on 24 August 1896 at the
house of Tandang Sora at Pasong Tamo Road.
● In 1935 Valenzuela, Pantas and Pacheco proclaimed “na hindi sa Balintawak
nangyari ang unang sigaw ng paghihimagsik na kinalalagian ngayon ng
bantayog, kung di sa pook na kilala sa tawag na Pugad Lawin.” (The first Cry of
the revolution did not happen in Balintawak where the monument is, but in a
place called Pugad Lawin.)
● In 1940, a research team of the Philippines Historical Committee (a forerunner of
the National Historical Institute or NHI), which included Pio Valenzuela, identified
the precise spot of Pugad Lawin as part of sitio Gulod, Banlat, Kalookan City. In
1964, the NHI’s Minutes of the Katipunan referred to the place of the Cry as
Tandang Sora’s and not as Juan Ramos’ house, and the date as 23 August.