MODULE 3: “One Past But Many Histories”: Controversies and Conflicting Views

in Philippine History

LESSON 1: THE SITE OF FIRST MASS

Learning Objectives: At the end of the lesson, students should be able to:

List the conflicting areas arguments favoring Limasawa or Masao as the Site of the first Catholic mass in the Philippin
Illustrate the geographical location of the suspected sites and the route of Magellan upon arrival in the archipelago.
Compare and constrasted literature about the issue presented;
Evaluate the first mass as a significant event in the Philippine History.

READ
Read and analyze to formulate arguments in favor or against a particular issue
using primary sources.

THE SITE OF THE FIRST MASS: MASAO OR LIMASAWA

ACCOUNT OF FIRST MASS

Image painted by Carlos V. Francisco

 “... [From Humunu, we] took the course between
west and southwest, and passed amidst four small
islands, i.e., Cenalo, Pluinanghar, Ibusson, and
Abarien.
“… [T]he 28th of March, having seen the night
before fire upon an island, we … anchor at this
island …This island is in 9 ⅔ degrees north
latitude…. It is 25 leagues distant from …
[Humunu and] is named Mazzava.” – Antonio
Pigafetta
Antonio Pigafetta (Lombardo
 Fernando de Magallanes “... On Sunday, the last day of March, and feast
of Easter, the captain sent the chaplain ashore
early to say mass … When it was time for saying
mass the captain went ashore with fifty men, …
dressed as well as each one was able to dress
… [W]hen the offertory of the mass came, the
two kings went to kiss the cross like us….”-
Fernando de Magallanes

Topography: Limasawa

Three islands
(Camiguin,
Bohol, and
Lapinig) can be
seen in the west
and southwest.

Image courteosy of http://7th_millennium.tripod.com/7mc/Limasawa.html

Topography: Masao, Butuan

Image courtesy of pinoyroad.com

The Masao and the replica of the balanghai

 Limasawa as the Site

Arguments:
1. Evidence of Albo’s log book
2. The evidence of Pigaffeta
3. Confirmatory evidence from the Legazpi tradition

ALBO’S ACCOUNT
“From here we departed and sailed west, and fell in with a large
island called Seilani, which is inhabited, and contains gold; we
coasted it, and went to west-southwest, to a small inhabited
island called Mazaba. The people are very good, and there we
placed a cross upon a mountain from there were shown three
islands to the west and southwest.…a page of a manuscript
version of Albo’s logbook

PIGAFFETA’S ACCOUNT
 Pigafetta’s testimony as regards the route taken by the expedition from the
Pacific Ocean to Cebu
 Presence of two native kings
 The events of the seven days at the island of “Mazaua”
 An argument from omission

CONFIRMATION FROM LEGAZPI’S ACCOUNT

 Searched for Mazaua
 Intended to go to Butuan but the winds brought them to Bohol
 Legazpi expedition: Mazaua was an island near Leyte and Panaon
 MASAO AS THE SITE

Arguments for Masao, Butuan

• Name of the place
 in the accounts of Pigafetta, Albo, the Genoese pilot, and Ginés de Mafra
the name of the island starts with letter M (Mazaua)
 one must not accept B & R’s translation uncritically; he even translates
Pigafetta’s “caza” into “hunt” when it should be “hut” (Schreurs); we should
rely on the manuscript of Pigafetta
 Stanley (1874) merely asserts in a footnote, without any argument or proof:
“It is doubtless the Limasaua of the present day, off the south point of
Samar.”
 B & R (1903) merely declares: “It is now called the island of Limasaua,
and has an area of about ten and one-half square miles.” Most succeeding
Philippine historians then accepted this as fact.
 The navigator’s route from Homonhon
 The travel from Homonhon to Mazaua took 3 days, yet Limasawa is so
near Homonhon
 The latitude
 Actual latitude of Limasawa is 9 degrees 56 min; Masao’s latitude is 8
degrees 57 min
 The latitudes given by Albo (9 ⅓) and the Genoese pilot (9) point more
to Masao
 The route to Cebu
 on its way to Cebu, the fleet sailed along “Ceylon (Leyte), Bohol, and
Baybay, Catighan, and Canighan”
 Mazaua-Gatighan distance is 20 leguas (80 n. miles) (Pigafetta)
 actual Limasawa-Gatighan distance is only one legua (4 n.m.)
 The geographical features of the place
 Artifacts
 • At the eastern edge of Pinamanculan, balanghai boats, burial grounds, ceramics,
gold ornaments, and processing tools have been excavated—they suggest a
thriving community and port centuries ago
 Ecofacts
• The Butuan River delta has evolved; a deltaic island existing in 1521 (geologists
say it is the present Pinamanculan Hills in Butuan City) has fused with the
mainland
• Another contemporary account of the voyage describes Mazaua as 3-4 leagues
in circumference (Ginés de Mafra), which implies an area of 2,214 to 3,930
hectares; but Limasawa has only 698 hectares.

