ANDRES, JOHN DAVID M.

GED103 – A14 OCTOBER 19, 2019

CE - 1 PROF. ALVIN INGNACIO

ARGUE IT OUT AND LET’S DEBATE

EXERCISE 3.1.1

I. Site of the First Mass: Limasawa or Butuan

There are two conflicting school of thoughts regarding the site of the first Mass
celebrated on the Philippine archipelago. What is common about the two opposing
opinions is that they acknowledge the writings of Antonio Pigafetta. Pigafetta tells us
that it was held on the 31st of March 1521, on Easter Sunday, in the island he calls

m
“Mazaua”. The subject of controversy is the identity of the place which Pigafetta calls

er as
“Mazaua. One opinion asserts that this island is Limasawa, a little island south of Leyte.

co
The other opinion states that this island is a beach at the mouth of Agusan River, near a

eH w
village that is now Butuan City. I stand by the opinion that most historians seem to agree

o.
upon, that the first mass in the Philippines was held on Limasawa.
rs e
ou urc
One of the evidences that support the claim that Limasawa was the site of the
first mass is from Francisco Albo’s log-book. He joined Ferdinand Magellan’s expedition
as a pilot of his flagship Trinidad. He survived, together with 17 more survivors, and was
o

able to returned home after circumnavigating the world. Albo’s log-book was a diary
aC s

similar to Pigafetta that records events of their journey. From the geographical
vi y re

descriptions of Albo, he says that the expedition traveled from the island of Leyte, then
coasted southwards along the eastern coast, then turned southwest and came upon the
island of Mazava, which lies at a latitude of 9 and two-thirds degrees North. This
ed d

description fits the location of the small island of Limasawa, south of Leyte. The island’s
southern tip is at 9° 54’ N. Although there is no mention of the first Mass, Albo had
ar stu

written about the planting of the cross upon a mountain-top which could be seen three
island to the west and southwest. This does not watch the coast of Butuan from which
no islands could be seen to the south or the southwest. It fits the southern end of
is

Limasawa.
Th

Another evidence that support the claim that Limasawa was the site of the first
mass is from the most compete account of Ferdinand Magellan’s circumnavigation
entitled Primo viaggio intomo al mondo that translates to First Voyage Around the World
sh

written by Antonio Pigafetta. Like Francisco Albo, Pigafetta was an eyewitness of the
significant events that transpired while they are in Philippine waters, which includes the
first Mass in the Philippines. In Pigafetta testimony regarding the route of their travel,
they had stated for seven days on an island called Mazaua. They have traveled from
the coast of Leyte towards an island that lies in a latitude of nine and two-thirds towards

This study source was downloaded by 100000790342640 from CourseHero.com on 11-01-2021 06:15:48 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/56865087/Exercise-311-Debatedocx/
 the Arctic Pile. When we match this to the maps drawn by Pigafetta, Mazaua is a small
island which lies off the southwestern tip of the larger island of Ceilon, now Southern
Leyte, and is to the east of the island of Bohol. This position lies roughly on the actual
position of the island of Limasawa. It cannot be Butuan since it lies on a much larger
island.
A final evidence that support the claim that Limasawa was the site of the first
mass is the presence of two native kings on the island of Mazaua during Magellan’s
visit. One of the native kings here is the king of Butuan. Since he was a king of Butuan
and a visitor to Mazaua, Mazaua could not have been Butuan.
We can summarize the evidences that support that support Limasawa as the site
of the first mass by looking at two accounts of the principal members of Ferdinand
Magellan’s expedition, Francisco Albo with his log-book and Antonio Pigafetta with his
journal.

m
er as
co
II. Cavite Mutiny: Conspiracy or Labor Dispute

eH w
Before we historically celebrated our sovereignty in the 12 th of June 1989, there

o.
rs e
are certain events in our Philippine history that awakened our nationalism and prompted
ou urc
us to pursue freedom. Two of these events happened in 1872: Cavite Mutiny and the
martyrdom of the three priests in the persons of Fathers Mariano Gomes, Jose Burgos
and Jacinto Zamora. There are two perspectives in telling how one event lead to
o

another, the Spanish perspective that tells the story of conspiracy and the Filipino
aC s

perspective that tells the story of the seek for justice. I stand by the Filipino perspective,
vi y re

that we had grown tired of oppression and that the workers of the arsenal fought against
injustice.
The Filipino version of the tragic event was written by Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo
ed d

Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher. In his perspective, the incident was
ar stu

a plain mutiny started by the Filipino laborers and soldiers of the Cavite arsenal. They
had grown tired of the injustices of Gov. Izquierdo’s cold-blooded policies which includes
the removal of the privileges of the workers and the prohibition of the foundation of
is

school of arts and trades for Filipinos. On January 20, 1872, about 200 Native Filipino
soldiers and laborers rose in arms and killed Spanish officers in sight. They were
Th

headed by Sergeant Lamadrid. The insurgency has reached the attention of the
authorities and Gen. Izquierdo. It took 2 days for the reinforcement of Spanish troops
from Cavite to subdue the mutiny. Tavera believes that the Cavite Mutiny was overblown
sh

by the Spanish friars and Gen. Izquierdo to maintain power in the Philippines. It was
important to note that the friars were to be deprived of powers on intervention in matters
of civil government. The friars, fearing that their influence in the Philippines would be a
thing of the past, took advantage of the incident and presented it to the Spanish

