Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Readings in Philippine History: Module 4 & 5 Contents/ Lessons
Readings in Philippine History: Module 4 & 5 Contents/ Lessons
Readings in Philippine History: Module 4 & 5 Contents/ Lessons
READINGS IN PHILIPPINE
HISTORY
Module 4 & 5: Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and Controversies
IT1/HRS1
Teacher: Mrs. Emelia J. Romano
Learning Objectives:
• To interpret historical events using primary sources.
• To recognize the multiplicity of interpretation that 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.
❖ 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:
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.
❖ “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.
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."
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
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
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.
4. From that island they sailed westwards towards a large island names Seilani
that was inhabited and was known to have gold. (Seilan– 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.
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°54N. 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 south west,
which also fits the southern end of Limasawa.
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.
2. Sunday, March 17 - “The following day" after sighting Zamal lsland, 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.
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.
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 (i.e., "Ceylon"). On the other hand, Hibuson
(Pigafetta's Tbusson) 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 (i.e., 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."
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.
Source: Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson, The Philippine Islands,
Vols. 38 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.
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
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 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, 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," ie., Tuesday and Wednesday, the 2nd and 3rd of April.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...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
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.
Two other primary accounts exist 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.
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…
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
somethíng to justify their continuing dominance in the country, and the mutiny
provided such opportunity.
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.
...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.
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.
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.
I declare myself a catholic and in this Religion in which I was born and
educated I wish to live and die.
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.
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 mne on this date of the following:
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, Sefñor
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.
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 Spaniards who had the advantage of military resources. He added that
the leaders of the Katipunan must do everything they could to prevent the
spilling of Filipino blood. Valenzuela informed Rizal that the revolution could
inevitably break out if the Katipunan were to be discovered by the
Spaniards. Rizal advised Valenzuela that the Katipunan should first secure
the support of wealthy Filipinos to strengthen their cause, and suggested
that Antonio Luna be recruited to direct the military movement of the
revolution.
Case Study 4: Where Did the Cry of Rebellion Happen? (ALL CAPS)
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
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.
Guillermo Masangkay
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
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.
Activities:
A. Essay
1. Interpret the historical events of the following primary sources:
a. Albo’s log
b. Excerpts from Montero’s Account of the Cavite Mutiny
c. Pigafetta and Seven Days in Mazaua