•

Lesson Proper for Week 7

The primary sources can be classified into the following categories:

• Contemporary Records:

These primary sources are in the form of instruction documents, stenographic and phonographic
records, business and legal papers, autobiographies, etc. The instruction documents may be in the
form of an appointment notification, and direction from a foreign office to the ambassador, etc.
Generally, such documents have a minimal chance of error but it is essential to ascertain their
authenticity.

The business and legal letters consist of the bills, journals, leases, wills, and tax records, which
provide an insight into the working of the firms and persons. Autobiographies are a credible source
of history because they are close to the events with which they deal and are written by a person
himself. Autobiographies are also nonprejudicial.

• Confidential Reports:

Confidential reports are not intended for a general audience and are less reliable than
contemporary sources. These reports are generally in the form of military and diplomatic
dispatches, journals, diaries or memoirs, and personal letters.

• Public Reports:

Public reports are meant for the general public and less reliable. Public reports have three types,
each of which possessing a different degree of reliability. Newspaper reports and dispatches, which
depend upon the agency from which it originated and the newspaper in which it is published, is
reliable. Memoirs and autobiographies are written for the public at the close of life when the
author’s memoirs are fading and unreliable. Official histories of the activities of government or
business house are also an important kind of public report. They possess incriminating material and
are less reliable.

• Government Documents:

Numerous government documents are also a source of vital importance to historians. These
documents include statistics about the fiscal, census, and vital matters that can be referenced to by
historians. All these reports have first-hand importance but require proper evaluation before use.

• Public Opinion:

Public opinion as expressed in editorials, speeches, pamphlets, and letters to the editor is another
important source available to the historian, but its authenticity must be corroborated by other
evidence because public opinion may not be always reliable.
 • Folklores and Proverbs:

Folklores reveal the stories of legendary heroes and are an important source of history. They tell us
about the aspirations, superstitions, and customs of the people among whom the stories developed.
Folklores include “Alla-Uddal” the hero Rajputana.

To use these folklores, the historian should possess a thorough knowledge of the history of the
period and have the ability to distinguish between the legendary and authentic elements. Similarly,
proverbs can give us an idea, but scholars must have a thorough knowledge of the customs and
traditions.

“First Mass” in Limasawa: Fact or opinion?

(Source: Buddy Gomez)

That “First Mass” celebrated on Philippine soil was neither in Agusan nor Southern Leyte.

Was the mass on Easter Sunday ever celebrated without first observing Palm Sunday, which was a week
before it?

Let us establish a chronology to resolve an argument over geography. Magellan came to Homonhon
before Limasawa.

We ended last week’s article (https://news.abs-cbn.com/blogs/opinions/08/17/19/august-10-500-years-ago-

pigafetta-and-an-unresolved-issue)with the National Historical Institute’s (NHI) conclusion that “the first-
ever Christian mass on Philippine soil on March 31, 1521 was celebrated in the island of Limasawa.” It is a
conclusion the NHI reached after a “rigorous evaluative analysis and appraisal of primary sources” of the
chronicles of Antonio Pigafetta, which is “the most complete and reliable account of Magellan’s
expedition.”

The National Historical Institute panel may never have read Pigafetta in its entirety, or they have read an
account that has been dismally misinterpreted. According to Pigafetta, a mass was conducted in
Limasawa on March 31, 1521 on an Easter Sunday; however, he did not indicate in the entire manuscript
that it was the first mass in the Philippines.

The National Historical Institute repeated a much earlier Congressional error. On June 19, 1960, Republic
Act 2733 lapsed into law “without Executive approval.” President Macapagal did not sign it. That legislation
declared Limasawa as a national shrine because the first mass in the Philippines was held there.

Pigafetta (English translation from Blair & Robertson) wrote the following: “Early on the morning of
Sunday, the last of March and Easter day, the Captain-General sent the priest with some men to prepare
the place where mass was to be said.” Indeed, it was the first mention of mass being celebrated since
arriving in the islands they had just named “the archipelago of San Lazaro.” However, Pigafetta never
claimed that Limasawa Easter Sunday mass was first that was held in the Philippines as we were taught in
our grade school Philippine History.

A few noted historians are now no longer refer to the Limasawa mass as the first mass held in the
Philippines. Historians referred to the Limasawa mass as the first recorded mass in the Philippines. Hence,
the first mass may have been unrecorded, but historians did not officially affirm this theory. The 500th
Anniversary of that March 31 event, which is to be celebrated in 2021, should be referred to as the “Easter
Sunday Mass” at Limasawa because claims of being the “first” seem to be vanishing.
How this supposed error came to be and who might have caused and perpetuated it do not seem to be of
any importance anymore. When this error is pointed out, correction by concerned authorities must be in
order. However, this phenomenon would pose an academic challenge as a subject for a master’s degree
thesis on a historical “whodunnit!”

The voyage of Magellan from San Lucar de Barrameda to “the archipelago of San Lazaro” spanned for 1
year, 6 months, and a couple of weeks. It would be preposterous to conclude that no other masses were
held before that in Limasawa and even claiming it as the first ever mass in the Philippines because it was
unrecorded or Pigafetta failed to record it. After all, masses occur with regularity every Sunday.

Between Magellan’s voyage up to their arrival in Zubu (Cebu), Pigafetta only recorded five masses being
held. Hence, other masses must have been held throughout the voyage, but Pigafetta failed to record
them. We also have to consider that Magellan’s crew is composed of three priests.

While along the coast of Verzin (Brazil), Pigafetta wrote the following: “mass was said twice onshore,
during which those people (natives) remained on their knees.” In the Patagonian port of San Julian: “April 1
(1520) Palm Sunday, Magallanes summoned all his captains, officers and pilots to go ashore to hear
mass…” The fourth instance was when they were in Limasawa, and the fifth was when they reached Zubu.

However, Magellan anchored and stayed in Humunu (Homonhon) for eight days, that is, from Sunday to
Sunday, departing on March 25, 1521. After months of floating in the Pacific seas, they finally landed on a
Sunday. Pigafetta did not record anything on this day. He also did not record their second Sunday in
Homonhon, which was Palm Sunday.

While in the port of San Julian, Pigafetta recorded a mass on Palm Sunday, which fell on April 1, 1520 (a
year earlier), but he did not mention holding a mass on Easter Sunday. Pigafetta mentioned the Easter
Sunday mass in Limasawa but did not record Palm Sunday on their last full day in Homonhon.
Was Easter Sunday mass ever celebrated without observing Palm Sunday? Or was Palm Sunday observed
without a mass on Easter Sunday?

Here is the chronology from Pigafetta’s memoirs:

“At dawn on Saturday, March 16, 1521, (feast of St. Lazarus, my insertion) we came upon a highland at a
distance… an island named Zamal (Samar)… the following day (March 17, Sunday) the captain general
desired to land on another island (Humunu)… uninhabited… in order to be more secure and to get water
and have some rest. He had two tents set up on shore for the sick.”

“On Monday, March 18, we saw a boat coming towards us with nine men in it. This marks our first human
contact with Europeans… giving signs of joy because of our arrival… At noon on Friday, March 22, those
men came as they had promised.”

“And we lay eight days in that place, where the captain every day visited the sick men who he had put
ashore on the island to recover.”

The masses recorded by Pigafetta had two things in common: they were both observed onshore with the
presence of the natives.

Homonhon, which is a barangay of the Municipality of Guiuan in Eastern Samar, may have been neglected
as the true venue of the first Sunday mass in the Philippines, which may have occurred either on March
17, 1521 or March 24, 1521 (Palm Sunday), possibly due to failure in historiographic interpretation.
A. External Criticism:

“External criticism” is a less intellectual type of criticism of the documents. It includes examining
documents such as manuscripts, books, pamphlets, maps, inscriptions, and monuments. The
document's authenticity arises more in the case of manuscripts than printed copies because the
editor has already authenticated printed documents.

