LEARNING CONTENT

INTRODUCTION:
In this lesson, we will analyze the 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. Two key concepts that we need to be defined before proceeding to the historical
analysis of problems in history are interpretation and multiperspectivity.
“Making sense of the past” is a process wherein historians utilize facts collected from
primary sources and then draw their own reading so that their intended audience may understand
the historical event. The premise is that not all primary sources are accessible to a general
audience, and without the proper training and background may do more harm than good.
Interpretation 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 interpretation, 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 for a student of history to track these changes in an attempt to
understand the past.
With several possibilities to 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
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. With multiperspectivity as an approach in history, we must understand that
historical interpretations contain discrepancies, contradictions, ambiguities, and are often the focus
of dissent.

LESSON PROPER

SITE OF THE FIRST MASS

 People debating on the first mass story find it as a religious and geographical matter.
Religiously, it marks the birthplace of Christianity in the Philippines. Geographically, it challenges
the "accuracy" of Spanish narratives about the Philippine spaces and places, and their movements
between these places. Numerous debates have been made on this controversy and it was even
elevated and fought over to the Congress. Both camps persist with their claims and they
continuously challenge each other’s evidences and assertions. In March 1998, however, the
disputed issue was officially settled when the National Historical Institute (NHI) declared Limasawa
to be the site of the first catholic mass. Despite the foregoing verdict, the pro-Masao group has not
stopped from asserting its claim until today.
But as a Filipino, what is the significance of this first Eucharistic celebration issue? The
value of this controversy rests on the fact that the conduct of the first Holy Mass is associated with
the introduction of Christianity on Philippine soil. Historically, it corrects geographical distortion
contained in Philippine historiography.

THE BUTUAN TRADITION

 The Butuan claim rests upon a tradition that was almost unanimous and unbroken for three
centuries, namely the 17th, the 18th and the 19th. On the strength of that tradition and embodying it,
a monument was erected in 1872 near the mouth of the Agusan River at a spot that was then within
the municipal boundaries of Butuan, but which today belongs to the separate municipality of
Magallanes, named after Ferdinand Magellan. The monument was a brick pillar on which was a
marble slab that contained an inscription which might be translated as follows:
To the Immortal Magellan: the People of Butuan with their Parish Priest
and the Spaniards resident therein, to commemorate his arrival and the
celebration of the First Mass on this site on the 8th of April 1521. Erected in 1872,
under the District Governor Jose Ma. Carvallo.

The monument was erected apparently at the instigation of the parish priest of Butuan,
who at the time was a Spanish friar of the Order of Augustinian Recollects. The date given for the
first Mass (8 April 1521) may be an obvious error, or it may be a clumsy and anachronistic attempt
to translate the original date in terms of the Gregorian calendar. In any use, that monument is a
testimonial to the tradition that remained vigorous until the end of the 19th century, namely, that
Magellan and his expedition landed at Butuan and celebrated there the first Mass ever offered on
Philippine soil.
The Butuan tradition was already in possession by the middle of the 17th century: so much
so that it was accepted without question by two Jesuit historians who otherwise were quite careful
of their facts.
One of these historians was Father Francisco Colin S.J. (1592-1660) whose Labor
evangelica was first published in Madrid in 1663, three years after his death. The work was
reissued 240 years later in a magnificent three-volume edition annotated by Father Pablo Pastelis
S.J. (Madrid, 1903).
Colin had obviously read some authentic accounts of Magellan's voyage for his narration is
accurate up to the landing in Homonhon, (He spells it Humunu, as does Pigafetta.) After that,
Colin's account becomes vague, He abruptly brings Magellan to Butuan without explaining how he
got there. Then he brings him to Limasawa (which he misspells Dimasaua), and from there the
account becomes again accurate and detailed. The important thing in Colin's account as far as our
present purpose is concerned, is the fact that he represents the first Mass, as well as the solemn
planting of the cross and the formal taking possession of the Islands in the name of the Crown of
Castile, as having taken place at Butuan on Easter Sunday of 1521.
The other Jesuit writer of the mid-17th century was Father Francisco Combes
S.J. (1620-1665) who, like Colin, had lived and worked as a missionary in the Philipines, and
whose Historia de Mindanao y Jolo was printed in Madrid in 1667, two years after the author's
death and five years after Colin's work was published. Combes’ History of Mindanao was also
reissued 230 years afterwards in a handsome edition edited by Wenceslao Retana assisted by
Father Pastells, In his account of Magellan's voyage, Combes gives a somewhat different version of
the route taken by the Discoverer.
For our present purpose, the main point in that account is that Magellan landed at Butuan
and there planted the cross in a solemn ceremony. Combes does not mention the first Mass. What
he mentions are the other two events which, from Pigafetta's account, had occurred on the same
day as the first Mass, namely the planting of the cross and the formal claiming of the Archipelago on
behalf of the Castilian Crown. These events, says Combes, took place at Butuan.