ALTERNATIVE ACCOUNT: GINÉS DE MAFRA

An island with a circumference of 3-4 leagues has an area of 2,214 to 3,930

hectares. Limasawa has only 698 hectares

• “… [Magellan] left this island [Homonhon], and sailing on his way arrived at
another [island of] 3 or 4 leguas in circumference … This island called Mazaua
has a good harbor on its western side, and is inhabited.”
Ginés de Mafra
 MASAO AS AN ISLAND IN 1521

Pinamanculan Hills, Butuan City

Image courtesy of http://amazingcaraga.blogspot.com/

“The significance of Pinamanculan Hills cannot be taken for granted, especially

now that it has been established that [the area] used to be an island.” Mary Jane Louise
Bolunia. 2001. Pinamanculan Hills: Its archeological importance. Butuan City:

ALTERNATIVE ACCOUNT: ALBO

“… [W]e coasted it [Seilani], and went to west-southwest, to a small inhabited island
called Mazaba. The people are very good, and there we placed a cross upon a
mountain … and this island is in 9 ⅓ degrees north latitude.”

Francisco Albo (or Alvaro), “Logbook of the voyage of Fernando de Magallanes,”

in Henry Edward John Stanley (trans. and ed.), The First Voyage Round the
World by Magellan: Translated from accounts of Pigafetta and other
contemporary writers. London: Hakluyt Society, 1874
“… [They] came to anchor at another island, which is named Macangor, which is in 9
degrees; and in this island they were very well received, and they placed a cross in it.”

a Genoese pilot in Magellan’s fleet [probably Juan Bautista]

In Henry Edward John Stanley (trans. and ed.), The First Voyage Round the World
by Magellan: Translated from accounts of Pigafetta and other contemporary writers.
London: Hakluyt Society, 1874

MERITS OF THE ARGUMENTS

Limasawa:
 Evidence of Albo’s logbook
 The evidence of Pigaffeta
 Confirmatory evidence from the Legazpi tradition

Masao:
 The name of the place
 Navigator’s route from Homonhon
 The latitude
 The route to Cebu
 The geographical features of the place
ACTIVITY 3.1

Read the Pigafetta , Albo , Legazpi and Magellan’s accounts regarding the First Mass in
the Philippines.

1.Compare and contrast the literature about the issue.

2.List the conflicting areas of arguments favoring Limasawa or Masao.

EVIDENCES ACCOUNTS LIMASAWA MASAO

3. Illustrate the geographical location of the suspected sites and route of Magellan upon
arrival in the Archipelago.
4. Discuss your stand about the controversy based from the evidences and justifications.
SUGGESTED READINGS:

The First Voyage Round the World by Magellan: Translated from accounts of Pigafetta
and other contemporary writers. London. Hakluyt Society, 1874: 80-83

Rev. Fr. Miguel Bernad, S.J. 1981. Butuan or Limasawa? The site of the first Mass in
the Philippines: a reexamination. Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. 3:
35. Op. cit. Budhi 3 (2001):164-5

Doina Vasilca. 2016. The First Voyage around the World—An old story using a new
application.
16th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference: 508-9
 MODULE 3: “One past but many histories”: Controversies and Conflicting Views
in Philippine History

LESSON 2: THE CAVITE MUTINY

Learning Objectives
At the end of the lesson, students should be able to:
Analyze the varying perspectives of eyewitnesses of a particular event
Demonstrate the ability to formulate arguments in favor or against a particular issue using primary sources
Evaluate the significance of historical sources in the contemporary times.