The historian has to resort to several tests to determine a particular document's authenticity in his
proposed area of research. These tests include “authorship," which is the first question in examining
that a document's author is correct. Even anonymous writings can provide us valuable and essential
knowledge. Still, discovering an author’s or writer’s name adds to the authenticity of the information
because the author's character, connections, and trustworthiness determine the legitimacy.

Second, the “date of the document” is the time and place of publication of the document that
determines its authenticity. In modern publications, the year and location of publication are
indicated on the title page or backside (overleaf) of the book or document. However, in old
manuscripts where the date and place are absent, this information can be determined through the
language or the author's date of birth and death.

Third, the historian is confronted with textual errors that may be either unintentional or deliberately
committed. Unintentional errors can occur in the copies of the documents where authentic
materials are not available. Sometimes mistakes like these may be committed by the scribe, typist,
or printer.

An intentional error may be shown when an act is made to alter, supplement, or continue the
original. That is why criticism is essential to challenge this kind of error. Under this technique,
historians collect as many copies of dubious text as possible, then compare them.

Historians' textual inaccuracy can also be solved through “sciences auxiliary” to history, such as
“paleographists,” who have authenticated numerous medieval period documents through the
authors’ handwriting and have published easily legible printed versions.

“Archaeologists” provide rich information to historians. “Numismatists” also provide information by

dating coins and metals and deciphering their inscriptions.

Fourth, after confirming the sources' authenticity, historians are confronted with different terms
used in documents. Language is dynamic; therefore, the meaning of words changes over time. Thus,
the historian must determine the meaning and essence of a word based on the time and context of
its utilization. The misinterpretation of terms often may lead to confusion and ambiguity in the
historical development.

B. Internal Criticism:

A document contains the idea of the writer. A good historian analyzes the documents' contents to
determine the true meaning. He must avoid reading into meaning that the author did not convey
and determine. He or she should remain neutral at all times and avoid insisting on his ideas or
theories, especially when the historical evidence contradicts his or her perspective.
He must understand the document's literal and authentic meanings; this is called “positive criticism.”
It reveals the author’s conceptions and the general notion that he intends to convey. Meanwhile,
historians occasionally come across documents that contradict each other. Hence, they need to
eliminate statements and facts that are wrong.

Therefore, historians must temporarily consider unproven documents and accounts doubtful
because it will devaluate their findings, especially when the author states incompetent and
unreliable statements or conclusions. To assess the correctness of the fact, a historian must
ascertain whether the author was an actual observer of the event or not.

What was his source of information, and how much time elapsed between the event and the record?
However, a dependable testimony depends on the ability and willingness to tell the truth, the
report's accuracy, and independent corroboration. However, a skillful liar may deliberately create
the condition, that is, to express the truth with accuracy and consistency to establish the credibility
of his statements. Therefore, credibility must not be accepted without proper investigation. If the
contents of documents agree, then we cannot conclude that the facts are definitive; it must be worth
noting to ensure that the facts are harmonious and prove that each other are interconnected.

Cause and Effect of the execution of Fathers Burgos, Gomez and Zamora

By: Apolinario Mabini

Source: https://www.univie.ac.at/Voelkerkunde/apsis/aufi/history/mabini03.htm

But such isolation was practicable only so long as the Europeans had to go by the Cape of Good Hope or
the Straits of Magellan in order to reach the Far East, and before steam and electric, power had shortened
distances. With the opening of the Suez Canal, the Philippines too were opened to the commerce of the
civilized world. As a free and civilized nation, Spain was ashamed to imitate China by forbidding the
islands to foreigners; besides, it did not have sufficient, strength to compel the great powers, if the need
should arise, to abide by such a decision. Thanks to the increasing ease of communications events in
Europe were already echoing in the ears of the Filipinos who, excited by these novelties, were beginning to
think anew. Their awakening became even more thorough when the Filipino secular clergy, led by Father
Burgos, appealed to the Spanish throne and Rome for the recovery of the parishes which the Spanish
government had taken from them and given to the friars, confining themselves to missionary work, should
turn over all parishes to the Spanish and Filipino secular clergy in accordance with canon law. Since the
friars were bound to lose the case because the petition was just and lawful, they put it about that the
claimants were really agitators whose aim was to seize the parishes in order to organize an insurrection
against the Spanish regime in the Philippines, The religious Orders claimed to be the sole support of
Spanish rule and that, if they were removed from the parishes, the whole regime would come tumbling
down, citing the precedent of the Mexican revolution which had been started by secular parish priests.

At this stage of the controversy, the garrison of the Cavite Arsenal mutinied. The ringleaders of the clerical
dispute, offended because their claims had not been fairly met, were beyond any doubt, said their
enemies, also the ringleaders of the insurrection and, as such, they were condemned to death. The trial
was held amid great mystery and secrecy; the sentence was hastily carried out; afterward it was forbidden
to speak of the affair; and for these reasons no Filipino believed, or now believes, in the guilt of the
executed priests.

Although Burgos and his companions, Gomez and Zamora, had worked for the rights, of a particular class
and not of: the people as a whole, yet had they asked for justice, and died for having asked. True, already
on the scaffold, Burgos still could not understand why he should die, being innocent; which proves that he
had not before then thought it possible that he should have to sacrifice his life for the cause he defended.
But these were Christian priests, and they died like Christ, slandered by the friar-scribes, because they had
sought to take away from the friars the administration of the parishes, the seat of their, power and
influence over the masses and the principal source of their wealth. So it is that the Filipinos keep them in
grateful and imperishable memory, and the people venerate them as martyrs to justice.

The Spanish Government did not know and did not want to know anything about the friars in the
Philippines or about the Filipinos. They first, in possession of the parishes, were in continuous contact with
the latter, and informed against their personal enemies as enemies of Spain, handing them over to the
constabulary to be tortured, and to the authorities to be banished. Those in authority who refused to do
what the friars wished lost their jobs, and the most liberal minister in Spain, when in powers did whatever
the friars wanted. The friars wanted to make an example of Burgos and his companions so that the
Filipinos should be afraid to go against them from then on. But that patent injustice, that official crime,
aroused not fear but hatred of the friars and of the regime that supported them, and a profound
sympathy and sorrow for the victims. This sorrow worked a miracle: it made the Filipinos realize their
condition for the first time. Conscious of pain, and thus conscious of life, they asked themselves what kind
of a life they lived. The awakening was painful, and working to stay alive more painful still, but one must
live. How? They did not know, and the desire to know, the anxiety to learn, overwhelmed and took
possession of the youth of the Philippines. The curtain of ignorance woven diligently for centuries was rent
at last: fiat lux, let there be light, would not be long in coming, the dawn of a new day was nearing.

THE TWO FACES OF THE 1872 CAVITE MUTINY

By Chris Antonette Piedad-Pugay

Source: https://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/

The 12th of June of every year since 1898 is a very important event for all the Filipinos. In this particular
day, the entire Filipino nation as well as Filipino communities all over the world gathers to celebrate the
Philippines’ Independence Day. 1898 came to be a very significant year for all of us— it is as equally
important as 1896—the year when the Philippine Revolution broke out owing to the Filipinos’ desire to be
free from the abuses of the Spanish colonial regime. But we should be reminded that another year is as
historic as the two—1872.

Two major events happened in 1872, first was the 1872 Cavite Mutiny and the other was the martyrdom of
the three martyr priests in the persons of Fathers Mariano Gomes, Jose Burgos and Jacinto Zamora
(GOMBURZA). However, not all of us knew that there were different accounts in reference to the said
event. All Filipinos must know the different sides of the story—since this event led to another tragic yet
meaningful part of our history—the execution of GOMBURZA which in effect a major factor in the
awakening of nationalism among the Filipinos.

