GE 2: READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

MODULE 3:
CONTROVERSIES AND CONFLICTING VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY
It has been said that the Philippines had “one past but many histories” is true in this case.
Different authors and writers of Philippine history books vary in description of the Philippine’s
physical features, its location, number of islands, land area, river, systems, mountains, site of the
first mass, cry of Balintawak among others. With these conflicting views in certain events and
situations, they are subjected for debate.

Module Learning Objectives:

At the end of the module, the students are expected to:
a. Criticize conflicting views concerning certain historical issues;
b. Compare and contrast views of prominent people on particular issues

Section 1: The Philippine Physical Features

1. Number of Islands in the Philippines
a) Molina and Zaide– 7,083 islands
b) Agoncillo and Alfonso – 7,000 islands
c) Alip – 7,100 islands
d) Ariola – 7,083 islands

2. Number of Named Islands and Unnamed Islands

a) Agoncillo and Alfonso – 3,000 named and 4,000 unnamed
b) Alip – 2,773 named, the rest are still unnamed
c) Zaide – different data in his own books
i. Philippine History for Catholic Schools and the Republic of the
Philippine, 1963 – 2,773
ii. Philippine Political and Cultural History, 1957 – 2,782
d) Gagelonia, The Filipino Historian – 2,000 named

3. Longest River in the World – Fact: The largest, longest and widest river in the
Philippines is the Cagayan River or Rio de Cagayan. It is located in the Northeastern part
of Luzon that traverses the provinces of Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino, Isabela, and Cagayan.
The Rio Grande de Mindanao or Mindanao River is the second largest river located on
the southern part of Mindanao. Its headwaters are in the mountains of Impasugong,
Bukidnon, south of Gingoong City in Misamis Oriental

Disagreement among authors in Philippine History

a) Alip and Google – considered Cagayan River as the longest river in the country.
b) Molina, Benitez, and Zaide – considered Rio Grande de Mindanao as the longest
river of the country.

4. Straits – it is a naturally formed, narrow but navigable waterway that connects two lager
bodies of water.
a) Molina – 8 landlock straits
b) Agoncillo – 20 landlock straits
c) Zaide – 8 landlock straits
d) Google – 22 straits
Section 2: Site of the First Mass
 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 fiorst mass controversy in the city’s favor. Local
historians in Butuan believed that the first site of the Catholic mass took place in
Mazawa, a place in Butuan no called Masao, not in Limasawa Island in Leyte as stated in
history books.
 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. Pigafetta saw these islands on their way out from Mazaua after thei departure
on April 4, after the first mass was celebrated on March 31.
 Additional online reading:
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2006/04/02/329389/butuan-pursue-claim-it-was-site-first-
mass-rp-485-years-ago

Section 3: The Cry of Balintawak

 The event has been considered a turning point in the Philippine history, however it is
considered to be a contrived controversy. The main controversy is the date and place of
Bonifacio Cry. There were five (5) dates for the Cry – August 20, 23, 24, 25, and 26 and
five different venues for the first cry: Balintawak, Pugadlawin, Kangkong, Bahay-Toro,
and Pasong Tamo.
 The first issue: It was widely accepted that the first cry took place in Balintawak,
Caloocan on August 23, 1896.
 The second issue: The first cry was on August 23, 1896 in Pugadlawin.
 The third issue: The cry occurred towards the end of August 1896 and that all the places
mentioned above are in Caloocan which in those times was a district of Balintawak.

Section 4: The Cavite Mutiny Controversy

by Chris Antonette Piedad-Pugay
 The 12th of June of every year since 1898 is a very important event for all the Filipinos.
In this particular day, the entire Filipino nation as well as Filipino communities all over
the world gathers to celebrate the Philippines’ Independence Day. 1898 came to be a
very significant year for all of us— it is as equally important as 1896—the year when the
Philippine Revolution broke out owing to the Filipinos’ desire to be free from the abuses
of the Spanish colonial regime. But we should be reminded that another year is as
historic as the two—1872.
 Two major events happened in 1872, first was the 1872 Cavite Mutiny and the other was
the martyrdom of the three martyr priests in the persons of Fathers Mariano Gomes, Jose
Burgos and Jacinto Zamora (GOMBURZA). However, not all of us knew that there were
different accounts in reference to the said event. All Filipinos must know the different
sides of the story—since this event led to another tragic yet meaningful part of our
history—the execution of GOMBURZA which in effect a major factor in the awakening
of nationalism among the Filipinos.