This study source was downloaded by 100000790342640 from CourseHero.com on 11-01-2021 06:15:48 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/56865087/Exercise-311-Debatedocx/
 Government as a vast conspiracy organized throughout the archipelago with the object
of destroying Spanish sovereignty.
When considering who is telling the truth, it is important to note who has more to
gain when their story is deemed the truth. It was the malicious intentions of the Spanish
friars to stay in power and the rigidity of Gen. Izquierdo that tells us that the Spanish
perspective is not true. However, when we consider all the accounts that tells the story
of the Cavite Mutiny, some parts of the story remain unvarying. First, Gen. Izquierdo
introduced unreasonable policies towards the Filipino workers that made them grow the
dissatisfaction among the workers of the arsenal. Second, the friars are losing power
because the Central Government in Spain plans on depriving the friars of powers to
intervene with civil government matters. Third, the Filipino clergy has been active for the
movement of secularization that allows them to maintain parishes in the country. Lastly,
the execution of GOMBURZA was not an advantageous move on the part of the
Spanish government, for it just further the ill-feelings of the Filipinos towards the

m
er as
Spanish rule. Although several versions of the event is present, we can say that one
thing is certain. The 1872 Cavite Mutiny became a push for the awakening of the

co
eH w
Filipino nationalism for the victorious 1898 declaration of independence.

o.
rs e
ou urc
III. Rizal’s Retraction Controversy: Authentic or Forged
The controversy of the retraction documents of Jose Rizal has been going on for
decades. Many historians are raised issues of skepticism about the authenticity of the
o

letters. The conflicting statements of different people and the lack of evidence
aC s

contributed to the uncertainties regarding the retraction documents. I stand with the
vi y re

perspective that Rizal did not write a retraction letter regarding his anti-Catholic
sentiments.
ed d

There are several evidences that support the claim that the retraction document
is a forgery. First, a scientific study conducted by Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual of the
ar stu

University of the Philippines criticizes the authenticity of the letter. He notes that there
are some variations with the handwriting of the retraction letters. Second, several
textual criticism has been made that go against the authenticity of the document and its
is

versions. Also, numerous variations of the document exist that has significant
Th

differences that includes certain phrases used in the document. Lastly, a confession of
the forger was made. Antonio K. Abad has told how he was employed by the Friars in
1901 to make the retraction letter and make numerous copies of it.
sh

Even though the authenticity of the retraction document was going to be verified
in the future, it will not diminish the nobility and heroism of Jose Rizal. I agree when
supporters of the retraction say that what Rizal did was moral courage In recognizing
his mistakes. Jose Rizal is still the same hero who courted with death to show
detractors of our patriotism how to die for the sake of country, duty, and honor.

This study source was downloaded by 100000790342640 from CourseHero.com on 11-01-2021 06:15:48 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/56865087/Exercise-311-Debatedocx/
 IV. Cry of Rebellion: Balintawak or Pugad Lawin
The Cry of Rebellion marked the beginning of the Philippine revolution against
the Spanish colonization. In August of 1896, members of Katipunan tore up their
community tax certificates or sedula and rose up in revolt somewhere in an area in
Caloocan. Various accounts give different dates and places where this historical cry of
rebellion took place, in Balintawak or Pugad Lawin. I stand with the claim that the Cry of
Rebellion is the Cry at Pugad Lawin.

m
The National Historical Commision had corrected the Cry of Balintawak into the

er as
Cry of Pugad Lawin in all of our textbooks. In my perspective, this is the right move. In

co
1956, Teodoro Agoncillio wrote about the events and says that the cry of rebellion took

eH w
place on Pugad Lawin in the 23 rd of August 1896. He said that Andres Bonifacio was in

o.
Balintawak in the 21st of August 1896 and left to go to Kangkong and proceeded to
rs e
Pugad Lawin. He claims that his primary source is Dr. Pio Valenzuela, a member of
ou urc
Andres Bonifacio’s inner circle.
I understand where this confusion comes from. Both the terms Balintawak and
o

Caloocan had change in meaning and scope at the trn of the century. Balintawak used
aC s

to refer to specific places in what is now Caloocan City and parts of Quezon City.
vi y re

Accordingly, Caloocan used to refer to specific places in what is now Quezon City an
parts of Pasig. To add to the confusion, places like Pasong Tamo and Kangkong were
places that used to be in greater Balintawak and coincide with greater Caloocan.
ed d
ar stu
is
Th
sh

This study source was downloaded by 100000790342640 from CourseHero.com on 11-01-2021 06:15:48 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/56865087/Exercise-311-Debatedocx/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)