`

READINGS IN PHILIPPINE
HISTORY
Module 4 & 5: Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and Controversies
IT1/HRS1
Teacher: Mrs. Emelia J. Romano

Module 4 & 5 Contents/ Lessons

1. Making Sense of the Past: Historical Interpretation

2. Multiperspectivity
3. Case 1: Where Did the First Catholic Mass Take Place in the Philippines?
4. Case 2: What Happened in the Cavite Mutiny?
a. Spanish Accounts of the Cavite Mutiny
b. Differing Accounts of the Events of 1872
5. Case 3: Did Rizal Retract?
a. The Balaguer Testimony
b. The Testimony of Cuerpo de Vigilancia
6. Case Study 4: Where did the Cry of Rebellion Happen?
a. Different Dates and Places of the Cry

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.

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

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

a series of accepted judgements." 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. Datu 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.

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

 There exists no manuscript of the poem handwritten by Rizal. The poem was
first published in 1906, in a book by Hermenegildo Cruz. Cruz aid 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

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

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.

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

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

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 ó 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 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. 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. (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.

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

 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°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.

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 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.

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

 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 (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."

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

 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. 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.

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

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

 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 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.

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.

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

 ❖ 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 yery 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.

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
oficial 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.

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

 The abolition of privileges enjoyed by the laborers of the Cavite arsenal of
exemption from the tribute was, according to some, the cause of the
insurrection. There were, however, other causes.

The Spanish revolution which overthrew a secular throne: the propaganda

carried on by an unbridled press against monarchical principles,
attentatory |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

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

 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. lzquierdo dissolved the native regiments of
artillery and ordered the creation of an artillery force composed exclusively by
Peninsulares.

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

 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 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.

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
somethíng 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

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

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…

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

 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 triạl 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
you."

CASE STUDY 3: DID RIZAL RETRACT?

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

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

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

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

 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 mne 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, 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.

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.

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

 The retraction 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 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)

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 Rebellion" 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

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

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 of 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 26th, 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

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

 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 atcKangkong. 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.

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

 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.

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

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY