Samar Colleges, Inc.

College of Arts and Sciences

Catbalogan, Samar

MODULE IN
READINGS AND PHILIPPINE HISTORY
(PRE-FINAL PERIOD)

Prepared by:

ALVIN A.ARCIETE, LPT

College Instructor
Chapter 3

PHILIPPINE HISTORY: Spaces for Conflict and Controversies

Learning Objectives:

 To interpret historical events using primary sources.

 To recognize the multiplicity of interpretation than can be read from a historical
text.
 To identify the advantages and disadvantages of employing critical tools in
interpreting historical events through primary sources.
 To demonstrate ability to argue for or against a particular issue using primary
sources.

In this chapter, we will analyze four historiographical problems in Philippine history in

an attempt to apply what we have learned thus far in the work of a historian and the
process of historical inquiry. Earlier, we have been introduced to history as a discipline,
the historical method, and the content and context analysis of primary sources. Two key
concepts that need to be defined before proceeding to the historical analysis of
problems in history are interpretation and multiperspectivity.

Making Sense of the Past: Historical Interpretation

History is the study of the past, but a more contemporary definition is centered
on how it impacts the present through its consequences. Geoffrey Barraclough defines
history as "the attempt to discover, on the basis of fragmentary evidence, the significant
things about the past." He also notes "the history we read, though based on facts, is
strictly speaking, not factual at all, but a series of accepted judgments." Such judgments
of historians on how the past should be seen make the foundation of historical
interpretation”.

The Code of Kalantiaw is a mythical legal code in the epic history Maragtas. Before it was
revealed as a hoax, it was a source of pride for the people of Aklan. In fact, a historical
marker was installed in the town of Batan, Aklan in 1956, with the following text:

"CODE OF KALANTIAW atu Bendehara Kalantiaw, third Chief of Panay, born in Aklan,
established his government in the peninsula of Batang, Aklan Sakup. Considered the First
Filipino Lawgiver, he promulgated in about 1433 a penal code now known as Code of
Kalantiaw containing 18. articles. Don Marcelino Orilla of Zaragoza, Spain, obtained the
original manuscript from an old chief of Panay which was later translated into Spanish by
Rafael Murviedo Yzamaney."
 It was only in 1968 that it was proved a hoax, when William Henry Scott, then a doctoral
candidate at the University of Santo Tomas, defended his research on pre-Hispanic
sources in Philippine history. He attributed the code to a historical fiction written in 1913
by Jose E. Marco titled Las Antiguas Leyendas de la Isla de Negros. Marco attributed the
code itself to a priest named Jose Maria Pavon. Prominent Filipino historians did not
dissent to Scott's findings, but there are still some who would like to believe that the code
is a legitimate document.

Historians utilize facts collected from primary sources of history and then draw
their own reading so that their intended audience may understand the historical event,
a process that in essence, "makes sense of the past." The premise is that not all primary
sources are accessible to a general. audience, and without the proper training and
background, a non-historian interpreting a primary source may do more harm than
good a primary source may even cause misunderstandings; sometimes, even resulting
in more problems.

Interpretations of the past, therefore, vary according to who reads the primary
source, when it was read, and how it was read. As students of history, we must be well
equipped to recognize different types of interpretations, why these may differ from
each other, and how to critically sift these interpretations through historical evaluation.
Interpretations of historical events change over time; thus, it is an important skill for a
student of history to track these changes in an attempt to understand the past.

"Sa Aking Mga Kabata" is a poem purportedly written by Jose Rizal when he was eight years old and
is probably one of Rizal's most prominent works. There is no evidence to support the claim that this
poem, with the now immortalized lines "Ang hindi magmahal sa kanyang salita/mahigit sa hayop at
malansang isda" was written by Rizal, and worse, the evidence against Rizal's authorship of the
poem seems all unassailable.

There exists no manuscript of the poem handwritten by Rizal. The poem was first published in 1906,
in a book by Hermenegildo Cruz. Cruz said he received the poem from Gabriel Beato Francisco, who
claimed to have received it in 1884 from Rizal's close friend, Saturnino Raselis Rizal never mentioned
writing this poem anywhere in his writings, and more importantly, he never mentioned of having a
close friend by the person of Raselis

Further criticism of the poem reveals more about the wrongful attribution of the poem to Rizal. The
poem was written in Tagalog and referred to the word "kalayaan." But it was documented in Rizal's
letters that he first encountered the word through a Marcelo H. del Pilar's translation of Rizal's essay
"El Amor Patrio," where it was spelled as "kalayahan."