THE EVIDENCE FOR LIMASAWA

I. The Evidence of Albo's Log-Book
Francisco Albo joined the Magellan expedition as a pilot ("contramaestre") in Magellan's
flagship "Trinidad". He was one of the eighteen survivors who returned with Sebastian Elcano on
the "Victoria" after having circumnavigated the world. Albo began keeping his own diary -- merely
only a log-book - on the voyage out, while they were sailing southward in the Atlantic along the
coast of South America, off Brazil. His account of their entry into Philippine waters (or, as it was
then called, the archipelago of San Lazaro) . . . may be reduced to the following points:
1. On the 16th of March (1521) as they sailed in a
westerly course from the 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.
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 tied 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 Homonhon, at 10 degrees North latitude,)
4. From that island they sailed westwards towards a large island named Seilani which was
inhabited and was known to have gold. (Seilani – or, as Pigaffeta 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 of Mazava were very good. There the Spaniards planted a cross
upon a mountain-top, and from there they were shown three lands 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 had to go (as they did) in a round-about way.
Such is Albo 's testimony. The island that he calls Gada seems to be the acquada of
Pigafetta, namely the island of Homonhon where they took in supplies of water and wood. The large
island of Seilani which they coasted is the island of Leyte. Coasting southwards along the eastern
coast of that island, then turning southwest they came upon small island named, Mazava, which
lies at a latitude of 9 and two-thirds degrees North.
That fits the location of the small island of Limasawa, south of Leyte. The island's southern
tip is at 90°54' N.
It is to be noted that 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. This also
 fits the southern end of Limasawa. It does not fit the coast of Butuan from which no islands could be
seen to the south or the southwest, but only towards the north.

II. The Evidence from Pigafetta

The most complete account of the Magellan expedition is that by Antonio
Pigafetta entitled First Voyage Around the World. Like Albo, he was a member of the expedition
and was therefore an eyewitness of the principal events which he describes, including the first
Mass in what is now known as the Philippine Archipelago, but which Magellan called the Islands of
Saint Lazarus. Of Pigafetta's work there are two excellent English translations, one by Robertson
(from the Italian) and another by Skelton (from the French).
The pertinent section in Pigafetta's account is that part in which he narrates the events
from the 16th of March 1521 when they first sighted the islands of the Philippine Group, up to the
7th of April when the expedition landed at Cebu. That was a period of approximately three weeks.

Pigafetta's Testimony Regarding the Route

The route taken by the Magellan expedition may be reconstructed if we follow Pigafetta's
account day by day. Here is a summary of his account.

1. Saturday, 16 March 1521. – Magellan's expedition sighted a "high land" named “Zama!"
Which was some 300 leagues westward of the 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, 17 March). – Magellan named the entire archipelago the
"Islands or Saint Lazarus", the reason being that it was the 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, 18 March. – 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 in 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 renamed the island and
called it the " Watering Place of Good Omen" (Acquada la di bouni sr gnialli).
6. Friday, 22 March. – At noon the natives returned. This time they were in two boats. and
they brought food supplies.
7. Magellan' expedition stayed eight days at Homonhon: from Sunday, 17 March. to the
Monday of the following week, 25 March.
8. Monday, 25 March. – In the afternoon, the expedition weighed anchor and left the island
of Homonhon. In the ecclesiastical calendar, this day (25 March) 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 a 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, lbusson and Albarien." Very probably "Cenalo"
is a misspelling in the Italian manuscript for what Pigaffeta 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 it is actually on the mainland of Leyte (i.e. "Ceylon"). On the
other hand, Hibuson (Pigafetta's lbusson) 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
south yard, 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, 28 March. – In the morning of Holy Thursday, they anchored off an island where
the previous night they had
11. They remained seven days on Mazaua Island. What they did during those seven days, we
shall discuss in a separate section below, entitled "Seven Days at Mazaua.”
12. Thursday, 4 April. – 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 Catighan.