1872 Cavite Mutiny: Spanish Perspective

Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian documented the event and highlighted it as an attempt of
the Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines. Meanwhile, Gov. Gen. Rafael
Izquierdo’s official report magnified the event and made use of it to implicate the native clergy, which was
then active in the call for secularization. The two accounts complimented and corroborated with one
other, only that the general’s report was more spiteful. Initially, both Montero and Izquierdo scored out
that the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the workers of Cavite arsenal such as non-payment of tributes
and exemption from force labor were the main reasons of the “revolution” as how they called it, however,
other causes were enumerated by them including the Spanish Revolution which overthrew the secular
throne, dirty propagandas proliferated by unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and republican books
and pamphlets reaching the Philippines, and most importantly, the presence of the native clergy who out
of animosity against the Spanish friars, “conspired and supported” the rebels and enemies of Spain. In
particular, Izquierdo blamed the unruly Spanish Press for “stockpiling” malicious propagandas grasped by
the Filipinos. He reported to the King of Spain that the “rebels” wanted to overthrow the Spanish
government to install a new “hari” in the likes of Fathers Burgos and Zamora. The general even added that
the native clergy enticed other participants by giving them charismatic assurance that their fight will not
fail because God is with them coupled with handsome promises of rewards such as employment, wealth,
and ranks in the army. Izquierdo, in his report lambasted the Indios as gullible and possessed an innate
propensity for stealing.

The two Spaniards deemed that the event of 1872 was planned earlier and was thought of it as a big
conspiracy among educated leaders, mestizos, abogadillos or native lawyers, residents of Manila and
Cavite and the native clergy. They insinuated that the conspirators of Manila and Cavite planned to
liquidate high-ranking Spanish officers to be followed by the massacre of the friars. The alleged pre-
concerted signal among the conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the firing of rockets from the walls of
Intramuros.

According to the accounts of the two, on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated the feast of
the Virgin of Loreto, unfortunately participants to the feast celebrated the occasion with the usual
fireworks displays. Allegedly, those in Cavite mistook the fireworks as the sign for the attack, and just like
what was agreed upon, the 200-men contingent headed by Sergeant Lamadrid launched an attack
targeting Spanish officers at sight and seized the arsenal.

When the news reached the iron-fisted Gov. Izquierdo, he readily ordered the reinforcement of the Spanish
forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The “revolution” was easily crushed when the expected reinforcement
from Manila did not come ashore. Major instigators including Sergeant Lamadrid were killed in the
skirmish, while the GOMBURZA were tried by a court-martial and were sentenced to die by
strangulation. Patriots like Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and PioBasa and other
abogadillos were suspended by the Audencia (High Court) from the practice of law, arrested and were
sentenced with life imprisonment at the Marianas Island. Furthermore, Gov. Izquierdo dissolved the native
regiments of artillery and ordered the creation of artillery force to be composed exclusively of the
Peninsulares.

On 17 February 1872 in an attempt of the Spanish government and Frailocracia to instill fear among the
Filipinos so that they may never commit such daring act again, the GOMBURZA were executed. This event
was tragic but served as one of the moving forces that shaped Filipino nationalism.
 •

Lesson Proper for Week 9

The background of Rizal’s retraction was retrieved from Ricardo R. Pascual’s book entitled “Dr. Jose
Rizal Beyond the Grave: A Vindication of the Martyr of Bagumbayan.”

On May 18, 1935, a document was discovered in the vault of the Archbishop of Manila by Father Manuel
Gracial. This document, among others, is the much debated "original" of Dr. Jose Rizal's retraction of his
anti-Catholic writings and propaganda as well as his affiliation to Masonry. With its discovery, the Church
and her devotees claim with proud mien that this document supposed and believed to have been mislaid
was in fact lying all the while in this "providential vault" - a very providential omission according to the
Catholics - only to be brought to light in this "providential hour." Thanks to the Providential Hand that
directed the events that way. It only seems too "providential" all the way through.

Upon this discovery also, many of the opposite opinions suggest some attending circumstances that may
discredit the execution "in good faith" of this priceless document. Some say it was forced upon Rizal, and
there are examples of forced retraction which are cited as proof. The usual answer is that force is not
fitting in the character of Rizal as a means to make him do something against his will. This contention that
force cannot be used upon Rizal, because that hypothesis does not fit itself with the character of Rizal, who
simply cannot be coerced by force to do something much against his will, is an ingenious argument, for
indeed Rizal was a person of manly character. But it is also to forget that despite his manly character,
Rizal succumbed to force, however much he hated it. The proof of which is his own forced death, which he
protested against with his innocence.

Last Part of the Letter of Fr. Vicente Balaguer S.J. to Rev. Pio Pi

Yes, my dear Father, I can affirm with full certainty and Your Reverence tell all the Manila Christians and
that entire country, that Rizal was never irreligious or bigoted, never an enemy of the Church; that he was
a young man waylaid for some time by factors around him; that he was a good patriot, and desired in
good faith the welfare and the independence of his country; that he confessed to me in the chapel that he
had never approved armed revolution; that he had hoped to win autonomy and later independence
through legal means. But deep in his heart, he was in the beginning and at the end of his life a good
Christian. Let them honor the memory of Rizal, a good Christian at heart, the first hero of the Philippines.

For the full text of the letter of Fr. Vicente Balaguer S.J. to Rev. Pio Pi, visit this link:
http://www.philippinestudies.net/files/journals/1/articles/2013/public/2013-2112-1-PB.pdf

Rene Escalante (2019) discussed two different versions of Rizal’s retraction.

An Excerpt of Jesuit Version

According to Fr. Balaguer, he and Fr. Vilaclara arrived in Rizal’s prison cell around 10 o’clock in the
morning. He mentioned in his letter and affidavit that their encounter with Rizal started with a discussion
of some articles of Catholic faith. They debated on issues such as the supremacy of faith over reason and
the dogmatic differences that divided Catholics and Protestants. Since time was not on their side, they
persuaded Rizal not to spend so much time discussing faith-related issues and focus instead on how to die
in the state of grace so that he could enter heaven. They explained to him that they could not administer
the sacraments he needed without him signing a retraction letter and making a profession of faith. Fr.
Balaguer mentioned that Rizal softened a bit when he warned him that his soul would go to hell if he did
not return to the Catholic fold. He reminded him that outside the Catholic Church, there was no salvation
(Extra Ecclesiam Catholicamnulladatursalus) (Cavanna 1956, 8). The two Jesuits left Rizal’s prison around
lunchtime, with Rizal still undecided over whether to sign the retraction letter or not. The Jesuits went
straight to the archbishop’s palace and informed their superiors of what had transpired during their first
meeting with Rizal.

Frs. Balaguer and Vilaclara returned to Rizal around 3 o’clock in the afternoon and tried until sunset to
persuade him to recant. They were still not able to convince him to sign the retraction document. Their
third meeting with Rizal took place at 10 o’clock that night, and it was during this meeting that they
showed Rizal the two retraction templates Fr. Pi had given them. According to Fr. Balaguer, Rizal found the
first template unacceptable because it was too long and its language and style were not reflective of his
personality (Arcilla 1994, 114). So Fr. Balaguer withdrew it and offered the shorter one. Rizal did not sign it
right away because he was uncomfortable with the statement “I abominate Masonry as a society
reprobated by the Church.” He said he had met Masons in London who had nothing against the Catholic
religion. Rizal wanted to emphasize that Philippine Masonry was not hostile to Catholicism and that
Masonry in London did not require its members to renounce their faith. The Jesuits allowed Rizal to revise
the retraction template, and his final version read, “I abominate Masonry as the enemy of the Church and
reprobated by the same Church” (Cavanna 1956, 9). After making other minor changes to the draft, Rizal
signed his retraction letter before midnight. Fr. Balaguer handed it over to Fr. Pi, who in turn submitted it
to Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda (Guerrero 1971, 459).