1872 Cavite Mutiny: Spanish Perspective

 Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian documented the event and highlighted
it as an attempt of the Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines.
Meanwhile, Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo’s official report magnified the event and made
use of it to implicate the native clergy, which was then active in the call for
 secularization. The two 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.

A Response to Injustice: The Filipino Version of the Incident

 Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher, wrote the
Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite. In his point of view, the incident was a
mere mutiny by the native Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal who turned
out to be dissatisfied with the abolition of their privileges. Indirectly, Tavera blamed
 Gov. Izquierdo’s cold-blooded policies such as the abolition of privileges of the workers
and native army members of the arsenal and the prohibition of the founding of school of
arts and trades for the Filipinos, which the general believed as a cover-up for the
organization of a political club.
 On 20 January 1872, about 200 men comprised of soldiers, laborers of the arsenal, and
residents of Cavite headed by Sergeant Lamadrid rose in arms and assassinated the
commanding officer and Spanish officers in sight. The insurgents were expecting
support from the bulk of the army unfortunately, that didn’t happen. The news about the
mutiny reached authorities in Manila and Gen. Izquierdo immediately ordered the
reinforcement of Spanish troops in Cavite. After two days, the mutiny was officially
declared subdued.
 Tavera believed that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a
powerful lever by magnifying it as a full-blown conspiracy involving not only the native
army but also included residents of Cavite and Manila, and more importantly the native
clergy to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines. It is noteworthy that
during the time, the Central Government in Madrid announced its intention to deprive the
friars of all the powers of intervention in matters of civil government and the direction
and management of educational institutions. This turnout of events was believed by
Tavera, prompted the friars to do something drastic in their dire sedire to maintain power
in the Philippines.
 Meanwhile, in the intention of installing reforms, the Central Government of Spain
welcomed an educational decree authored by Segismundo Moret promoted the fusion of
sectarian schools run by the friars into a school called Philippine Institute. The decree
proposed to improve the standard of education in the Philippines by requiring teaching
positions in such schools to be filled by competitive examinations. This improvement
was warmly received by most Filipinos in spite of the native clergy’s zest for
secularization.
 The friars, fearing that their influence in the Philippines would be a thing of the past, took
advantage of the incident and presented it to the Spanish Government as a vast
conspiracy organized throughout the archipelago with the object of destroying Spanish
sovereignty. Tavera sadly confirmed that the Madrid government came to believe that the
scheme was true without any attempt to investigate the real facts or extent of the alleged
“revolution” reported by Izquierdo and the friars.
 Convicted educated men who participated in the mutiny were sentenced life
imprisonment while members of the native clergy headed by the GOMBURZA were tried
and executed by garrote. This episode leads to the awakening of nationalism and
eventually to the outbreak of Philippine Revolution of 1896. The French writer Edmund
Plauchut’s account complimented Tavera’s account by confirming that the event
happened due to discontentment of the arsenal workers and soldiers in Cavite fort. The
Frenchman, however, dwelt more on the execution of the three martyr priests which he
actually witnessed.

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 weenjoy 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.”

Section 5: The Philippine National Flag

 Before 1896, the Filipinos had no common flag. The use of flags became common in the
Philippines during the height of the revolution.
 Different flags were created and designed by various Katipunan generals signifying the
unit or battalion where they belong. However, these flags cannot be classified as a
“national” flag.
 Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo aspired to establish a new nation to be signified by a flag and an
anthem during the second phase of the Philippine Revolution. With this, he himself made
the sketch of the flag that he submitted to Doña Marcela Agoncillo who was then living
at 535 Morrison Hill Road in Hong Kong.
 In sewing the flag, Mrs. Agoncillo was assisted by her daughter Lorenza and by Delfina
Herbosa Natividad. After five days of hard work, the flag was delivered to Aguinaldo
who went back to the Philippines.
 The flag as described by the maker herself was “made from fine silk with a white triangle
at the left containing a sunburst with eight rays at the center, a five-pointed star at each
angle of the triangle, an upper stripe of dark blue and a lower stripe of red. The white
triangle stood for the Filipinos’ hope for equality; the blue color stood for peace, truth
and justice; and the red stood for patriotism and valor. The sunburst of eight rays
represented the first eight provinces to take up arms against Spain, and the three stars
symbolized Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.”