Pigafetta thought that Ceylon and Baibai were separate islands. Actually, they were parts
of the same island of Leyte. "Canighan" (Canigao in our maps) is an island off the southwestem tip
of Leyte. They sailed from Mazaua west by northwest into the Canigao Channel, with Bohol Island
to port and Leyte and Canigao Islands to starboard. Then they sailed northwards along the Leyte
coast, past Baibai to "Gatighan". The identity of Gatighan is not certain. But we are told that it was
twenty leagues from Mazaua and fifteen leagues from "Subu" (Cebu).
 13. At Gatighan, they sailed westward to the three islands of the Camotes Group, namely, Poro,
Pasihan and Ponson. (Pigafetta calls them "Polo, Ticobon, and Pozon.") 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 [southwestward] towards "Zubu".
15. Sunday, 7 April. – At noon on Sunday, the 7th of April, 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.

That is the route of the Magellan expedition as described by Pigafetta. It coincides

substantially and in most details with the route as described in Albo's, log. In that route, the
southermost point reached before getting to Cebu was Mazaua, situated at nine and two-thirds
degrees North latitude.
The question may now be asked: Could this "Mazaua" have be Butuan? Or more precisely,
could it have been the "Masao" beach in the Agusan River delta, near Butuan?

Seven Days at Mazaua

In that island of “Mazaua" — which according to both Pigafetta and Albo was situated at a
latitude of nine and two-thirds degrees North - the Magellan expedition stayed a week. "We
remained there seven days," says Pigafetta. What did they do during those seven days?
Was it possible (as some writers have suggested) that the expedition left Mazaua, went
south to Butuan, offered Mass there, and then returned to Mazaua before proceeding to Cebu?
The answer must be sought in Pigafetta's day-by-day account of those seven days. Here is
the summary of his account:

1. Thursday, 28 March. – 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, but two hours later two large 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 of that day, the Spanish ships weighed
anchor and came closer to shore, anchoring near the native king's village. This Thursday, 28 March,
was Thursday in Holy Week: i.e., Holy Thursday.
2. Friday, 29 March. – "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 to 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, 30 March. – 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, 31 March. – “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 the Mass
and at the planting of the cross were the king of Mazaua and the king of Butuan.
5. Sunday, 31 March. – 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, 1 April. – 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 of the night before.
7. Tuesday, 2 April, and Wednesday, 3 April. – Work on the harvest during the "next two
days", i.e. Tuesday and Wednesday, the 2nd and 3rd of April.
8. Thursday, 4 April. – They leave Mazaua, bound for Cebu.
"We remained there seven days," says Pigafetta. Every day is accounted for. The Mass on Easter
Sunday was celebrated on that island of Mazaua, and not in Butuan or elsewhere.

III. Summary of the Evidence of Albo and Pigafetta

Taking the evidence of Albo's log-book together with that from Pigafetta's account, we may
take the following points as established:

1. Magellan's expedition entered Philippine waters south of the island of Samar and towards
Leyte and then southwards parallel to the eastern coast of that island and that of the adjoining
island of Panaon. Rounding the southern tip of the latter, they anchored off the eastern shore of a
small island called Mazaua. There they stayed a week, during which on Easter Sunday they
celebrated Mass and planted the cross on the summit of the highest hill.
2. The island of Mazaua lies at a latitude of nine and two-thirds degrees North. Its position
(south of Leyte) and its latitude correspond to the position and latitude of the island of Limasawa,
whose southern tip lies at 9 degrees and 54 minutes North.
3. From Mazaua, the expedition sailed northwestwards through the Canigao channel
between Bohol and Leyte, then northwestwards parallel to the eastern coast of this latter island,
then they sailed westward to the Camotes Group and from there southwestwards to Cebu.
4. At no point in that itinerary did the Magellan expedition go to Butuan or other point on the
Mindanao coast. The survivors of the expedition did go to Mindanao later, but after MagelIan's
death.