For the full text of Jesuit version of Rizal’s retraction, visit this link:
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/seas/8/3/8_369/_pdf

An Excerpt of Cuerpo de Vigilancia Version

In his affidavit, Fr. Balaguer declared that he talked to Rizal three times on December 29, 1896. The first
time was in the morning, from 10 to 12:30. It was during this meeting that he presented the retraction
template to Rizal but the latter did not sign. Moreno Jose Rizal, Phil. Revolution, Cuerpo de Vigilancia 381
confirmed this meeting, including the presentation of the draft retraction. But he reported that Rizal was
talking not to Fr. Balaguer but to Frs. March and Vilaclara. Moreno also confirmed that Frs. March and
Vilaclara returned to Rizal around 3 o’clock in the afternoon. Fr. Balaguer claimed in his affidavit that he
was one of Rizal’s afternoon visitors. Fr. Balaguer continued that the third time he talked to Rizal was
around 10 in the evening. He had another lengthy and passionate discussion with him for more than an
hour. It was on this occasion that Rizal finally signed his retraction letter. Moreno confirmed that Rizal had
visitors after dinner, but the persons he identified were Señor Andrade, Señor Maure, and Frs. March and
Vilaclara. Again, Fr. Balaguer was not mentioned, and the time of the meeting was 9 o’clock and not
shortly before midnight. Neither did Moreno’s report mention that they discussed issues concerning faith
and the retraction. The narrative is short and ends with Rizal going to bed.

For the full text of Cuerpo de Vigilancia’s version of Rizal retraction, visit this link:
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/seas/8/3/8_369/_pdf

Peter Jaynul V. Uckung (2012) discussed the authenticity of Rizal’s Retraction.

It was supposed to have been signed by Jose Rizal moments before his death. There were many
witnesses, most of them Jesuits. The document only surfaced for public viewing on May 13, 1935. It
was found by Fr. Manuel A. Gracia at the Catholic hierarchy’s archive in Manila. But the original
document was never shown to the public, only reproductions of it.

However, Fr. Pio Pi, a Spanish Jesuit, reported that as early as 1907, the retraction of Rizal was
copied verbatim and published in Spain, and reprinted in Manila. Fr. Gracia, who found the original
document, also copied it verbatim.

In both reproductions, there were conflicting versions of the text. Add to this the date of the
signing was very clear in the original Spanish document which Rizal supposedly signed. The date
was “December 29, 1890.”

Later, another supposedly original document surfaced, bearing the date “December 29, 189C”. The
number “0” was evidently altered to make it look like a letter C. Then still later, another
supposedly original version came up. It has the date “December 29, 1896”. This time, the “0”
became a “6”.

So which is which?

Those who strongly believed the faking of the Rizal retraction document reported that the forger
of Rizal’s signature was Roman Roque, the man who also forged the signature of Urbano Lacuna,
which was used to capture Aguinaldo. The mastermind, they say, in both Lacuna’s and Rizal’s
signature forging was Lazaro Segovia. They were approached by Spanish friars during the final day
of the Filipino-American war to forge Rizal’s signature.
This story was revealed by Antonio K. Abad, who heard the tale from Roman Roque himself, them
being neighbours.

To this day, the retraction issue is still raging like a wild fire in the forest of the night.

Others would like to believe that the purported retraction of Rizal was invented by the friars to
deflect the heroism of Rizal which was centered on the friar abuses.

Incidentally, Fr. Pio Pi, who copied verbatim Rizal’s retraction, also figured prominently during the
revolution. It was him, Andres Bonifacio reported, who had intimated to Aguinaldo the cessation of
agitation in exchange of pardon.

There are also not a few people who believe that the autobiography of Josephine Bracken, written
on February 22, 1897 is also forged and forged badly. The document supposedly written by
Josephine herself supported the fact that they were married under the Catholic rites. But upon
closer look, there is a glaring difference between the penmanship of the document, and other
letters written by Josephine to Rizal.

Surely, we must put the question of retraction to rest, though Rizal is a hero, whether he retracted
or not, we must investigate if he really did a turn-around. If he did not, and the documents were
forgeries, then somebody has to pay for trying to deceive a nation.
Lesson Proper for Week 10

Excerpt from “Notes on the “Cry” of August 1896”

By: Jim Richardson

Pasya, Pagpupunit, at Unang Labanan

The debate has long been clouded by a lack of consensus on exactly what is meant by the “Cry.” The term
has been applied to three related but distinct events –

• the “pasya” – the decision to revolt;

• the “pagpupunit” – the tearing of cedulas; and

• the “unang labanan” – the first encounter with Spanish forces.

These three events, to state the obvious, did not all happen at the same time and place. When and where
the “Cry” should be commemorated thus depends on how it is defined.

Many of the older sources on the “Cry” do not say precisely which event they mean, and often we can only
guess. This problem is so embedded in the literature that it is impossible to eradicate totally, but wherever
practicable these notes will avoid the fluid, contested “Cry” word, and will seek instead to specify which
distinct event is being discussed – the pasya, the pagpupunit or the unang labanan.

Among the historians who have studied the “Cry” in greatest detail, there is a sharp divergence of opinion
as to how the term should be defined.

• Teodoro A. Agoncillo equates the term with the pagpupunit, which he says happened
immediately after the pasya.

• Isagani R. Medina also takes the “Cry” to mean the pagpupunit, but says it happened before the
decision to revolt had been taken.

• Soledad Borromeo-Buehler takes the view – the traditional view that KKK veterans took, she says
- that the “Cry” should mean the unang labanan.
It was the unang labanan, as Borromeo-Buehler points out, that was commemorated by the first
monument of the events of August 1896. The main inscription on the plinth read “Homenaje del Pueblo
Filipino a los Heroes de ’96 /Ala-alang sa Bayang Pilipino sa mga Bayani ng ‘96”, and a smaller plaque
bore the date “26 Agosto 1896”.

Unveiled before a huge cheering crowd in September 1911, the statue was erected in Balintawak, the
largest and best-known barrio in the general area where the Katipuneros had congregated in August 1896.
The name Balintawak was often used as shorthand to denote that general area and the “Cry” had become
popularly known as the “Cry of Balintawak” even before the monument was erected.

Nobody professed in 1911, though, that the statue marked the “exact spot” where the first battle had been
fought. It was simply in Balintawak, on a plot donated by a local landowner, Tomas Arguelles.

The documentary evidence on the unang labanan is reasonably clear. The first battle, an encounter with a
detachment of the Guardia Civil, was fought on the date inscribed on the Balintawak monument - August
26 – at a place about five kilometers north-east of Balintawak, between the settlements of Banlat and
Pasong Tamo. A few sources give the date as August 25 but, as both Borromeo-Buehler and Encarnacion
have shown, the most solid, contemporary sources confirm August 26 to be correct.

The Balintawak monument continued to be the focus of the yearly “Cry” celebrations, held on August 26,
for decades. In the 1960s, however, the official definition of the “Cry” changed. Officially, the “Cry” ceased
to mean the unang labanan and was defined instead as “that part of the Revolution when the Katipunan
decided to launch a revolution against Spain. This event culminated with the tearing of the cedula”. This
definition, which is more or less in line with Agoncillo’s, thus embraces both the pasya and pagpupunit,
but excludes the unang labanan.

At first sight, the official definition looks clear and straightforward. A number of sources, however, indicate
that cedulas were torn on more than one occasion, in different places, presumably because Katipuneros
were arriving to join their embryonic army over the course of a number of days, and many wanted to
proclaim their rebellion, their commitment to fight Spanish rule, in the same way. It is even possible (as
Medina believes) that the main pagpupunit preceded the pasya. But then it would have been premature,
because the revolt might have been deferred. It seems more likely, as the official definition of the “Cry”
assumes, that the largest, best remembered act of defiant cedula-tearing happened soon after the pasya
had been taken, and in the same vicinity.

Excerpt from “In Focus: Balintawak: The Cry for a Nationwide Revolution”

By: Milagros C. Guerrero, Emmanuel N. Encarnacion, and Ramon N. Villegas

Conflicting Accounts

Pio Valenzuela had several versions of the Cry. Only after they are compared and reconciled with the other
accounts will it be possible to determine what really happened.