Read
Prior to the Philippine Revolution in 1896 and the proclamation of the country’s
independence in 1898, a significant even that must also be remembered in history
is the revolt of Filipino soldiers and workers at the Cavite arsenal. The Cavite
Mutiny, as this incident was known, took place on January 20, 1872, when the
Spanish official in-charge of the arsenal were killed by the soldiers and workers.
The Spanish authorities, under Governor-General Rafael Izquierdo, immediately
subdued the mutiny. Some of the mutineers were killed while those who were
captured were either sentenced to death or deported to other parts of the
archipelago. Following this, Izquierdo ordered the arrest of three priests who
were believed to be the instigators of the revolt. They were Mariano Gomez, Jose
Burgos and Jacinto Zamora (GOMBURZA), who were executed following a brief
trial.

These two events—the Cavite Mutiny and the execution of the GOMBURZA—
became the springboard to the awakening of Filipino nationalism.

There are three existing accounts of the Cavite Mutiny. Read the following
excerpt taken from The Two Faces of the 1872 Cavite
Mutiny by Chris Antonette Piedad-Pugay originally posted on the website of the
National
 Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP). It is an overview of the varying
perspectives of Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, Jose Montero y Vidal and Rafael
Izquierdo on the Cavite Mutiny.

ove: The arsenal in Cavite was the site of the historic Cavite Mutiny of 1872. Left: The historical marker from the National Historical Commission

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.

SUGGESTED READINGS
 The Cavite Mutiny Towards a Definitive History (John N. Schumacher, S.J.)
 Pedro Pelaez, Leader of the Filipino Clergy (Roberto Blanco)

ACTIVITY 2.1

a, Jose Montera y Vidal and Rafael Izquierdo. A table below is provided to guide you on your analysis and interpretation of the
Name: Student No.:
Section: Date submitted:

Worksheet on the Analysis on the Cavite Munity of

1872
Contextualization of ACCOUNTS
the Documents Trinidad Pardo de Tavera Rafael Izquierdo Jose Montero y Vidal
WHO
 Who was the author?
 Background information
(nationality, gender,
class,
occupation/profession,
religion, age, region,
political beliefs,
educational background,
cultural background)
WHAT
 What are the key
information/details
provided by the
author?
 Was it the full
story? Was it
accurate?
 What did the author
not want to talk about?
WHY
 Why was the
document written?
 What was the
purpose of the author?
What motivated the
author to
write?
  Who was the intended
audience? For
whom was it written?
WHEN
 When was it written?
 Was it written on the
same year the event
happened or years
later?
 What was the
historical background of
the time? What were
the other significant
events
happening during
this time?
WHERE
 Where was the
source made?
 Was the author
involved in the incident?
 Did the author have
an opinion on the
event?
Evaluating the
information
What claim/s does the
author make? Does it
describe the actions of
the elite or “ordinary”
people?
From whose perspective?
Evidences used by
the author to support
his
claim/s
Language used to
persuade the
audience
(words, phrase, images &
symbols)
Interpreting the message Write an essay of your analysis and interpretation of the three accounts using the questions found
on
the first column as guide. Do not forget to cite other sources, if you have used any.
 What are the main
arguments in the Cavite
Mutiny? Do the
accounts agree or not?
Explain.
 What is your
interpretation on
the
author’s message?
With whom would you
agree/disagree?
 If you have read other
historians’
interpretation of the
accounts or sources
similar to this, how
does your analysis fit
with theirs? How do
these accounts support
or challenge their
argument?
 What is the
significance of these
documents to
our contemporary times?
MODULE 3: “One past but many histories”: Controversies and Conflicting Views
in Philippine History

Lesson 3: Retraction of Dr. Jose Rizal

Learning Objectives
At the end of the lesson, students should be able to:
Examine evidences provided by varying versions of a historical document;
Demonstrate the ability to formulate arguments in favor or against a particular issue; and
Assess the significance of the varying versions for history and the
contemporary times.