While Rizal's native tongue was Tagalog, he was educated in Spanish, starting from his mother,
Teodora Alonso. Later on, he would express disappointment in his difficulty in expressing himself in
his native tongue.
The poem's spelling is also suspect-the use of letters "k" and "w" to replace "c" and "u,"
respectively was suggested by Rizal as an adult. If the poem was indeed written
during his time, it should use the original Spanish orthography that was prevalent in
his time.
 Many of the things we accept as "true" about the past might not be the case
anymore, just because these were taught to us as "facts" when we were younger does
not mean that it is set in stone-history is, after all, a construct. And as a construct, it is
open for interpretation. There might be conflicting and competing accounts of the past
that need one's attention, and can impact the way we view our country's history and
identity. It is important, therefore, to subject to evaluation not only the primary source,
but also the historical interpretation of the same, to ensure that the current
interpretation is reliable to support our acceptance of events of the past,

Multiperspectivity

With several possibilities of interpreting the past, another important concept that
we must note is multiperspectivity. This can be defined as a way of looking at historical
events, personalities, developments, cultures, and societies from different perspectives.
This means that there is a multitude of ways by which we can view the world, and each
could be equally valid, and at the same time, equally partial as well. Historical writing
is, by definition, biased, partial, and contains preconceptions. The historian decides on
what sources to use, what interpretation to make more apparent, depending on what
his end is. Historians may misinterpret evidence, attending to those that suggest that a
certain event happened, and then ignore the rest that goes against the evidence.
Historians may omit significant facts about their subject, which makes the interpretation
unbalanced. Historians may impose a certain ideology to their subject, which may not
be appropriate to the period the subject was from Historians may also provide a single
cause for an event without considering other possible causal explanations of said event.
These are just many of the ways a historian may fail in his historical inference,
description, and interpretation. With multiperspectivity as an approach in history, we
must understand that historical interpretations contain discrepancies, contradictions,
ambiguities, and are often the focus of dissent.

Exploring multiple perspectives in history requires incorporating source

materials that reflect different views of an event in history, because singular historical
narratives do not provide for space to inquire and investigate. Different sources that
counter each other may create space for more investigation and research, while
providing more evidence for those truths that these sources agree on.

Different kinds of sources also provide different historical truths an official

document may note different aspects of the past than, say, a memoir of an ordinary
person on the same event. Different historical agents create. different historical truths,
and while this may be a burdensome work for the historian, it also renders more
validity to the historical scholarship.
 Taking these in close regard in the reading of historical interpretations, it
provides for the audience a more complex, but also a more complete and richer
understanding of the past.

ACTIVITY 4:

INSTRUCTIONS: Write your answers in a long bond paper.

1. Write a critical essay on the Code of Kalantiaw and Rizal’s Sa Aking mga Kabata.

Case Study 1: Where Did the First Catholic Mass Take Place in the Philippines?

The popularity of knowing where the "firsts" happened in history has been an
easy way to trivialize history, but this case study will not focus on the significance (or
lack thereof) of the site of the First Catholic Mass in the Philippines, but rather, use it as
a historiographical exercise in the utilization of evidence and interpretation in reading
historical events.

Butuan has long been believed as the site of the first Mass. In fact, this has been
the case for three centuries, culminating in the erection of a monument in 1872 near
Agusan River, which commemorates the expedition's arrival and celebration of Mass on
8 April 1521. The Butuan claim has been based on a rather elementary reading of
primary sources from the event.

Toward the end of the nineteenth century and the start of the twentieth century,
together with the increasing scholarship on the history of the Philippines, a more
nuanced reading of the available evidence was made, which brought to light more
considerations in going against the more accepted interpretation of the first Mass in the
Philippines, made both by Spanish and Filipino scholars.

It must be noted that there are only two primary sources that historians refer to
in identifying the site of the first Mass. One is the log kept by Francisco Albo, a pilot of
one of Magellan's ship, Trinidad. He was one of the 18 survivors who returned with
Sebastian Elcano on the ship Victoria after they circumnavigated the world. The other,
and the more complete, was the account by Antonio Pigafetta, Primo viaggio intorno al
mondo (First Voyage Around the World). Pigafetta, like Albo, was a member of the
Magellan expedition and an eyewitness of the events, particularly, of the first Mass.

Primary Source: Albo's Log

Source: "Diario o derotero del viage de Magallanes desde el cabo se S. Agustín en el
Brazil hasta el regreso a Espana de la nao Victoria, escrito por Frandsco Albo,"
Document no. xxii in Colleción de viages y descubrimientos que hicieron por mar los
Españoles desde fines del siglo XV, Ed. Martin Fernandez de Navarrete (reprinted
Buenos Aires 1945,5 Vols.) IV, 191-225. As cited in Miguel A. Bernad "Butuan or
Lamasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines A Reexamination of Evidence
1981, Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.

1. On the 16th of March (1521) as they sailed in a westerly course from Ladrones,
they saw land towards the northwest; but owing to many shallow places they
did not approach it. They found later that its name was Yunagan.
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 fled 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 names Seilani that
was inhabited and was known to have gold. (Seilani - or, as Pigafetta 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
islands to the west and southwest, where. they were told there was much gold.
"They showed us how the gold was gathered, which came in small pieces like
peas and lentils."
7. From Mazava they sailed northwards again towards Seilani. They followed the
coast of Seilani in a northwesterly direction, ascending up to 10 degrees of
latitude where they saw three small islands.
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 has to go (as they did) in a round-about
way.
 It must be noted that in Albo's account, the location of Mazava fits the location of the
island of Limasawa, at the southern tip of Leyte, 9°54'N. Also, Albo does not mention
the first Mass, but only the planting of the cross upon a mountain-top from which could
be seen three islands to the west and southwest, which also fits the southern end of
Limasawa.