Was there a meeting at Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896, after the meeting at Apolonio Samson’s residence
in Hong Kong? Where were the cedulas torn, at Kangkong or Pugad Lawin?

In September 1896, Valenzuela stated before the Olive Court, which was charged with investigating
persons involved in the rebellion, only that Katipunan meetings took place from Sunday to Tuesday or 23
to 25 August at Balintawak.

In 1911, Valenzuela averred that the Katipunan began meeting on 22 August while the Cry took place on
23 August at Apolonio Samson’s house in Balintawak.

From 1928 to 1940, Valenzuela maintained that the Cry happened on 24 August at the house of Tandang
Sora (Melchora Aquino) in Pugad Lawin, which he now situated near Pasong Tamo Road. A photograph of
Bonifacio’s widow Gregoria de Jesus and Katipunan members Valenzuela, Briccio Brigido Pantas, Alfonso
and Cipriano Pacheco, published in La Opinion in 1928 and 1930, was captioned both times as having
been taken at the site of the Cry on 24 August 1896 at the house of Tandang Sora at Pasong Tamo Road.

In 1935 Valenzuela, Pantas and Pacheco proclaimed

“nahindisaBalintawaknangyariangunangsigawngpaghihimagsiknakinalalagianngayonngbantayog, kung di
sa pook na kilala sa tawag na Pugad Lawin.” (The first Cry of the revolution did not happen in Balintawak
where the monument is, but in a place called Pugad Lawin.)

In 1940, a research team of the Philippines Historical Committee (a forerunner of the National Historical
Institute or NHI), which included Pio Valenzuela, identified the precise spot of Pugad Lawin as part of Sitio
Gulod, Banlat, Kalookan City. In 1964, the NHI’s Minutes of the Katipunan referred to the place of the Cry
as Tandang Sora’s and not as Juan Ramos’ house, and the date as 23 August.

Valenzuela memoirs (1964, 1978) averred that the Cry took place on 23 August at the house of Juan
Ramos at Pugad Lawin. The NHI was obviously influenced by Valenzuela’s memoirs. In 1963, upon the NHI
endorsement, President Diosdado Macapagal ordered that the Cry be celebrated on 23 August and that
Pugad Lawin be recognized as its site.

John N. Schrumacher, S.J, of the Ateneo de Manila University was to comment on Pio Valenzuela’s
credibility:

I would certainly give much less credence to all accounts coming from Pio Valezuela, and to the
interpretations Agoncillo got from him verbally, since Valenzuela gave so many versions from the
time he surrendered to the Spanish authorities and made various statements not always compatible
with one another up to the time when as an old man he was interviewed by Agoncillo.

Pio Valenzuela backtracked on yet another point. In 1896, Valenzuela testified that when the Katipunan
consulted Jose Rizal on whether the time had come to revolt, Rizal was vehemently against the revolution.
Later, in Agoncillo’s Revolt of the masses, Valenzuela retracted and claimed that Rizal was actually for the
uprising, if certain prerequisites were met. Agoncillo reasoned that Valenzuela had lied to save Rizal.

The Pugad Lawin Marker

The prevalent account of the Cry is that of Teodoro Agoncillo in Revolt of the Masses (1956):

It was in Pugad Lawin, where they proceeded upon leaving Samson’s place in the afternoon of the
22nd, that the more than 1,000 members of the Katipunan met in the yard of Juan A. Ramos, son of
Melchora Aquino…in the morning of August 23rd. Considerable discussion arose whether the revolt
against the Spanish government should be started on the 29th. Only one man protested… But he
was overruled in his stand… Bonifacio then announced the decision and shouted: “Brothers, it was
agreed to continue with the plan of revolt. My brothers, do you swear to repudiate the government
that oppresses us?” And the rebels, shouting as one man replied: “Yes, sir!” “That being the case,”
Bonifacio added, “bring out your cedulas and tear them to pieces to symbolize our determination to
take arms!” ... Amidst the ceremony, the rebels, tear-stained eyes, shouted: “Long live the
Philippines! Long live the Katipunan!
Agoncillo used his considerable influence and campaigned for a change in the recognized site to Pugad
Lawin and the date 23 August 1896. In 1963, the National Heroes Commission (a forerunner of the NHI),
without formal consultations or recommendations to President Macapagal.

Consequently, Macapagal ordered that the Cry of Balintawak be called the “Cry of Pugad Lawin,” and that
it be celebrated on 23 August instead of 26 August. The 1911 monument in Balintawak was later removed
to a highway. Student groups moved to save the discarded monument, and it was installed in front of
Vinzons Hall in the Diliman campus of the University of the Philippines on 29 November 1968.

In 1962, Teodoro Agoncillo, together with the UP Student Council, placed a marker at the Pugad Lawin site.
According to Agoncillo, the house of Juan Ramos stood there in 1896, while the house of Tandang Sora was
located at Pasong Tamo.

On 30 June 1983, Quezon City Mayor Adelina S. Rodriguez created the Pugad Lawin Historical Committee
to determine the location of Juan Ramos’s 1896 residence at Pugad Lawin.

The NHI files on the committee’s findings show the following:

• In August 1983, Pugad Lawin in barangay Bahay Toro was inhabited by squatter colonies.

• The NHI believed that it was correct in looking for the house of Juan Ramos and not of Tandang
Sora. However, the former residence of Juan Ramos was clearly defined.

• There was an old dap-dap tree at the site when the NHI conducted its survey in 1983. Teodoro
Agoncillo, Gregorio Zaide and Pio Valenzuela do not mention a dap-dap tree in their books.

• Pio Valenzuela, the main proponent of the “Pugad Lawin” version, was dead by the time the
committee conducted its research.

• Teodoro Agoncillo tried to locate the marker installed in August 1962 by the UP Student Council.
However, was no longer extant in 1983.

In spite of the above findings and in the absence of any clear evidence, the NHI disregarded its own 1964
report that the Philippine Historical Committee had determined in 1940 that the Pugad Lawin residence
was Tandang Sora’s and not Juan Ramos’s and that the specific site of Pugad Lawin was Gulod in Banlat.

The presence of the dap-dap tree in the Pugad Lawin site determined by Agoncillo and the NHI is
irrelevant, since none of the principals like Pio Valenzuela, Santiago Alvarez, and others, nor historians like
Zaide- and even Agoncillo himself before that instance- mentioned such a tree.
On the basis of the 1983 committee’s findings, the NHI placed a marker on 23 August 1984 on Seminary
Road in barangay Bahay Toro behind Toro Hills High School, the Quezon City General Hospital and the
San Jose Seminary. It reads:

Ang Sigaw ng Pugad Lawin (1896)

Sa paligid ng pook na ito, si Andres Bonifacio at mga isang libong Katipunero at nagpulong noong
umaga ng ika-23 Agosto 1896, at ipinasyang maghimagsik laban sa Kastila sa Pilipinas. Bilang
patunay ay pinag-pupunit ang kanilang mga sedula na nagging tandang pagkaalipin ng mga Pilpino.
Ito ang kaunaunahang sigaw ng Bayang Api laban sa bansang Espanya na pinatibayan sa
pamamagitan ng paggamit ng sandata.

(On this site Andres Bonifacio and one thousand Katipuneros met in the morning of 23 August 1896 and
decided to revolt against the Spanish colonial government in the Philippines. As an affirmation of their
resolve, they tore up their tax receipts which were symbols of oppression of the Filipinos. This was very first
Cry of the Oppressed Nation against Spain which was enforced with use of arms.)

The place name “Pugad Lawin,“ however, is problematic. In History of the Katipunan (1939), Zaide records
Valenzuela’s mention of the site in a footnote and not in the body of text, suggesting that the historian
regarded the matter as unresolved.

Cartographic changes

Was there a Pugad Lawin in maps or literature of the period?