IV. Confirmatory Evidence of Legazpi

Expedition
 There is confirmatory evidence from the documents of the Legazpi expedition, which sailed
into Philippine waters in 1565, forty-four years after Magellan. One of the places that Legazpi and
his pilots were anxious to visit was precisely Mazaua, and to this end they inquired about "Mazaua"
from Camotuan and his companions, natives of the village of Cabalian at the southeastern end of
the island of Leyte. Guided by these natives, the Legazpi ships rounded the island of "Panae"
(Panaon), which was separated from Leyte by a narrow strait, and anchored off "Mazaua” – but
they found the inhabitants to be hostile, apparently as a result of Portuguese depredations that had
occurred in the four-decade interval between the Legazpi and the Magellan expeditions.
From Mazaua, they went to Camiguing (which was visible from Mazaua), and from there
they intended to go to Butuan on the island of "Vindanao" but were driven instead by contrary winds
to Bohol. It was only later that a small contingent of Spaniards, in a small vessel, managed to go to
Butuan.
The point seems clear: As pilots of the Legazpi expedition understood it, Mazaua was an
island near Leyte and Panaon; Butuan was on the island of Mindanao. The two were entirely
different places and in no wise identical.
LEARNING CONTENT
Introduction
The Cavity Mutiny was one of the incidents in the annals of Philippine
history that had several conflicts. In comparison to this incident, various
sources indicate that each account has different sides of the narrative.
Significantly, those who lived at the time of the incident (first-hand accounts)
and those who obtained their data from contemporaries of the events or who,
because of their connection with those men (second-hand accounts),
composed the accounts.
The re-examination of whose "story" is more factual and accurate about
Cavite Mutiny is very important and critical, as this incident led to the
martyrdom of the three priests (GOMBURZA) and led to the Philippine
Revolution of 1898. However, of all the accounts, John Schumacher (1972),
who carried out a comprehensive re-examination of the main and secondary
records of the case, points to two credible and accurate records. One is that of
Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and writer, and the
other is that of José Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian.
According to Schumacher, "the account of Pardo de Tavera,
prescinding from the emotional anti-friar tone that pervades it, gives evidence
of being the most reliable, even though fairly general, account except for its
failure to recognize that De la Torre had also been suspicious of the Filipino
reformists. That of Montero, apart from its anti-Filipino tone and its supposition
of a revolutionary conspiracy, contains the most details and, to all
appearances, most reliable account of the actual course of the revolt itself, as
well as of the execution of the three priests.”
In this sense, the following accounts of Trinidad Pardo de Tavera,
Jose Montero y Vidal and the Official Record of Governor Izquierdo on the
Cavite Mutiny of 1872 were considered for this reading. These people vary
because they viewed the mutiny for various reasons. In evaluating this case,
each of them used his or her own benchmark and each reader is asked to
closely discriminate against their statements and facts.