Primary Source: Pigafetta's Testimony on the Route of Magellan's Expedition

Source: Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson, The Philippine Islands, Vols. 33
and 34, as cited in Miguel A. Bernad, "Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass
in the Philippines: A Reexamination of Evidence" 1981, Kinaadman A Journal of
Southern Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.

1. Saturday, 16 March 1521- Magellan's expedition sighted a "high land" named

"Zamal" which was some 300 leagues westward of Ladrones (now the Marianas)
Islands.
2. Sunday, March 17- "The following day" after sighting Zamal Island, they landed
on "another island which was uninhabited" and which lay "to the right" of the
above-mentioned island of Zamal." (To the "right" here would mean on their
starboard going south or southwest) There they set up two tents for the sick
members of the crew and had a 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, March 17), Magellan named the entire archipelago
the "Islands of Saint Lazarus," the reason being that it was Sunday in the Lenten
season when the Gospel assigned for the Mass and the liturgical Office was the
eleventh chapter of St. John, which tells of the raising of Lazarus from the dead.
4. Monday, March 18 - 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
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 segnialli).
6. Friday, March 22- At noon the natives returned. This time they were in two
boats, and they brought food supplies.
7. Magellan's expedition stayed eight days at Homonhon: from Sunday, March 17,
to the Monday of the following week, March 25.
8. Monday, March 25- In the afternoon, the expedition weighed anchor and left the
island of Homonhon. In the ecclesiastical calendar, this day (March 25) was the
feast-day of the Incarnation, also called the feast of the Annunciation and
therefore "Our Lady's Day." On this day, as they were about to weigh anchor, an
accident happened to Pigafetta: he fell into the water but was rescued. He
attributed his narrow escape from death as grace obtained through the
intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary on her feast-day.
9. The route taken by the expedition after leaving Homonhon was "toward the west
southwest, between four islands, namely, Cenalo, Hiunanghan, Ibusson and
 Albarien." Very probably "Cenalo" is a misspelling in the Italian manuscript for
what Pigafetta in his map calls "Ceilon" and Albo calls "Seilani": namely the
island of Leyte. "Hiunanghan" (a misspelling of Hinunangan) seemed to
Pigafetta to be a separate island, but is actually on the mainland of Leyte (1.e.,
"Ceylon"). On the other hand, Hibuson (Pigafetta's Ibusson) 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 southward, passing between the island of Hibuson on their portside and
Hiunangan Bay on their starboard, and then continued southward, then turning
westward to "Mazaua."

10. Thursday, March 28- In the morning of Holy Thursday, March 28, they anchored
off an island where the previous night they had seen a light or a bonfire. That
island "lies in a latitude of nine and two-thirds towards the Arctic Pole (ie,
North) and in a longitude of one hundred and sixty-two degrees from the line of
demarcation. It is twenty-five leagues from the Acquada, and is called Mazaua"
11. They remained seven days on Mazaua Island.
12. Thursday, April 4 - They left Mazaua, bound for Cebu. They were guided thither
by the king of Mazaua who sailed in his own boat. Their route took them past
five "islands" namely: "Ceylon, Bohol, Canighan, Baibai, and Gatighan."
13. At Gatighan, they sailed westward to the three islands of the Camotes Group,
namely, Poro, Pasihan and Ponson Here the Spanish ships stopped to allow the
king of Mazaua to catch up with them, since the Spanish ships were much faster
than the native balanghai-a thing that excited the admiration of the king of
Mazaua.
14. From the Camotes Islands they sailed southwards towards "Zubu."
15. Sunday, April 7- At noon they entered the harbor of "Zubu" (Cebu). It had taken
them three days to negotiate the journey from Mazaua northwards to the
Camotes Islands and then southwards to Cebu.

It must be pointed out that both Albo and Pigafetta's testimonies coincide and
corroborate each other. Pigafetta gave more details on what they did during their
weeklong stay at Mazaua.

Primary Source: Pigafetta and Seven Days in Mazaua

Source: Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson, The Philippine Islands, Vols. 33
and 34, as cited in Miguel A. Bernad, "Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass
in the Philippines: A Reexamination of Evidence" 1981, Kinaadman: A Journal of
Southern Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.
1. Thursday, March 28- 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 larger 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 that day, the Spanish ships
weighed anchor and came closer to shore, anchoring near the native king's
village. This Thursday, March 28, was Thursday in Holy Week, i.e., Holy
Thursday.
2. Friday, March 29- "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 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, March 30- 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, March 31 - "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, March 31 - 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 that 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, April 1 - Magellan sent men ashore to help with the harvest, but no
work was done that day because the two kings were sleeping off their drinking
bout the night before.
7. Tuesday, April 2 and Wednesday, April 3- Work on the harvest during the "next
to days," i.e., Tuesday and Wednesday, the 2nd and 3rd of April.
 8. Thursday, April 4 - They leave Mazaua, bound for Cebu.