A rough sketch or croquis de las operaciones practicadas in El Español showed the movements of Lt. Ros
against the Katipunan on 25, 26, and 27 August 1896. The map defined each place name as sitio “Baclac”
(sic: Banlat). In 1897, the Spanish historian Sastron mentioned Kalookan, Balintawak, Banlat and Pasong
Tamo. The names mentioned in some revolutionary sources and interpretations- Daang Malalim,
Kangkong and Pugad Lawin- were not identified as barrios. Even detailed Spanish and American maps
mark only Kalookan and Balintawak.

In 1943 map of Manila marks Balintawak separately from Kalookan and Diliman. The sites where
revolutionary events took place are within the ambit of Balintawak. Government maps issued in 1956,
1987, and 1990, confirm the existence of barangays Bahay Toro, but do not define their boundaries.
Pugad Lawin is not on any of these maps.
According to the government, Balintawak is no longer of Quezon City but has been replaced by several
barangays. Barrio Banlat is now divided into barangays Tandang Sora and Pasong Tamo. Only bahay
Toro remains intact.

Writer and linguist Sofronio Calderon, conducting research in the late 1920s on the toponym “Pugad
Lawin,” went through the municipal records and the Census of 1903 and 1918, could not find the name,
and concluded that “Isang…pagkakamali… ang sabihing mayroong Pugad Lawin sa Kalookan.” (It would
be a mistake to say that there is such as Pugad Lawin in Kalookan.)

What can we conclude from all this?

First, that “Pugad Lawin” was never officially recognized as a place name on any Philippine map before
Second World War. Second, “Pugad Lawin” appeared in historiography only from 1928, or some 32 years
after the events took place. And third, the revolution was always traditionally held to have occurred in the
area of Balintawak, which was a distinct from Kalookan and Diliman.

Therefore, while the toponym “Pugad Lawin” is more romantic, it is more accurate to stick to the original
“Cry of Balintawak.”

(Guerrero, Encarnacion, & Villegas, 2003)

“Balintawak or Pugad Lawin?”

By: Ambeth Ocampo

Well over two decades ago, the late National Artist Nick Joaquin, in his Inquirer column “Small
Beer,” argued repeatedly for a return to the traditional “Cry of Balintawak.” All our textbooks, following a
resolution from the National Historical Commission, state that the spark of the Revolution started with a
cry, followed by the tearing of cedulas led by Andres Bonifacio in Pugad Lawin, Quezon City. The issue is
not just historiographical but political. If the National Historical Commission, upon review of the facts,
reverses its earlier resolution and moves the site of the “Cry” back to Balintawak then history will be moved
from Quezon City to Caloocan. Mayor Herbert Bautista’s loss will be Mayor Recom Echiverri’s gain.

Re-opening the issue looks simple because people think it’s just like tossing a coin to decide
between Balintawak or Pugad Lawin. If you bring two to three historians together you would not get a
consensus.

To the above options, you must add other contenders to the historical site: Kangkong, Bahay Toro,
Pasong Tamo, Banlat and God know where else, depending on the primary source being cited.
If you think location is the only issue, look again. The date declared by the National Historical Commission
as the start of the Philippine Revolution—Aug. 23, 1896—is but one date proposed, the others being Aug.
20, 24, 25 and 26, 1896. And, if I remember from a historical forum in UP, one scholar even insisted on a
wildcard date of Sept. 5, 1896! All these debates on dates and places, which may seem trivial to the
general public, is the lifeblood of historians.

Teodoro A. Agoncillo said that Bonifacio scheduled a general assembly of the Katipunan for Aug.
24, 1896, the Feast of San Bartolome, in Malabon. This date was chosen to enable Katipuneros to pass
security checkpoints carrying their bolos because Malabon is famous for manufacturing a long-bladed
weapon called “sangbartolome.” Bonifacio and his men were in Balintawak on August 19. They left
Balintawak for Kangkong on August 21, and on the afternoon of August 22 they proceeded to Pugad
Lawin. The next day, August 23, in the yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino, better known as
“Tandang Sora,” the Katipuneros listened to the rousing speech of Bonifacio, tore their cedulas, and vowed
to fight.

Teodoro Agoncillo convinced the National Historical Commission to move the traditional Aug. 26
date to Aug. 23 and transfer the historical site from Balintawak to Pugad Lawin. If Agoncillo’s personality
wasn’t enough for the Commission, he cited as his principal source Dr. Pio Valenzuela, a close associate of
Bonifacio.

I wonder if other members of the commission bothered to remind Agoncillo that Valenzuela may
have been in Bonifacio’s inner circle, but may be unreliable as a primary source. In Wenceslao Emilio’s
fivevolume compilation of historical documents, Archivo del Bibliofilo Filipino, Valenzuela’s signed
testimony before Spanish interrogators dated September 1896 stated that the Cry of Balintawak was held
in Balintawak on Aug. 26, 1896. Years later, in his memoirs published in English after World War II,
Valenzuela stated that the Cry was actually held in Pugad Lawin on Aug. 23, 1896. Agoncillo explained that
the September 1896 account was extracted from Valenzuela under duress and couldn’t be trusted.

Balintawak was the place determined by tradition and many eyewitness accounts, including Guillermo
Masangkay who, in an interview in the Sunday Tribune in 1932, declared the place as Balintawak and the
date Aug. 26, 1896. Spanish Lt. Olegario Diaz in 1896 pinpointed the place as Balintawak but placed the
date on Aug. 24, 1896.

Depending on your source, the dates and places do not seem to match.

In 1928 Gregoria de Jesus Nakpil, widow of Andres Bonifacio, wrote a short autobiography, entitled
“Mga tala ng aking buhay,” where she stated, among other things, that the Cry of Balintawak took place on
Aug. 25, 1896 in Pasong Tamo! This place isn’t in Makati but in Caloocan. How more authoritative can you
get than the Supremo’s widow? Oryang was revered as the muse, the Lakambini of the Katipunan.
 To complicate things further, another Bonifacio associate, the composer of the Katipunan, Julio
Nakpil, second husband of Gregoria de Jesus, deposited his handwritten notes on the Philippine Revolution
in the National Library under Teodoro M. Kalaw in 1925. Here he wrote, “Swearing before God and before
history that everything in these notes is the truth”: “The revolution started in Balintawak in the last days of
August 1896.” On another page he wrote, “Bonifacio uttered the first cry of war against tyranny on Aug. 24,
1896.” Finally, he remembered that “the first cry of Balintawak was in Aug. 26, 1896 in the place called
Kangkong, adjacent to Pasong Tamo, within the jurisdiction of Balintawak, Caloocan, then within the
province of Manila.”

Now, which of these three declarations do we choose? Last but not least, we have Santiago Alvarez whose
memoirs identify the place as Bahay Toro and the date as Aug. 25, 1896. There are more conflicting
sources available, so to keep the peace, and until more conclusive evidence can be presented, let’s just
stick to Pugad Lawin and Aug. 23, 1896.

(Ocampo, 2010)
 •

Lesson Proper for Week 11

Agrarian Reform History

From the Department of Agrarian Reform

Pre-Hispanic Period

“This land is ours; God gave this land to us.”

Before the Spaniards came to the Philippines, Filipinos lived in villages or barangays ruled by chiefs or
datus. The datus comprised the nobility, followed by the timawa (freemen), aliping namamahay (serfs),
and aliping saguiguilid (slaves).

However, despite the existence of different classes in the social structure, everyone had access to the fruits
of the soil. Money was unknown, and rice served as the medium of exchange.

Spanish Colonial Period

“United we stand, divided we fall.”

When the Spaniards came to the Philippines, the concept of encomienda (royal land grants) was
introduced. This system grants that encomienderos must defend his encomienda from external attack,
maintain peace and order within, and support the missionaries. In turn, the encomiendero acquired the
right to collect tribute from the Indios (natives).