Philippine Flag Banned

 When the Americans took over the Philippines, mutual distrust among the Filipinos and
Americans sparked. This prompted the Philippine Commission to enact the Flag Law of
1907 that forbade the Filipinos to use or display the Philippine flag anywhere, even inside
Filipino homes. The Filipinos responded with bitter protests as they saw the Flag Law as
a violation of the fundamental principle of free expression.
  Several efforts were done by Filipino legislators to repeal the law, but to no avail.
 In 1919, Senator Rafael Palma sponsored the Senate Bill No. 1, a bill repealing the Flag
Law of 1907 following Gov. Gen. Francis Harrison’s recommendation that the law
should be repealed since the distrust between the Filipinos and the Americans no longer
exists. On 24 October 1919, Act No. 2871 was approved and signed by Gen. Harrison;
thus, the Flag Law of 1907 was repealed.

Inclusion of a 9th Ray or Crescent in the Flag

 In 1970’s, appeals for the inclusion of an additional ray or a crescent in the Philippine
flag created another uproar.
 House bill No. 7725 sponsored by Rep. Sultan Omar Dianalan of the 1st District of
Lanao del Sur petitioned for the addition of 9th ray in the rays of the sun in the Philippine
flag to symbolize the Moslems and the cultural minorities who fought the Spaniards and
waged war against them.
 Other groups proposed that a crescent be placed beside the sun as a form of tribute to the
pre-colonial past.
 However, historians, headed by Teodoro Agoncillo singled out that when Aguinaldo
himself designed the flag, he had in his mind the eight provinces which rise in arms
against Spain during the Philippine Revolution namely: Manila, Cavite, Bulacan,
Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, Tarlac, Laguna and Batangas.
 He also pointed out that one of the three stars in the flag already represents the Moslem
and the Moslem lands.

How Blue is Blue?

 The repeal of the Flag Law of 1907 gave reason for the Filipinos to be jubilant, however,
it created a new controversy concerning the true color of the flag’s blue field. The issue
was raised as early as mid 1970’s until mid 1980’s. Through studies it appeared that the
conflict in the shades of blue might have resulted from the alleged hasty preparations of
the flag that was used for the Flag Day of March 26, 1920 following the repeal of the
Flag Law. The quartermaster was said to have run out of light blue cloth and used dark
blue instead similar to the one used for the American flag.
 Specification of the blue color of the original flag through a documented interview of
Emilio Aguinaldo by the historian Teodoro Agoncillo was noted before the former’s
death. In the interview, Aguinaldo specified that the blue color of the flag is “bughaw”
neither azul oscuro nor azul marino. Meanwhile, Juan Luna’s painting of the flag on
May 21, 1899 in “Monograph” illustrated the flag in China blue, not navy blue, whereas
Mariano Ponce in his letter to Ferdinand Blumentritt described the blue color of the flag
“as blue as the sky” symbolizing hope.
 Ponce’s description was complemented by Salvador Vivencio del Rosario’s in his article
“La Bandera de la Patria” published on October 1899 where he stated that the flag’s color
was “color celeste” (color of the sky). In 1943, however, The Philippine Flag wore a
bright royal blue during the inauguration of the Japanese sponsored Republic.
 The daughter of the flag-maker also named Marcela Agoncillo believed that it was not
sky blue or light blue but dark blue. She also argued that, if there was error in the color
of the flag, why did Aguinaldo never question it during his lifetime?
 Her description was supported by Teodoro Kalaw’s description of the flag. Meanwhile,
Arturo Tolentino raised that the flag that was used and adopted by the 1935 and the 1973
Constitution, which was colored dark blue should be maintained because it was the one
which was “consecrated and honored by the people” and the change of its color or shade
is a violation of law.
  On 25 February 1985, President Ferdinand Marcos issued Executive Order No. 1010
which changed dark blue to a lighter shade, lighter than navy blue but darker than sky
blue or azure. As of today, Cable No. 80173 is the basis of the true shade of blue in the
Philippine flag.