Using the primary sources available, Jesuit priest Miguel A. Bernad in his work
Butuan or Limasawa: The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of
Evidence (1981) lays down the argument that in the Pigafetta account, a crucial aspect
of Butuan was not mentioned-the river. Butuan is a riverine settlement, situated on the
Agusan River. The beach of Masao is in the delta of said river. It is a curious omission in
the account of the river, which makes part of a distinct characteristic of Butuan's
geography that seemed to be too important to be missed.

The Age of Exploration is a period of competition among European rulers to conquer and
colonize lands outside their original domains. Initially, the goal was to find alternative routes
by sea to get to Asia, the main source of spices and other commodities. Existing routes to
Asia were mainly by land and cost very expensive. A sea route to Asia means that Europeans
could access the spice trade directly, greatly reducing costs for traders. Spain's major foray
into the exploration was through Christopher Columbus, who proposed to sail westward to
find a shortcut to Asia. He was able to reach the Americas, which was then cut-off from the
rest of the known world. Spain colonized parts of North America, Mexico, and South
America in the sixteenth century. They were also able to reach the Philippines and claim it
for the Spanish crown Later on, other European rulers would compete with the activities of
exploring and conquering lands.

It must also be pointed out that later on, after Magellan's death, the survivors of
his expedition went to Mindanao, and seemingly went to Butuan. In this instance,
Pigafetta vividly describes a trip in a river. But note that this account already happened
after Magellan's death.

ACTIVITY 5:

INSTRUCTIONS: Write your answers in a long bond paper.

1. Using a venn diagram, compare and contrast each position of the three
claimants to where is the site of the First Catholic Mass.

Case Study 2: What Happened in the Cavite Mutiny?

The year 1872 is a historic year of two events: the Cavite Mutiny and the
martyrdom of the three priests: Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, later
on immortalized as GOMBURZA. These events are very important milestones in
Philippine history and have caused ripples throughout time, directly influencing the
decisive events of the Philippine Revolution toward the end of the century. While the
significance is unquestioned, what made this year controversial are the different sides
to the story, a battle of perspectives supported by primary sources. In this case study,
we zoom in to the events of the Cavite Mutiny, a major factor in the awakening of
nationalism among the Filipinos of that time.

Spanish Accounts of the Cavite Mutiny

The documentation of Spanish historian Jose Montero y Vidal centered on how

the event was an attempt in overthrowing the Spanish government in the Philippines.
Although regarded as a historian, his account of the mutiny was criticized as woefully
biased and rabid for a scholar Another account from the official report written by then
Governor General Rafael Izquierdo implicated the native clergy, who were then, active
in the movement toward secularization of parishes. These two accounts corroborated
each other.

Primary Source: Excerpts from Montero's Account of the Cavite Mutiny

Source: Jose Montero y Vidal, "Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872," in
Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7
(Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 269 273.

The abolition of privileges enjoyed by the laborers f the Cavite arsenal. of

exemption from the tribute was, according to some, the cause of the insurrection. There
were, however, other causes.

The Spanish revolution which overthrew a secular throne, the propaganda carried on
by an unbridled press against monarchical principles, attentatory [sic] of the most
sacred respects towards the dethroned majesty; the democratic and republican books
and pamphlets; the speeches and preachings of the apostles of these new ideas in Spain,
the outbursts of the American publicists and the criminal policy of the senseless
Governor whom the Revolutionary government sent to govern the Philippines, and
who put into practice these ideas were the determining circumstances which gave rise,
among certain Filipinos, to the idea of attaining their independence. It was towards this
goal that they started to work, with the powerful assistance of a certain section of the
native clergy, who out of spite toward friars, made common cause with the enemies of
the mother country.

At various times but especially in the beginning of year 1872, the authorities received
anonymous communications with the information 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 Filipino Spaniard, D.
Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, or in that of the native priest, Jacinto Zamora, and these
meetings were usually attended by the curate of Bacoor, the soul of the movement,
whose energetic character and immense wealth enabled him to exercise a strong
influence.

Primary Source: Excerpts from the Official Report of Governor Izquierdo on the
Cavite Mutiny of 1872

Source: Rafael Izquierdo, "Official Report on the Cavite Mutiny," in Gregorio Zaide and
Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National
Book Store, 1990), 281-286.

...It seems definite that the insurrection was motivated and prepared by the native
clergy, by the mestizos and native lawyers, and by those known here as abogadillos...

The instigators, to carry out their criminal project, protested against the injustice of the
government in not paying the provinces for their tobacco crop, and against the usury
that some practice in documents that the Finance department gives crop owners who
have to sell them at a loss. They encouraged the rebellion by protesting what they called
the injustice of having obliged the workers in the Cavite arsenal to pay tribute starting
January 1 and to render personal service, from which they were formerly exempted

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 Filipino would be called hari; but it turns out that
they would place at the head of the government a priest that the head selected would be
D. Jose Burgos, or D. Jacinto Zamora..

Such is… the plan of the rebels, those who guided them, and the means they counted
upon for its realization.