Read
Dr. José Protacio Rizal Mercado y Alonso Realonda is known for his writings that
criticized the colonial establishment in the Philippines. His criticisms made him an
enemy particularly of the Catholic hierarchy in the Philippines. However, following his
execution on December 30, 1896, a document of his alleged retraction was published,
which could have meant Rizal’s return to the Catholic faith just before his death and
allowed him to marry Josephine Bracken.

Moments before he was executed, Rizal was supposed to have signed the retraction
document—an act witnessed by a number of people, particularly Jesuit priests. While the
text of the retraction was already copied and published in Spain and Manila, the
document was only made public on May 13, 1935 after it was found at the Catholic
hierarchy’s archive by Fr. Manuel A. Gracia. Only reproduction of it were made public
but never the original (Uckung, 2012).
The document of Rizal’s alleged retraction, courtesy of historian Ambeth R. Ocampo (left); translation of the
document.
source: Chua, M. C. (2016, December 29). Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga bagong dokumento at pananaw.
 The authenticity of this document has been disputed primarily due to the varying versions of its
contents that have resurfaced. It has been controversial as the opposing sides, according to
Escalante (2019), both “promotes moral values and the pursuit of truth”. Those who supported
the authencity of the retraction include the Jesuit priests, the archbishop of Manila, and other
members of the Catholic hierarchy. On the opposing side are members of the Masonry.

In his work book, “The Great Debate: The Rizal Retraction”, Ricardo P. Garcia provides
accounts pertaining to Rizal’s alleged retraction. Most recently, Rene R. Escalante provided an
additional eyewitness account through his work “Re-examining the Last 24 hours of Rizal using
Spy Reports”. These have been used to provide evidences in the debate of this issue.

More than just the contents of the document, however, others are questioning its authenticity by
analysing the personality of Rizal based on his works as well as testimonies from friends, family
and acquaintances (Makabenta, 2018).

To this day, this remains as one of the most contested issues in Philippine history.

SUGGESTED READINGS
Arcilla, J. S. (1994). Fr. Vicente Balaguer , S.J. and Rizal's Conversion. Philippine Studies,
42(1), 110-123.
Paraiso, B. A. (2012, September 19). Did Rizal consider retracting while in Dapitan? Retrieved
May 28, 2020, from National Historical Commission of the Philippines:
http://nhcp.gov.ph/did-rizal-consider-retracting-while-in-dapitan/
Name: Student No.:

bate: The Rizal Retraction” and another account provided Rene R. Escalante in his work “Did Jose Rizal Die a Catholic? Revisiting
Worksheet
on the
Analysis
Rizal’s
Retraction

Rizal retracted Rizal d

Create a historical analysis of the evidences provided by answering the table on the next page.
List down the evidences provided

 Examine the evidences

 Evaluate the facts provided by
both sides
 Develop your own view:
o Do you think
Rizal retracted?
o Justify your answers
based on the
evidences you have
listed above.

Compare the evidences on both sides. List down the pros and cons on the effect of this issue on R
 Pros

 Cons

 Explain the historical significance of this controversy.

 Propose an ideal/action on how this controversy may be addressed.
MODULE 3: “One past but many histories”: Controversies and Conflicting Views
in Philippine History

Lesson 4: The Cry of Pugadlawin

Learning Objectives
At the end of the lesson, students should be able to:
Examine evidences provided by varying versions of a historical document;
Assess the significance of the varying versions for history and the contemporary times;
Demonstrate the ability to formulate arguments in favor or against a particular issue; and
Construct their own historical analysis by evaluating various sources of
historical event

Read

The marker (left) and the monument (right) of the Cry of Pugad Lawin is found in Quezon City.
The monument and the marker shown above commemorates the “Cry of Pugad Lawin”
in 1896— “the first cry of the oppressed people against the Spanish nation, strengthened
with the use of arms”, as the marker states. This was the declaration of revolution by the
Katipunan under the leadership of Andres Bonifacio, which was affirmed by the tearing
of their cedula. Officially, it is recognized to have occurred on August 23, 1896 on a
place called Pugad Lawin, thus the title. This, however, still remains as one of the much-
debated historical events.