LESSON PROPER

THE CAVITE MUTINY

 Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872
By Jose Montero y Vidal

The Spaniard Montero y Vidal wrote a

version of the Cavite Mutiny which appeared in his book Historia General de
Filipinas (Madrid, 1895, Vol. III, pp. 566-595.). Understandably the narration of
the event showed a pro-Spanish bias that one of his critics Dr. T. H. Pardo de
Tavera commented that he, "in narrating the Cavite episode, does not speak
as a historian; he speaks as a Spaniard bent on perverting the facts at his
pleasure; he is mischievously partial." He further said that the narration was
unsupported by documentary evidence and Montero y Vidal exaggerated the
mutiny of a few disgruntled native soldiers and laborers into a revolt to
overthrow Spanish rule - a seditious movement - and involved the innocent
Filipino patriotic leaders including Fathers Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora, Jose
Ma. Basa, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, and others. This
shows the difference of perspectives of a colonist and a colonizer. Montero y
Vidal's version of the Cavite episode of 1872 in English translation follows:
 With the establishment in Spain of a government less radical than the
one that appointed La Torre, the latter was relieved from his post. His
successor D. Rafael de Izquierdo, assumed control of the government of these
islands April 4, 1871. The most eventful episode in his rule was the Cavite
revolt of 1872.
The abolition of the privileges 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 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, who0 out of spite toward the friars, made
common cause with the enemies of the mother country.
At various time but especially in the beginning of the year 1872, the
authorities received anonymous communications with the information that a
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 the 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 (Cavite), the soul of the
movement, whose energetic character and immense wealth enabled him to
exercise a strong influence.
The garrison of Manila, composed mostly of native soldiers, were
involved in this conspiracy, as well as a multitude of civilians. The plan was for
the soldiers to assassinate their officers, the servants, their masters, and the
escort of the Captain-General at Malacañang, to dispose of the governor
himself. The friars and other Spaniards were later to have their turn. The
pre-concerted signal among the conspirators of Cavite and Manila was the
firing of rockets from the walls of the city. The details having been arranged; it
was agreed that the uprising was to break out in the evening of the 20th of
January, 1872. Vari1Ous circumstances, however, which might well be
considered as providential, upset the plans, and made the conspiracy a dismal
failure.
In the district of Sampaloc, the fiesta of the patron saint, the Virgin of
Loreto, was being celebrated with pomp and splendor. On the night of the 20th,
fireworks were displayed and rockets fired into the air. Those in Cavite mistook
these for the signal to revolt, and at nine-thirty in the evening of that day two
hundred native soldiers under the leadership of Sergeant La Madrid rose up in
arms, assassinated the commander of the fort and wounded his wife.
 The military governor of Cavite, D. Fernando Rojas, dispatched two
Spaniards to inform the Manila authorities of the uprising but they were met on
the way by a group of natives, belonging to the Guias established by LaTorre,
who put them instantly to death. At about the same time, an employee of the
arsenal, D. Domingo Mijares, left Cavite in a war vessel for Manila, arriving
there at midnight. He informed the commandant of Marine of what had
occurred, and this official immediately relayed the news to Governor Izquierdo.
Early the next morning two regiments, under the command of D. Felipe
Ginoves, segundo cabo, left for Cavite on board the merchant vessels Filipino,
Manila, Isabela I and Isabela II. Ginoves demanded rendition and waited the
whole day of the 21st for the rebels to surrender, without ordering the assault
of their positionin order to avoid unnecessary shedding of blood. After waiting
the whole day in vain for the rendition of the rebels, Ginoves launched an
assault against the latter's position, early in the morning of the 22nd, putting to
the sword the majority of the rebels and making prisoners of the rest. On the
same day an official proclamation announced the suppression of the revolt.
As a result of the declarations made by some of the prisoners in which
several individuals were pointed out as instigators, Don Jose Burgos and D.
Jacinto Zamora, curates of the Cathedral, D. Mariano Gomez, curate of
Bacoor (Cavite), several other Filipino priests, D. Antonio Maria Regidor,
lawyer and Regidor of the Ayuntamiento, D. Joaquin Pardo de Tavera,
Consejero de Administracion, Pedro Carillo, Gervasio Sanchez and Jose
Mauricio de Leon, lawyer Enrique Paraiso and Jose and Pio Basa, employees,
and Crisanto Reyes, Maximo Paterno and several other Filipinos, were
arrested.
The council of war, which from the beginning took charge of the causes
in connection with the Cavite uprising, passed the sentence of death on
forty-one of the rebels. On the 27th of January the Captain-General fixed his
"cumplase" on the sentence. On the 6th of the following month, eleven more
were sentenced to death, but the Governor General, by decree of the day
following, commuted this sentence to life imprisonment. On the 8th, the
sentence of death was pronounced on Camerino and ten years imprisonment
of eleven individuals of the famous "Guias de la Torre," for the assassination of
the Spaniards who, on the night of January 20th, were sent to Manila to carry
news of the uprising.
The same council on the 15th of February, sentenced to die by
strangulation the Filipino priests, D. Jose Burgos, D. Jacinto Zamora and D.
Mariano Gomez, and Francisco Saldua; and Maximo Inocencio, Enrique
Paraiso and Crisanto de los Reyes to ten years imprisonment. Early in the
morning of the seventeenth of February, an immense multitude appeared on
the field of Bagumbayan to witness the execution of the sentence. The
attending force was composed of Filipino troops, and the batteries of the fort
were aimed the place of execution, ready to fire upon the least sign of uprising.
Gomez was executed first, then Zamora, then Burgos, and lastly, Saldua.
On the 3rd of April, 1872, the Audiencia suspended from the practice of
law the following men: D. Jose Basa y Enriquez, D. Joaquin Pardo de Tavera,
D. Antonio Ma. Regidor, D. Pedro Carillo, D. Gervasio Sanchez and D. Jose
Mauricio de Leon.
 Izquierdo had requested the sending to Manila of Spanish troops for the
defense of the fort as most of those found here were natives. In pursuance of
Izquierdo's request, the government, by decree of April 4, 1872, dissolved the
native regiment of artillery and ordered the creation of an artillery force to be
composed exclusively of Peninsulares. The latter arrived in Manila in July,
1872. On the occasion of the arrival of the troops, the Sto. Domingo Church
celebrated a special mass at which high officials of the Government, the
religious corporations, and the general public, attended, upon invitation by the
Governor and Captain-General of the Philippines

Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872

By Dr. T.H. Pardo de Tavera

The Filipino version of the Cavite

Mutiny was provided by Dr. Trinidad Hermnegildo Pardo de Tavera, a
contemporary of Jose Rizal. Pardo de Tavera was a scholar, scientist, and
historical researcher. He had written a work on the Mardicas of Cavite and like
Rizal, he conducted a research on the past of the Filipinos before the arrival of
the Spanish colonizers. During the early years of the American rule he served
as a member of Taft's Philippine Commission and founded the Federal Party.
He died in Manila on March 26, 1925, aged 68. According to him the Cavite
Mutiny was merely a protest against the harsh polices of Governor General
Rafael de Izquierdo. This was used as a pretext by the conservative Spaniards
to launch an all-out elimination of the Filipino liberals and secular priests who
were bent on replacing them from the center of Filipino society. The following
was his account of the Mutiny:
The arrival of General Izquierdo (1871-1873) was the signal for a
complete change in the aspect of affairs. The new governor soon made it clear
that his views were different from those of La Torre - that there would be no
change in the established form of government - and he at once announced that
he intended to govern the people "with a crucifix in one hand and a sword in
the other."
His first official act was to prohibit the founding of a school of arts and
trades, which was being organized by the efforts and funds raised by the
natives of good standing in the community, but the founding of which did not
tally with the views of the religious orders. Governor Izquierdo believed that the
establishment of the new school was merely a pretext for the organization of a
political club, and he not only did not allow it to be opened but made a public
statement accusing the Filipinos who had charge of the movement. All of those
who had offered their support to ex- Governor La Torre were classed as
personas sospechosas (suspects), a term that since that time has been used
in the Philippine Islands to designate any person who refused to servilely obey
the wishes and whims of the authorities. The conservative element in the
islands now directed the governmental policy, and the educated Filipinos fell
more and more under the displeasure and suspicion of the governor.
The peace of the colony was broken by a certain incident which, though
unimportant in itself, was probably the origin of the political agitation which,
constantly growing for thirty years, culminated in the overthrow of the Spanish
sovereignty in the Philippine Islands. From time immemorial the workmen in
the arsenal at Cavite and in the barracks of the artillery and engineer corps
had been exempt from the payment of the tribute tax and from obligation to
work certain days each year on public improvements. General Izquierdo
believed the time opportune for abolishing these privileges and ordered that in
the future all such workmen should pay tribute and labor on public
improvements. This produced great dissatisfaction among the workmen
affected and the men employed in the arsenal at Cavite went on a strike, but,
yielding to pressure and threats made by the authorities, they subsequently
returned to their labors.
The workmen in the Cavite arsenal were all natives of that town and of
the neighboring town of San Roque. In a short while the dissatisfaction and
discontent with the government spread all over that section and even the entire
troops became disaffected. On the night of January 20, 1872, there was an
uprising among the soldiers in the San Felipe fort, in Cavite, and the
commanding officer and other Spanish officers in charge of the fort were
assassinated. Forty marines attached to the arsenal and 22 artillerymen under
Sergeant La Madrid took part in this uprising, and it was believed that the
entire garrison in Cavite was disaffected and probably implicated. But if the few
soldiers who precipitated the attack believed they would be supported by the
bulk of the army and that a general rebellion against Spain would be declared
in the islands, they were deceived. When the news of the uprising was
received in Manila, General Izquierdo sent the commanding general to Cavite,
who reinforced the native troops, took possession of the fort, and put the
rebels to the sword. Sergeant La Madrid has been blinded and badly burned
by the explosion of a sack of powder and, being unable to escape, was also
cut down. A few of the rebels were captured and taken to Manila and there was
no further disturbance of the peace or insubordination of any kind.
This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as a powerful lever
by the Spanish residents and by the friars. During the time that General La
Torre was chief executive in the Philippine Islands the influential Filipinos did
not hesitate to announce their hostility to the religious orders, and the Central
Government in Madrid had announced its intention to deprive the friars in
these islands of all powers of intervention in matters of civil government and of
the direction and management of the management of the university. Moret, the
colonial minister, had drawn up a scheme of reforms by which he proposed to
make a radical change in the colonial system of government which was to
harmonize with the principles for which the revolution in Spain had been fought.
It was due to these facts and promises that the Filipinos had great hopes of an
improvement in the affairs of their country, while the friars, on the other hand,
feared that their power in the colony would soon be completely a thing of the
past.
The mutiny in Cavite gave the conservative element - that is, those who
favored a continuation of the colonial modus vivendi an opportunity to
represent to the Spanish Government that a vast conspiracy was afoot and
organized throughout the archipelago with the object of destroying the Spanish
sovereignty. They stated that the Spanish Government in Madrid was to blame
for the propagation of pernicious doctrines and for the hopes that had been
held out from Madrid to the Filipino people, and also because of the leanings of
ex-Governor La Tone and of other public functionaries who had been sent to
the Philippine Islands by the Government that succeeded Queen Isabella. The
fall of the new rulers in Spain within a few days, as well as other occurrences,
seemed to accentuate the claims made by the conservative element in the
Philippine Islands regarding the peril which threatened Spanish sovereignty in