It is apparent that the accounts underscore the reason for the "revolution" the
abolition of privileges enjoyed by the workers of the Cavite arsenal such as exemption
from payment of tribute and being employed in polos y servicios, or force labor. They
also identified other reasons which seemingly made the issue a lot more serious, which
included the presence of the native clergy, who, out of spite against the Spanish friars,
"conspired and supported" the rebels. Izquierdo, in an obviously biased report,
highlighted that attempt to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines to
install a new "hari" in the persons of Fathers Burgos and Zamora According to him,
native clergy attracted supporters by giving them charismatic assurance that their fight
would not fail because they had God's support, aside from promises of lofty rewards
such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the army.

In the Spaniard's accounts, the event of 1872 was premeditated, and was part of a
big conspiracy among the educated leaders, mestizos, lawyers, and residents of Manila
and Cavite. They allegedly plan to liquidate high ranking Spanish officers, then kill the
friars The signal they identified among these conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the
rockets fired from Intramuros.

The accounts detail that on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated
the feast of the Virgin of Loreto, and came with it were some fireworks display. The
Caviteños allegedly mistook this as the signal to commence with the attack. The 200
men contingent led by Sergeant Lamadrid attacked Spanish officers at sight and seized
the arsenal. Izquierdo, upon learning of the attack, ordered the reinforcement of the
Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The revolution" was easily crushed, when
the Manileños who were expected to aid the Caviteños did not arrive. Leaders of the
plot were killed in the resulting skirmish, while Fathers Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora
were tried by a court martial and sentenced to be executed. Others who were implicated
such as Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa, and other
Filipino lawyers were suspended from the practice of law, arrested, and sentenced to
life imprisonment at the Marianas Island. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of
artillery and ordered the creation of an artillery force composed exclusively by
Peninsulares.

On 17 February 1872, the GOMBURZA were executed to serve as a threat to

Filipinos never to attempt to fight the Spaniards again.

Differing Accounts of the Events of 1872

Two other primary accounts that seem to counter the accounts of Izquierdo and
Montero. First, the account of Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino
scholar and researcher, who wrote a Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite.

Primary Source: Excerpts from Pardo de Tavera's Account of the Cavite Mutiny

Source: Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, "Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny," in Gregorio
Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila:
National Book Store, 1990), 274 280.

This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as a powerful level by the Spanish
residents and by the friars... the Central Government in Madrid had announced its
intention to deprive the friars in these islands of powers of intervention in matters of
civil government and of the direction and management of the university... it was due to
these facts and promises that the Filipinos had great hopes of 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 complete a thing of the past.

..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 education advancement of the
country...

According to this account, the incident was merely a mutiny by Filipino soldiers
and laborers of the Cavite arsenal to the dissatisfaction arising from the draconian
policies of Izquierdo, such as the abolition of privileges and the prohibition of the
founding of the school of arts and trades for Filipinos which the General saw as a
smokescreen to creating a political club.

Tavera is of the opinion that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite
Mutiny as a way to address other issues by blowing out of proportion the isolated
mutiny attempt. During this time, the Central Government in Madrid was planning to
deprive the friars of all the powers of intervention in matters of civil government and
direction and management of educational institutions. The friars needed something to
justify their continuing dominance in the country, and the mutiny provided such
opportunity.

However, the Central Spanish Government introduced an educational decree

fusing sectarian schools run by the friars into a school called the Philippine Institute.
The decree aimed to improve the standard of education in the Philippines by requiring
teaching positions in these schools to be filled by competitive examinations, an
improvement welcomed by most Filipinos.

Another account, this time by French writer Edmund Plauchut., complemented

Tavera's account and analyzed the motivations of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny.

Primary Source: Excerpts from Plauchut's Account of the Cavite Mutiny

Source: Edmund Plauchut, "The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 and the Martyrdom of Gom-
Bur-Za," in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine
History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 251-268.

General La Torre... created a junta composed of high officials... including some friars
and six Spanish officials.... At the same time there. was created by the government in
Madrid a committee to investigate the same problems submitted to the Manila
committee. When the two. finished work, it was found that they came to the same
conclusions. Here is the summary of the reforms they considered necessary to
introduce:

1. Changes in tariff rates at customs, and the methods of collection.

2. Removal of surcharges on foreign importations.
3. Reduction of export fees.
4. Permission for foreigners to reside in the Philippines, buy real estate, enjoy
freedom of worship, and operate commercial transports flying the Spanish flag.
5. Establishment of an advisory council to inform the Minister of Overseas Affairs
in Madrid on the necessary reforms to be implemented.
6. Changes in primary and secondary education.
7. Establishment of an Institute of Civil Administration in the Philippines,
rendering unnecessary the sending home of short term civil officials every time
there is a change of ministry.
8. Study of direct-tax system.
9. Abolition of the tobacco monopoly

…The arrival in Manila of General Izquierdo... put a sudden end to all dreams of
reforms... the prosecutions instituted by the new Governor General were probably
expected as a result of the bitter disputes between the Filipino clerics and the friars.
Such a policy must really end in a strong desire on the part of the other to repress
cruelly.
 In regard to schools, it was previously decreed that there should be in Manila a Society
of Arts and Trades to be opened in March of 1871. to repress the growth of liberal
teachings, General Izquierdo suspended the opening of the school... the day previous to
the scheduled inauguration.