The system, however, degenerated into the abuse of power by the encomienderos. The tribute soon
became land rents to a few powerful landlords, and the natives who once cultivated the lands in freedom
were transformed into mere share tenants.

The First Philippine Republic

“The yoke has finally broken.”

When the First Philippine Republic was established in 1899, Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo declared in the Malolos
Constitution his intention to confiscate large estates, especially the so-called friar lands.

However, as the Republic was short-lived, Aguinaldo’s plan was never implemented.

American Colonial Period

“Long live America!”

Significant legislation enacted during the American Period:

• Philippine Bill of 1902 – set the ceilings on the hectare private individuals and corporations
may acquire, that is, 16 hectares for private individuals and 1,024 hectares for corporations.
• Land Registration Act of 1902 (Act No. 496) – provided a comprehensive registration of land
titles under the Torrens system.
• Public Land Act of 1903 – introduced the homestead system in the Philippines.
 • Tenancy Act of 1933 (Act No. 4054 and 4113) – regulated relationships between landowners
and tenants of rice (50-50 sharing) and sugar cane lands.
• The Torrens system, which the Americans instituted for the registration of lands, did not solve
the problem completely. Either they were not aware of the law, or if they did, they could not
pay the survey cost and other fees required in applying for a Torrens title.

Commonwealth Period

“Government for the Filipinos”

President Manuel L. Quezon adopted the “Social Justice” program to arrest the increasing social unrest in
Central Luzon.

Significant legislation enacted during the Commonwealth Period:

• 1935 Constitution – “The promotion of social justice to ensure the well-being and economic
security of all people should be the concern of the State.”
• Commonwealth Act No. 178 (An Amendment to Rice Tenancy Act No. 4045), Nov. 13, 1936 –
provided certain controls in the landlord-tenant relationships
• National Rice and Corn Corporation, 1936 – established the price of rice and corn, thereby
helping poor tenants and consumers.
• Commonwealth Act. No. 461, 1937 – specified reasons for the dismissal of tenants and only
with the approval of the Tenancy Division of the Department of Justice.
• Rural Program Administration, created on March 2, 1939 – provided the purchase and lease
of haciendas and their sale and lease to the tenants.
• Commonwealth Act No. 441, enacted on June 3, 1939 – created the National Settlement
Administration with a capital stock of P20,000,000.

Japanese Occupation

“The Era of Hukbalahap”

World War II started in Europe in 1939 and the Pacific in 1941. The Hukbalahap controlled the entire
Central Luzon; landlords who supported the Japanese lost their lands to peasants, while those who
supported the Huks earned fixed rentals in favor of the tenants. Unfortunately, the end of the war also
signaled the end of gains acquired by the peasants.

Upon the arrival of the Japanese in the Philippines in 1942, peasants’ and workers’ organizations grew in
strength. Many peasants took up arms and identified themselves with the anti-Japanese group, the
HUKBALAHAP (Hukbong Bayan Laban sa Hapon).

Philippine Republic
“The New Republic”

After the establishment of the Philippine Independence in 1946, the problems of land tenure remained.
These became worst in certain areas. Thus, the Congress of the Philippines revised the tenancy law.

President Manuel A. Roxas (1946–1948) enacted the following laws:

• Republic Act (RA) No. 34 – established the 70-30 sharing arrangements and regulating shared
tenancy contracts.
• RA No. 55 – provided for a more effective safeguard against arbitrary ejectment of tenants.

Elpidio R. Quirino (1948–1953) enacted the following law:

Executive Order No. 355 issued on October 23, 1950 – replaced the National Land Settlement
Administration with Land Settlement Development Corporation, which took over the responsibilities of the
Agricultural Machinery Equipment Corporation and the Rice and Corn Production Administration.

Ramon Magsaysay (1953–1957) enacted the following laws:

• RA No. 1160 of 1954 – abolished the LASEDECO and established the National Resettlement
and Rehabilitation Administration to resettle dissidents and landless farmers. It was
particularly aimed at rebel returnees providing home lots and farmlands in Palawan and
Mindanao.
• RA No. 1199 (Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954) – governed the relationship between
landowners and tenant farmers by organizing a shared tenancy and leasehold system. The
law provided the security of tenure of tenants. It also created the Court of Agrarian Relations.
• RA No. 1400 (Land Reform Act of 1955) – created the Land Tenure Administration, which was
responsible for the acquisition and distribution of large tenanted rice and corn lands over 200
hectares for individuals and 600 hectares for corporations.
• RA No. 821 (Creation of Agricultural Credit Cooperative Financing Administration) -- provided
small farmers and share tenants loans with low-interest rates of 6%–8%.

President Carlos P. Garcia (1957–1961) – continued the program of President Ramon Magsaysay. No
new legislation was passed during his time.

President Diosdado P. Macapagal (1961–1965) enacted the following law:

RA No. 3844 of August 8, 1963 (Agricultural Land Reform Code) – abolished shared tenancy,
institutionalized leasehold; set retention limit at 75 hectares; invested rights of pre-emption and
redemption for tenant farmers; provided administrative machinery for implementation, institutionalized a
judicial system of agrarian cases; and incorporated extension, marketing, and supervised credit system of
services of farmer-beneficiaries.

The RA was hailed as one that would emancipate Filipino farmers from the bondage of tenancy.

President Ferdinand E. Marcos (1965–1986)

Proclamation No. 1081, enacted on September 21, 1972, ushered the Period of the New Society. Five days
after the proclamation of Martial Law, the entire country was proclaimed a land reform area, and
simultaneously the Agrarian Reform Program was decreed.

President Marcos enacted the following laws:

• RA No. 6389 (Code of Agrarian Reform) and RA No. 6390 of 1971 – created the Department of
Agrarian Reform and the Agrarian Reform Special Account Fund. It strengthened the position
of farmers and expanded the scope of agrarian reform.
• Presidential Decree No. 2, enacted on September 26, 1972 – declared the country under a
land reform program. It enjoined all agencies and offices of the government to extend full
cooperation and assistance to the DAR. It also activated the Agrarian Reform Coordinating
Council.
• Presidential Decree No. 27, enacted on October 21, 1972 – restricted land reform scope to
tenanted rice and corn lands and set the retention limit at 7 hectares.

President Corazon C. Aquino (1986-1992)

The Constitution ratified by the Filipino people during the administration of President Corazon C. Aquino
provides under Section 21 under Article II that “the State shall promote comprehensive rural development
and agrarian reform.”

On June 10, 1988, former President Corazon C. Aquino signed RA No. 6657 or otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. The law became effective on June 15, 1988.

Subsequently, four Presidential issuances were released in July 1987 after 48 nationwide consultations
before the actual law was enacted.

President Corazon C. Aquino enacted the following laws:

• Executive Order No. 228, enacted on July 16, 1987 – declared full ownership to qualified
farmer-beneficiaries covered by PD 27. It also determined the value remaining unvalued rice
and corn lands subject of PD 27 and provided for the manner of payment by the FBs and
mode of compensation to landowners.
• Executive Order No. 229, enacted on July 22, 1987 – provided a mechanism for the
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
• Proclamation No. 131, enacted on July 22, 1987 – instituted the CARP as a major program of
the government. It provided for a special fund known as the Agrarian Reform Fund, with an
initial amount of Php50 billion to cover the estimated cost of the program from 1987 to 1992.
• Executive Order No. 129-A, enacted on July 26, 1987 – streamlined and expanded the power
and operations of the DAR.
• RA No. 6657, enacted on June 10, 1988 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) – an act that
became effective on June 15, 1988, that instituted a comprehensive agrarian reform program
to promote social justice and industrialization, thereby providing the mechanism for its
implementation and other purposes. This law is still the one being implemented at present.
 • Executive Order No. 405, enacted on June 14, 1990 – vested in the Land Bank of the
Philippines the responsibility to determine land valuation and compensation for all lands
covered by CARP.
• Executive Order No. 407, enacted on June 14, 1990 – Accelerated the acquisition and
distribution of agricultural lands, pasture lands, fishponds, agroforestry lands, and other
lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.