the islands; it appeared as though the prophecies were about to be fulfilled.
The Madrid authorities were not able to combat public opinion in that country,
no opportunity was given nor time taken to make a thorough investigation of
the real facts or extent of the alleged revolution; the conservative element in
the Philippine Islands painted the local condition of affairs in somber tints; and
the Madrid Government came to believe, or at least to suspect, that a scheme
was being concocted throughout the islands to shake off Spanish sovereignty.
Consistent with the precedents of their colonial rule, the repressive measures
adopted to quell the supposed insurrection were strict and sudden. No attempt
appears to have been made to ascertain whether or not the innocent suffered
with the guilty, and the only end sought appeared to be to inspire terror in the
minds of all by making examples of a certain number, so that none in the future
should attempt, nor even dream of any attempt at secession.
Many of the best known Filipinos were denounced to the military
authorities, and they the sons of Spaniards born in the islands and men of
mixed blood (Spanish and Chinese), as well as the Indians of pure blood, as
the Philippine Malays were called, were persecuted and punished without
distinction by the military authorities.
 Those who dared to oppose themselves to the friars were punished with
special severity, among others may be mentioned the priests Burgos, a
half-blood Spaniard, Zamora, a half-blood Chinaman, and Gomez, a
pure-blood Tagalog, who had vigorously opposed the friars in the litigation
over the curacies in the various provinces. The three priests mentioned were
condemned to death by a military court-martial; and Antonio M. Regidor, a
lawyer and councilman of Manila, Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, lawyer and
member of the administrative council, P. Mendoza, curate of Santa Cruz,
Guevarra, curate of Quiapo, the priests Mariano Sevilla, Feliciano Gomez,
Ballesteros, Jose Basa, the lawyers Carillo, Basa, Enriquez, Crisanto Reyes,
Maximo Paterno, and many others were sentenced to life imprisonment on the
Marianas Islands. The Government thus secured its object of terrorizing the
Filipino people, but the punishments meted out were not only unjust but were
from every point of view unnecessary, as there had not been the remote
intention on the part of anyone to overthrow the Spanish sovereignty. On the
contrary, the attitude of Moret, Labra, Becerra, and other high officials in the
Madrid Government had awakened in the breasts of the Filipinos a lively
friendship for the home government, and never had the ties which bound the
colony to Spain been as close as they were during the short interval between
the arrival of General La Torre and the time when General Izquierdo, in the
name of the home government, was guilty of the atrocities mentioned above,
of which innocent men were made victims.
A careful study of the history and documents of that time brings to light
the part which the religious orders played in that sad drama. One of the results
of the so-called revolution of Cavite was to strengthen the power of the friars in
the Philippine Islands in such manner that the Madrid Government, which up to
that time had contemplated reducing the power of the religious orders in these
islands, was obliged not only to abandon its intention, but to place a yet greater
measure of official influences at the service of the friars, and from that time
they were considered as an important factor in the preservation of the Spanish
sovereignty in the colony.
This influence was felt throughout the islands, and not only were the
friars taken into the confidence of the Government, but the Filipino people
looked upon the religious orders as their real masters and as the
representatives, powerful and unsparing, of the Spanish Kingdom.
But there were other results following upon the unfortunate policy
adopted by Governor Izquierdo. Up to that time there had been no intention of
secession from Spain, and the only aspiration of the people was to secure the
material and educational advancement of the country. The Filipino people had
never blamed the Spanish nation for the backward condition in which the
Islands existed, nor for the injustices committed in the islands by the Spanish
officials; but on the contrary it was the custom to lay all the blame for these
things on the individual officers guilty of maladministration, and no attempt had
been made to investigate whether or not the evils under which the islands
suffered were due to fundamental causes. The persecutions which began
under Governor Izquierdo were based on the false assumption that the Filipino
people were desirous of independence, and although this was an unfounded
accusation, there were many martyrs to the cause, among whom were found
many of the most intelligent and well-to-do people, without distinction of color
or race or nationality, who were sentenced to death, to imprisonment, or were
expatriated because they were believed to aspire to the independence of these
islands. The fear which the people felt of the friars and of the punishments
meted out by the Government was exceeded only by the admiration which the
Filipino people had for those who did not hesitate to stand up for the rights of
the country in this manner the persecutions to which the people were
subjected served as a stimulus and an educative force, and from that time the
rebellion was nursed in secret and the passive resistance to the abuses of the
official power became greater day by day.
No attempt was made to allay the ill-feeling which existed between the
Filipinos and the Spaniards, especially the friars, caused by the mutiny in
Cavite and the cruel manner in which the punishment was meted out. Many
years would have been necessary to heal the wounds felt by the large number
of families whose members were made the victims of the unjust sentences of
the military courts-martial. Nothing was done by the Government to blot out the
recollection of these actions; on the contrary, it appeared to be its policy to
continually bring up the memory of these occurrences as a reminder to the
malcontents of what they had to expect; but the only thing accomplished was
to increase the popular discontent. It was from that time that every
disagreement between the Spaniards and Filipinos, however trivial, was given
a racial or political character; every time a friar was insulted or injured in any
way, it was claimed to be an act of hostility to the Spanish nation.