The Filipinos had a duty to render service on public roads construction and pay taxes
every year. But those who were employed at the maestranza of the artillery, in the
engineering shops and arsenal of Cavite, were exempted from this obligation from time
immemorial... Without preliminaries of any kind, a decree by the Governor withdrew
from such old employees their retirement privileges and declassified them into the
ranks of those who worked on public roads.

The friars used the incident as a part of a larger conspiracy to cement their
dominance, which had started to show cracks because of the discontent of the Filipinos.
They showcased the mutiny as part of a greater conspiracy in the Philippines by
Filipinos to overthrow the Spanish Government. Unintentionally, and more so,
prophetically, the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 resulted in the martyrdom of GOMBURZA,
and paved the way to the revolution culminating in 1898.

The GOMBURZA is the collective name of the three martyred priests Mariano Gomez, Jose
Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, who were tagged as the masterminds of the Cavite Mutiny. They
were prominent Filipino priests charged with treason and sedition. It is believed that the
Spanish clergy connected the priests to the mutiny as part of a conspiracy to stifle the
movement of secular priests who desired to have their own parishes instead of being merely
assistants to the regular friars. The GOMBURZA were executed by garrote in public, a scene
purportedly witnessed by a young Jose Rizal

Their martyrdom is widely accepted as the dawn of Philippine nationalism in the nineteenth
century, with Rizal dedicating his second novel, El Filibusterismo, to their memory:

"The Government, by enshrouding your trial in mystery and pardoning your co-accused, has
suggested that some mistake was committed when your fate was decided, and the whole of the
Philippines, in paying homage to your memory and calling you martyrs, totally rejects your
guilt. The Church, by refusing to degrade you, has put in doubt the crime charged against
Case Study 3: Did Rizal Retract?
you."
Jose Rizal is identified as a hero of the revolution for his writings that center on
ending colonialism and liberating Filipino minds to contribute to creating the Filipino
nation. The great volume of Rizal's lifework was committed to this end, particularly the
more influential ones, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. His essays vilify not the
Catholic religion, but the friars, the main agents of injustice in the Philippine society.

It is understandable; therefore, that any piece of writing from Rizal that recants
everything he wrote against the friars and the Catholic Church in the Philippines could
deal heavy damage to his image as a prominent Filipino revolutionary. Such document
purportedly exists, allegedly signed by Rizal a few hours before his execution. This
document, referred to as "The Retraction," declares Rizal's belief in the Catholic faith,
and retracts everything he wrote against the Church.

Primary Source: Rizal's Retraction

 Source: Translated from the document found by Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. on 18 May
1935.

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. I believe and I confess
whatever she teaches and I submit to whatever she demands. I abominate Masonry, as
the enemy which is of the Church, and as a Society prohibited by the Church. The
Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, make public this
spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to repair the scandal which my acts may
have caused and so that God and people may pardon me.

Manila 29 of December of 1896

Jose Rizal

There are four iterations of the texts of this retraction: the first was published in
La Voz Española and Diario de Manila on the day of the execution, 30 December 1896.
The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, in the magazine La Juventud, a few
months after the execution, 14 February 1897, from an anonymous writer who was later
on revealed to be Fr. Vicente Balaguer. However, the "original" text was only found in
the archdiocesan archives on 18 May 1935, after almost four decades of disappearance.

The Balaguer Testimony

Doubts on the retraction document abound, especially because only. one

eyewitness account of the writing of the document exists-that of the Jesuit friar Fr.
Vicente Balaguer. According to his testimony, Rizal woke up. several times, confessed
four times, attended a Mass, received communion, and prayed the rosary, all of which
seemed out of character. But since it is the only testimony of allegedly a "primary"
account that Rizal ever wrote a retraction document, it has been used to argue the
authenticity of the document.

The Testimony of Cuerpo de Vigilancia

Another eyewitness account surfaced in 2016, through the research of Professor

Rene R. Escalante. In his research, documents of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia included a
report on the last hours of Rizal, written by Federico. Moreno. The report details the
statement of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia to Moreno.

Primary Source: Eyewitness Account of the Last Hours of Rizal

Source: Michael Charleston Chua, "Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga Bagong Dokumento at
Pananaw," GMA News Online, published 29 December 2016.
 Most Illustrious Sir, the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia stationed in Fort Santiago to
report on the events during the [illegible] day in prison of the accused Jose Rizal,
informs me on this date of the following:

At 7:50 yesterday morning, Jose Rizal entered death row accompanied by his counsel,
Señor Taviel de Andrade, and the Jesuit priest Vilaclara. At the urgings of the former
and moments after entering, he was served a light breakfast. At approximately 9, the
Assistant of the Plaza, Señor Maure, asked Rizal if he wanted anything. He replied that
at the moment he only wanted a prayer book, which was brought to him shortly by
Father March.