Initially, the “Cry” was celebrated every 26 th of August and it allegedly occurred not on
Pugad Lawin but on Balintawak, thus called the “Cry of Balintawak”. These dates and
location were not the only two, though. Other contenders were Kangkong, Bahay Toro,
Pasong Tamo and Banlat. The dates, on the other hand, ranged from August 20, 23 up
to 26 (Ocampo, 2010). This is due to the conflicting accounts of Gregoria de Jesus,
Andres Bonifacio’s own widow who was also the Lakambini of the Katipunan; Santiago
Alvarez, a prominent member of the Katipunan; Guillermo Masangkay, a Katipunan
General and Bonifacio’s childhood friend; Pio Valenzuela, a physician who was also a
member of the Katipunan; Julio Nakpil, a friend of Bonifacio and second jusband of
Gregoria de Jesus; and that of Captain Olegario Diaz, Spanish commander of the
Guardia Civil Veterana of Manila, who also investigated the Katipunan.

Of these accounts, it was Pio Valenzuela’s that prevailed. He was the primary source of
Teodoro Agoncillo when had describe the ‘Cry’ in his book Revolt of the Masses
(Guerrero, Encarnacion, & Villegas, 2003). Below is an excerpt:

It was in Pugad Lawin, where they proceeded upon leaving Samson’s place in the
afternoon of the 22nd, that the more than 1,000 members of the Katipunan met in the
yard of Juan A. Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino,…in the morning of August 23rd.
Considerable discussion arose whether the revolt against the Spanish government
should be started on the 29th. Only one man protested… But he was overruled in his
stand… Bonifacio then announced the decision and shouted: “Brothers, it was agreed
to continue with the plan of revolt. My brothers, do you swear to repudiate the
government that
oppresses us?” And the rebels, shouting as one man replied: “Yes, sir!” “That being the
case,” Bonifacio added, “bring out your cedulas and tear them to pieces to symbolize
our determination to take arms!” .. . Amidst the ceremony, the rebels, tear-stained eyes,
shouted: “Long live the Philippines! Long live the Katipunan!

Despite this being declared officially by the National Historical Institute (now the
National Historical Commission of the Philippines), historians find Valenzuela’s account
problematic primarily due to the inconsistency of the facts he told. In a testimony to
Spanish interrogators, he gave August 26, 1896 as the date of the ‘Cry’ and occurred in
Balintawak. Then, in his memoirs which was published after World War II, his date of the
‘Cry’ became August 23 in Pugad Lawin (Guerrero, Encarnacion, & Villegas, 2003;
Ocampo, 2010).

Guerrero, Encarnacion, & Villegas (2003) further argues that if taken literally, the Cry
being “shouting of nationalistic slogans in mass assemblies”, then there had already
been other cries before. For instance, in 1895, the Cry of Montalban occurred in the
Pamitinan Caves. “Viva la Indepencia Filipino!” was written on the walls. Others,
meanwhile, consider does not consider the Cry as the significant event but the first
armed encounter with the enemy. Then, there are also those who see the Bonifacio’s
establishment of a revolutionary army having greater importance.

SUGGESTED READINGS
Junio, L. S. (2014, June 8). 'Cry of Pugad Lawin in 1896: A showcase of the
freedom- loving nature of the Filipino People. Retrieved May 28, 2020, from
Philippine Canadian Inquirer: http://www.canadianinquirer.net/2014/06/08/cry-
of-pugad- lawin-in-1896-a-showcase-of-the-freedom-loving-nature-of-the-
filipino-people/
Richardson, J. (2019, March). Notes on the "Cry" of August 1896. Retrieved May 27,
2020, from Katipunan: Documents and Studies:
https://sites.google.com/site/katipunandocumentsandstudies/studies/notes-on-
the-cry-of-august-1896
Samonte, S. (2018, November 28). How the 1st Cry of Balintawak was moved to UP.
Retrieved May 27, 2020, from Philippine News Agency:
https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1055242
Activity 4.4
 Read and analyze the accounts on the “Cry of Pugad Lawin as provided by:
o Gregoria de Jesus
o Santiago Alvarez
o Pio Valenzuela
o Guillermo Masangkay
o Olegario Diaz
 Construct a table of historical analysis with the following details:
o Background of the witnesses
o Facts on the “Cry” as provided in each account
o Assessment on the issue based on the facts provided (background of
the witness and their evidences)
 Which among them do you think is the most reliable witness?
o Analysis on the significance of the historical event and the controversy
on history and in the contemporary times.
 Why do you think is this important to be discussed?
 What is the impact of this to you?
 How do you think can this issue be resolved?
 REFERENCES

Bernad, Rev. Fr. Miguel, S.J. 1981. Butuan or Limasawa? The site of the first Mass in
the Philippines: a reexamination. Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern Philippines,
Vol. 3: 35. Op. cit. Budhi 3 (2001):164-5.