Where is the Original Flag?

 In his letter to Captain Baja dated 11 June 1925, Aguinaldo mentioned that in their
Northward retreat during the Filipino-American War, the original flag was lost
somewhere in Tayug, Pangasinan.
 Some people believed that the original flag that was hoisted during the proclamation of
independence on 12 June 1898 was the one stored in the Aguinaldo Museum at Baguio
City.
 It cannot be denied that the said flag was authentic and a contemporary of the original
flag but experts found out that its materials was made of combined silk and cotton fabric,
not fine silk as stated by the flag-maker herself in “Philippine Herald” published in
October 1929.There were also reports that the first original flag of the Philippines was
returned in July 1957 by US Ambassador Charles E. Bohlen.

Section 6: Antonio Luna’s Assassination

 Who really ordered Luna’s murder? I Aguinaldo a hero or a traitor? History books
blamed Aguinaldo as the mastermind in the death of General Antonio Luna. Luna
suffered over 30 wounds from bolos, bayonetes, and bullets. Was the death of Luna under
the command and order of Aguinaldo?
1) He was stabbed to death by a guard selected by Aguinaldo to kill him. General
Otis, the American Govenor-General, had authentic information regarding the
death of the “insurgent general”.
2) Ney, a guard of Aguinaldo, by order of General Aguinaldo purposely insulted
Luna and forced a quarrel. One report says that Luna was shot before Ney stabbed
him.
3) Pedro Paterno, one of the Filipino leaders believed that Aguinaldo ordered the
killing of Luna. He was a rival of Aguinaldo for the leadership of the Filipinos.
4) General Luna was exceedingly unpopular among Filipino troops on account of his
stubborn and dictatorial manners. Luna and Aguinaldo were unable to agree as to
the manner of conducting the campaign against the Spanish authorities and it is
said that Aguinaldo was afraid he would be assassinated by Luna’s orders.
 On the other hand, those who believed that it was not Aguinaldo who ordered the death
of Luna, but it was Luna’s fault and men who assassinated him expressed the following
views:
1) Emilio “Jun” Abaya, grandson of Aguinaldo defended his grandfather and
claimed that Aguinaldo did not order Luna’s assassination.
2) Professor Xiao Chua of DLSU noted that there is no valid evidence to support the
claims that Aguinaldo had Luna killed.
3) Antonio Abad who interviewed Pedro Janolino said it was him who killed Luna
because of self-defense.

Is Aguinaldo still be considered a hero or a traitor?

 https://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/80476

Section 7: Rizal’s Retraction Controversy

 The letter was discovered by Father Manuel Garcia in 1935. The retraction letter dated
December 29, 1896 was said to have been signed by Rizal himself.
  The first version: “ 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”
 The second version: “I retract with all my heart whatsoever in my words, writings,
publications, and conduct have been contrary to my character as a son of the Catholic
church”
 History books tell most people that the first draft of the retraction was sent by Archbishop
Bernardino Nozaleda to Rizal’s cell in Fort Santiago the night before his execution in
Bagumbayan. But Rizal was said to have rejected the draft because it was lengthy.
 According to a testimony by Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit missionary who
befriended the hero during his exile in Dapitan, Rizal accepted a shorter retraction
document prepared by the superior of the Jesuit Society in the Philippines, Father Pio Pi.
 Rizal then wrote his retraction after making some modifications in the document. In his
retraction, he disavowed Masonry and religious thoughts that opposed Catholic belief.

Your Tasks (Points; Deadline: July 17, 2020 @ 11:59 PM):

1. Write a 300-word essay about your thoughts on the impact of conflicting historical
views/accounts on the grand narrative of Philippine history. (10 pts.).
2. Choose one out of the seven controversies mentioned in this module. Create a Venn-
diagram to illustrate the similarities/differences between authors/accounts regarding the
topic you have chosen. (20 pts.).
***Daily Mini-Tasks