Señor Andrade left death row at 10 and Rizal spoke for a long while with the Jesuit
fathers, March and Vilaclara, regarding religious matters, it seems. It appears that these
two presented him with a prepared retraction on his life and deeds that he refused to
sign. They argued about the matter until 12:30 when Rizal ate some poached egg and a
little chicken. Afterwards he asked to leave to write and wrote for a long time by
himself.

At 3 in the afternoon, Father March entered the chapel and Rizal handed him what he
had written. Immediately the chief of the firing squad, Señor del Fresno and the
Assistant of the Plaza, Señor Maure, were informed. They entered death row and
together with Rizal signed the document that the accused had written.

At 5 this morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal arrived at the prison.... dressed in
mourning. Only the former entered the chapel, followed by a military chaplain whose
name I cannot ascertain. Donning his formal clothes and aided by a soldier of the
artillery, the nuptials of Rizal and the woman who had been his lover were performed
at the point of death (in articulo mortis). After embracing him she left, flooded with
tears.

This account corroborates the existence of the retraction document, giving it

credence. However, nowhere in the account was Fr. Balaguer mentioned, which makes
the friar a mere secondary source to the writing of the document.

The retractions of Rizal remains to this day, a controversy, many scholars,

however, agree that the document does not tarnish the heroism of Rizal. His relevance
remained solidified to Filipinos and pushed them to continue the revolution, which
eventually resulted in independence in 1898.

Rizal's Connection to the Katipunan is undeniable-in fact, the precursor of the Katipunan as
an organization is the La Liga Filipina, an organization Rizal founded, with Andres Bonifacio
as one of its members. But La Liga Filipina was short-lived as the Spaniards exiled Rizal to
Dapitan. Former members decided to band together to establish the Katipunan a few days
after Rizal's exile on 7 July 1892

Rizal may not have been officially part of the Katipunan, but the Katipuneros showed great
appreciation of his work toward the same goals. Out of the 28 members of the leadership of
the Katipunan (known as the Kataas-taasang Sanggunian ng Katipunan) from 1892 to 1896, 13
were former members of La Liga Filipina Katipuneros even used Rizal's name as a password.

In 1896, the Katipuneros decided to inform Rizal of their plans to launch the revolution, and
sent Pio Valenzuela to visit Rizal in Dapitan. Valenzuela's accounts of his meeting with Rizal
have been greatly doubted by many scholars, but according to him, Rizal objected to the plans,
saying that doing so would be tantamount to suicide since it would be difficult to fight the
ACTIVITY 6:
INSTRUCTIONS: Write your answers in a long bond paper.

1. Write a critique paper on the article, The Rizal Retraction and other cases by Peter Jaynul
V. Uckung (NHCP).

Case Study 4: Where Did the Cry of Rebellion Happen?

Momentous events swept the Spanish colonies in the late nineteenth century,
including the Philippines. Journalists of the time referred to the phrase "El Grito de
Rebelion" or "Cry of Rebelhon" to mark the start of these revolutionary events,
identifying the places where it happened. In the Philippines, this happened in August
1896, northeast of Manila, where they declared rebellion against the Spanish colonial
government. These events are important markers in the history of colonies that
struggled for their independence against their colonizers

The controversy regarding this event stems from the identification of the date
and place where the Cry happened. Prominent Filipino historian Teodoro Agoncillo
emphasizes the event when Bonifacio tore the cedula or tax receipt before the
Katipuneros who also did the same. Some writers identified the first military event with
the Spaniards as the moment of the Cry, for which, Emilio Aguinaldo commissioned an
"Himno de Balintawak to inspire the renewed struggle after the Pact of the Biak-na-Bato
failed. A monument to the Heroes of 1896 was erected in what is now the intersection of
Epifanio de los Santos (EDSA) Avenue and Andres Bonifacio Drive-North Diversion
road, and from then on until 1962, the Cry Balintawak was celebrated every 26th of
August. The site of the monument was chosen for an unknown reason.

Different Dates and Places of the Cry

Various accounts of the Cry give different dates and places. A guardia civil, Lt.
Olegario Diaz, identified the Cry to have happened in Balintawak on 25 August 1896.
Teodoro Kalaw, Filipino historian, marks the place to be in Kangkong, Balintawak, on
the last week of August 1896. Santiago Alvarez, a Katipunero and son of Mariano
Alvarez, leader of the Magdiwang faction in Cavite, put the Cry in Bahay Toro in
Quezon City on 24 August 1896 Pio Valenzuela, known Katipunero and privy to many
events concerning the Katipunan stated that the Cry happened in Pugad Lawin on 23
August 1896. Historian Gregorio Zaide identified the Cry to have happened in
Balintawak on 26 August 1896, while Teodoro Agoncillo put it at Pugad Lawin on 23
August 1896, according to statements by Pio Valenzuela Research by historians
Milagros Guerrero, Emmanuel Encarnacion, and Ramon Villegas claimed that the event
took place in Tandang Sora's barn in Gulod, Barangay Banlat, Quezon City, on 24
August 1896.