Chua, M. C. (2016, December 29). Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga bagong dokumento
at pananaw. Retrieved May 24, 2020, from GMA Network:
https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/lifestyle/artandculture/594027/retraction-ni-
jose-rizal-mga-bagong-dokumento-at-pananaw/story/

Constantino, R. (1975). The Philippines: A Past Revisited (Vol. 1). Quezon City: 21st
Printing.

De Mafra, Ginés. Descripción de los reinos, Libro que trata del descubrimiento y
principio del estrecho que se llama de Magallanes.

De Jesus, Vicente. 2004. Mazaua: Magellan’s Lost Harbor. Pacific Maritime History.
Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.

De Pasquale, J. (2017, May 26). Straight to the Source: A Primary Source Analysis
Guide. Retrieved May 18, 2020, from Scholastic.com:
https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/blog-posts/john-depasquale/2017/Straight-
to-the-Source-A-Primary-Source-Analysis-Guide/

Digital Chalkboard. (n.d.). Corroborating Multiple Documents. Retrieved May 20, 2020,
from Digital Chalkboard Website:
https://www.mydigitalchalkboard.org/portal/default/Content/Viewer/Content?actio
n=2&scId=508656&sciId=16150

Guerrero, M. C., Encarnacion, E. N., & Villegas, R. N. (2003, June 06). In Focus:
Balintawak: The Cry for a Nationwide Revolution. Retrieved May 26, 2020, from
National Commission on Culture and Arts Website: https://ncca.gov.ph/about-
culture-and-arts/in-focus/balintawak-the-cry-for-a-nationwide-revolution/

Guerrero, M. C., & Schumacher S.J., J. N. (1998). Kasaysayan: The Story of the Filipino
People (Vol. 5). Pleasantville, New York: Reader's Digest Asia Publishing
Company Limited.

http://firstcircumnavigator.tripod.com/limasawa.htm

Jones, M. (n.d.). Using Historical Sources. Retrieved May 19, 2020, from Historical
Association Website: https://www.history.org.uk/student/resource/3211/using-
historical-sources
Ladd-Taylor, M., Igra, A., & Seidman, R. (n.d.). How to Analyze a Primary Source.
Retrieved May 19, 2020, from Carleton College Website:
https://www.carleton.edu/history/resources/history-study-guides/primary/

Makabenta, Y. (2018, January 2). Rizal remains a living and burning issue among us.
Retrieved May 24, 2020, from The Manila Times website:
https://www.manilatimes.net/2018/01/02/opinion/columnists/topanalysis/rizal-
remains-living-burning-issue-among-us/371727/

National Historical Institute. Proceedings on the hearing on the controversy over the site
of the first Mass.

Ocampo, A. R. (2010, September 3). Balintawak or Pugad Lawin? Retrieved May 27,
2020, from Press Reader website:
https://www.pressreader.com/philippines/philippine-daily-inquirer-
1109/20100903/283274569062897

Stanley, Henry Edward John (trans. and ed.). 1874. The First Voyage Round the World
by Magellan: Translated from accounts of Pigafetta and other contemporary
writers. London. Hakluyt Society.National Historical Institute. Proceedings on the
hearing on the controversy over the site of the first Mass.

Stanley, Henry Edward John (trans. and ed.). 1874. The First Voyage Round the World
by Magellan: Translated from accounts of Pigafetta and other contemporary
writers. London. Hakluyt Society.

Uckung, P. J. (2012, September 19). The Rizal Retraction and Other Cases. Retrieved
May 24, 2020, from National Historical Commission of the Philippines website:
http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-oth