Official Report of Governor Izquierdo on the Cavite Mutiny

Rafael Izquierdo

Governor General Rafael

Izquierdo reported to the Spanish Minister of War, dated Manila, January 23,
1872, blaming the Cavite Mutiny on the native clergy, some local residents,
intellectuals, and even El Eco Filipino, a Madrid-based reformist newspaper.
Significantly, he calls the military mutiny as "insurrection", an "uprising", and a
"revolution". The text of the report is as follows:
From the summary of information received - that is, from the declaration
made before the fiscal - 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. Some are residents of Manila, others from
Cavite, and some from the nearby provinces.
The instigators, to carry out their criminal project, protested against the
injustice of the government in not paying the provinces for their tobacco crop,
and against the usury that some (officials) practice in (handling) 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 pay tribute starting January
1 (1872) and to render personal service, from which they were formerly
exempted.
To seduce the native troops, they resorted to superstitions with which
the indios are so prone to believe; persuading them that the Chief of State (hari)
would be an ecclesiastic and the rest or the clergy who baked the uprising
would celebrate daily for its success. Thus the rebellion could not fail because
God was with them; and those who would not revolt they would kill im nediately.
Taking advantage of the ignorance of those classes and the propensity of the
Indio to steal, they offered to those who revolted) the wealth of the Spaniards
and of the regular clergy, employment and ranks in the army, and to this effect
they said that fifteen native batallions would be created, in which the soldiers
who revolted would have jobs as officers and chiefs. The lawyers and
abogadillos would direct the affairs of government of the administration and of
justice.
Up to now it 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 Tagalog would be
called hari; but it turns out that they would place at the head of the government
a priest; and there were great probabilities - nay, a certainty that the head
selected would be D. Jose Burgos, or D. Zacinto Zamora, parish priests of S.
San Pedro of Manila.
All the Spaniards, including the friars, would be executed except for the
women; and their belongings confiscated. Foreigners would be respected.
This uprising has roots, and with them were affiliated to a great extent
the regiments of infantry and artillery, many civilians and a large number of
mestizos, indios and some illustrados from the provinces.
To start the revolution, they planned to set fire to the district of Tondo.
Once the fire was set and while the authorities were busy putting it out, the
regiment of artillery with the help of the part of the infantry would seize Fort
Santiago of this Capital (they would then) fire cannons to inform the rebels of
Cavite (of their success). The rebels in Cavite counted on the artillery
detachment that occupied the fort and on the navy helped by 500 natives led
by the pardoned leader Camerino. This person and his men, located at the
town of Bacoor and separated from the fort of San Felipe by a small arm of the
sea, would cross the water and reach the fort where they would find arms and
ammunition.
The rebels in Cavite) made the signals agreed upon by means of
lanterns, but the native civilians (in Bacoor) although they tried it, failed
because if the vigilance of the (Spanish) navy that had placed there a gunboat
and armed vessels.
Loyalists who went to arrest the parish priests of Bacoor found an
abandoned vessel loaded with arms, including carbines and revolvers.
The uprising should have started in Manila at midnight abetted by those
in Cavite, but the rebels of this city went ahead of time. The civil-military
governor of Cavite and the commanders of Regiment 7 took very timely
precautions; they knew how to keep the soldiers loyal (although these had
been compromised) and behaved with valor and gallantry, obliging the rebels
to take refuge in the fort of San Felipe.
Such is your Excellency, the plan of the rebels, those who guided them,
and the means they counted upon for its realization. For a long time now,
through confidential information and others of a vaguer character, I have been
told that since 1869 - taking advantage of a group that had left behind plans for
an uprising, but was carried out because of the earthquake of 1862 - there
existed in Manila a junta or center that sought and found followers; and that as
a pretext they had established a society for the teaching of arts and trades.
Months ago I suspended it indirectly, giving an account to Your Excellency in
my confidential report No. 113 dated August 1, (1871) to which Your
Excellency has not yet replied.
It has also been said that this center or junta received inspiration from
Madrid, where newspapers of advanced ideas flourish; to sustain them
subscriptions are (locally) solicited; in effect, newspapers such as El Eco
Filipino 'were sent here from Madrid, which were distributed by persons now
imprisoned, whose articles thundered against everything that be found here.
As in the case of my worthy predecessor, I have continuously received
anonymous letters but because I was confident that I could put down and
punish any uprising, I gave no credit (to these reports) in order not to cause
alarm; and instead continued a vigilant watch whenever possible within the
limited means at my command. I had everything ready (for any untoward
possibility), taking into account the limited peninsular force which composes
the army.