Primary Source: Accounts of the Cry

Guillermo Masangkay

Source: Guillermo Masangkay, "Cry of Balintawak" in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide,
Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 8 (Manila: National Book Store,
1990), 307-309.

On August 20th, a big meeting was held in Balintawak, at the house of Apolonio
Samson, then cabeza of that barrio of Caloocan. Among those who attended, I
remember, were Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Aguedo del Rosario, Tomas Remigio, Briccio
Pantas, Teodoro Plata, Pio Valenzuela, Enrique Pacheco, and Francisco Carreon. They
were all leaders of the Katipunan and composed the board of directors of the
organization. Delegates from Bulacan, Cabanatuan, Cavite, and Morong were also
present.

At about nine o'clock in the morning of August 26, the meeting was opened with
Andres Bonifacio presiding and Emilio Jacinto acting as secretary. The purpose was to
discuss when the uprising was to take place. Teodoro Plata, Briccio Pantas, and Pio
Valenzuela were all opposed to starting the revolution too early. Andres Bonifacio,
sensing that he would lose in the discussion then, left the session hall and talked to the
people, who were waiting outside for the result of the meeting of the leaders. He told
the people that the leaders were arguing against starting the revolution early, and
appealed to them in a fiery speech in which he said: "You remember the fate of our
countrymen who were shot in Bagumbayan. Should we return now to the towns, the
Spaniards will only shoot us. Our organization has been discovered and we are all
 marked men. If we don't start the uprising, the Spaniards will get us anyway. What
then, do you say?"

"Revolt!" the people shouted as one.

Bonifacio then asked the people to give a pledge that they were to revolt. He told them
that the sign of slavery of the Filipinos were (sic) the cedula tax charged each citizen. "If
it is true that you are ready to revolt... I want to see you destroy your cedulas. It will be
a sign that all of us have declared our severance from the Spaniards."

Pio Valenzuela

Source: Pio Valenzuela, "Cry of Pugad Lawin," in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide,
Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 8 (Manila: National Book Store,
1990), 301-302.

The first place of refuge of Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Procopio Bonifacio,
Teodoro Plata, Aguedo del Rosario, and myself was Balintawak, the first five arriving
there on August 19, and I, on August 20, 1896. The first place where some 500 members
of the Katipunan met on August 22, 1896, was the house and yard of Apolonio Samson
at Kangkong. Aside from the persons mentioned above, among those who were there
were Briccio Pantas, Alejandro Santiago, Ramon Bernardo, Apolonio Samson, and
others. Here, views were only exchanged, and no resolution was debated or adopted. It
was at Pugad Lawin, the house, store-house, and yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora
Aquino, where over 1,000 members of the Katipunan met and carried out considerable
debate and discussion on August 23, 1896. The discussion was on whether or not the
revolution against the Spanish government should be started on August 29, 1896... After
the tumultuous meeting, many of those present tore their cedula certificates and
shouted "Long live the Philippines! Long live the Philippines!"

From the eyewitness accounts presented, there is indeed marked disagreement

among historical witnesses as to the place and time of the occurrence of the Cry. Using
primary and secondary sources, four places have been identified: Balintawak,
Kangkong. Pugad Lawin, and Bahay. Toro, while the dates vary: 23, 24, 25, or 26
August 1896.

Valenzuela's account should be read with caution: He once told a Spanish

investigator that the "Cry" happened in Balintawak on Wednesday, 26 August 1896.
Much later, he wrote in his Memoirs of the Revolution that it happened at Pugad Lawin
on 23 August 1896 Such inconsistencies in accounts should always be seen as a red flag
when dealing with primary sources.

According to Guerrero, Encarnacion, and Villegas, all these places are in

Balintawak, then part of Caloocan, now, in Quezon City. As for the dates, Bonifacio and
his troops may have been moving from one place to another to avoid being located by
the Spanish government, which could explain why there are several accounts of the
Cry.

ACTIVITY 7:

DIRECTIONS: True or False. Write true if the statement is true. Otherwise, write false in the
space provided.

_________1. Historical interpretation is based on the historian's judgment on how the past
should be seen.
REFERENCES

Alvarez, S. (1998). Katipunan and the Revolution: Memoirs of a General Quezon City,
Ateneo de Manila University Press. Bernad, M. A. (1981). "Butuan or Limasawa? The
Site of the First Mass in the Philippines. A Reexamination of Evidence." Kinaadman: A
Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.

Chun, M. C. (2016). "Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga Bagong Dokumento at Pananaw." In

GMANewsOnline.http://www.gmanetwork.com/news
lifestyle/artandculture/594027/retraction-ni-jose-rizal-mga-bagongdokumento-at-
pananaw/story/ Retrieved 18 October 2017.

Phelan, P., & Reynolds, P. (1996). Argument and Evidence: Critical Analysisfor the
Social Sciences. London: Routledge. Pigafetta, A. (1969). First Voyage Around the
World. Manila: Filipiniana Book Guild. Zaide, G., & Zaide, S. (1990). Documentary
Sources of Philippine History L Vols. Manila: National Book Store.