President Fidel V. Ramos (1992–1998)

When President Fidel V. Ramos formally took over in 1992, his administration came face-to-face with the
public who had lost confidence in the agrarian reform program. His administration committed to the
vision “Fairer, faster and more meaningful implementation of the Agrarian Reform Program.”

President Fidel V. Ramos enacted the following laws:

• RA No. 7881, 1995 – amended certain provisions of RA 6657 and exempted fishponds and
prawns from the coverage of CARP.
• RA No. 7905, 1995 – strengthened the implementation of the CARP.
• Executive Order No. 363, 1997 – limited the type of lands that may be converted by setting
conditions under which specific categories of agricultural land were either absolutely non-
negotiable for conversion or highly restricted for conversion.
• RA No. 8435, 1997 (Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act AFMA) – plugged the legal
loopholes in land use conversion.
• RA 8532, 1998 (Agrarian Reform Fund Bill) – provided an additional Php50 billion for CARP
and extended its implementation for another 10 years.

President Joseph E. Estrada (1998–2000)

“ERAP PARA SA MAHIRAP.” This was the battle cry that endeared President Joseph Estrada and made him
popular during the 1998 presidential election.

President Joseph E. Estrada enacted the following law:

• Executive Order N0. 151, September 1999 (Farmer’s Trust Fund) – allowed the voluntary
consolidation of small farm operation into medium- and large-scale integrated enterprises
that could access long-term capital.
• During his administration, President Estrada launched the Magkabalikat Para sa Kaunlarang
Agraryo or MAGKASAKA. The DAR forged into joint ventures with private investors in the
agrarian sector to make FBs competitive.
• However, the Estrada administration was short-lived. The masses who put him into office
demanded his ouster.

President Gloria Macapacal-Arroyo (2000–2010)

 • The Agrarian reform program under the Arroyo administration was anchored on the vision
“To make the countryside economically viable for the Filipino family by building partnership
and promoting social equity and new economic opportunities towards lasting peace and
sustainable rural development.”
• Land Tenure Improvement (LTI) – DAR would remain vigorous in implementing the land
acquisition and distribution component of CARP. The DAR would improve the land tenure
system through land distribution and leasehold.
• Provision of Support Services – CARP not only involved the distribution of lands but also
included a package of support services, such as credit assistance, extension services, irrigation
facilities, roads and bridges, marketing facilities, and training and technical support
programs.
• Infrastructure Projects – DAR would transform the Agrarian reform communities (ARCs), which
focused and integrated the delivery of support services into rural economic zones that would
help create job opportunities in the countryside.
• KALAHI ARZone – The KALAHI Agrarian Reform zones were also launched. These zones
consisted of one or more municipalities with the concentration of the ARC population to
achieve greater agro productivity.
• Agrarian Justice – To help clear the backlog of agrarian cases, DAR would hire more paralegal
officers to support undermanned adjudicatory boards and introduce a quota system to
compel adjudicators to work faster on agrarian reform cases. DAR would respect the rights of
both farmers and landowners.

President Benigno Aquino III (2010–2016)

• President Benigno Aquino III vowed during his 2012 State of the Nation Address that he would
complete CARP, which is the centerpiece program of the administration of his mother,
President Corazon Aquino, before the end of his term.
• The younger Aquino distributed their family-owned Hacienda Luisita in Tarlac. Apart from the
said farm lots, he also promised to complete the distribution of privately owned lands of
productive agricultural estates in the country that have escaped the program's coverage.
• Under his administration, the Agrarian Reform Community Connectivity and Economic
Support Services project was created to contribute to the overall goal of rural poverty
reduction, especially in agrarian reform areas.
• Agrarian Production Credit Program provided credit support for crop production to newly
organized and existing agrarian reform beneficiary (ARB)’ organizations and farmers’
organizations not qualified to avail themselves of loans under the regular credit windows of
banks.
• The legal case monitoring system, which is a web-based legal system for recording and
monitoring various kinds of agrarian cases at the provincial, regional, and central offices of
the DAR to ensure faster resolution and close monitoring of agrarian-related cases, was also
launched.
 • In addition to these initiatives, Aquino also enacted Executive Order No. 26, Series of 2011, to
mandate the Department of Agriculture-Department of Environment and Natural Resources-
Department of Agrarian Reform Convergence Initiative to develop a National Greening
Program in cooperation with other government agencies.

President Rodrigo Roa Duterte (2016–present)

• Under his leadership, the President wanted to pursue an “aggressive” land reform program
that would help alleviate the life of poor Filipino farmers by prioritizing the provision of
support services alongside land distribution.
• The President directed the DAR to launch the 2nd phase of agrarian reform where landless
farmers would be awarded undistributed lands under the CARP.
• Duterte planned to place almost all public lands, including military reserves, under agrarian
reform.
• The President also placed 400 hectares of agricultural lands in Boracay under CARP.
• Under his administration, the DAR created an anti-corruption task force to investigate and
handle reports on alleged anomalous activities by officials and employees of the department.
• The Department also pursued an “Oplan Zero Backlog” in the resolution of cases
with Agrarian reform in Agrarian reform in agrarian justice delivery of the agrarian reform
program to fast-track the implementation of CARP. (Department of Agrarian Reform, n.d.)

CARP

Implementation of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines

The implementation of Agrarian Reforms proceeded at a slow pace due to a lack of political will.
Redistribution of the land was also slow. (A Status on the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
in the Philippines, n.d.)

Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law: Philippines

The RA No. 6657, alternatively called the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, was signed by
Former President Corazon C. Aquino on June 10, 1988. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
was responsible for the implementation of the CARP in the Philippines. The law focused on
industrialization in the Philippines together with social justice.

Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law: Objectives

The primary objective of instituting the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law was successfully
devised land reform in the Philippines. (A Status on the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program in
the Philippines, n.d.) It was President Arroyo who signed Executive Order No. 456 on August 23 to
rename the Department of Land Reform to the Department of Agrarian Reform. This had been done
to expand the functional area of the law. In addition to land reform, the Department of Agrarian
Reform began to supervise other allied activities to improve the beneficiaries' economic and social
status in the Philippines. (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform, 2016)
The CARP is a Philippine state policy that ensures and promotes welfare to landless farmers and
farmworkers and elevates social justice and equity among rural areas. (A Status on the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program in the Philippines, n.d.)

Department of Agrarian Reform

Mandate and Functions

• To lead in implementing the CARP through TI, agrarian justice, and coordinated delivery
of essential support services to client beneficiaries.
• To provide land tenure security to landless farmers through land acquisition and
distribution, leasehold arrangements’ implementation, and other LTI services.
• To provide legal intervention to ARBs through the adjudication of agrarian cases and
legal assistance;
• To implement, facilitate, and coordinate the delivery of support services to ARBs through
Social Infrastructure and Local Capability Building, Sustainable Agribusiness, and Rural
Enterprise Development, and Access Facilitation and Enhancement Services.

(Department of Agrarian Reform, n.d.)

Mission Statement

DAR is the lead government agency that holds and implements comprehensive and genuine
agrarian reform, which actualizes equitable land distribution, ownership, agricultural productivity,
and tenurial security for, of, and with the tillers of the land towards the improvement of their quality
of life. (Department of Agrarian Reform, n.d.)

Vision

A just, safe and equitable society that upholds the rights of tillers to own, control, secure, cultivate,
and enhance their agricultural lands, improve their quality of life toward rural development and
national industrialization. (Department of Agrarian Reform, n.d.)

The logo shows the department's acronym representing the institution and its role as the lead
agency in the implementation of CARP.

The sun radiates its light into the field of green divided into 12 segments representing the original 12
regions covered by the program. Green stands for fertility and productivity, while yellow represents
hope and a golden harvest of ARBs who are the recipients of the services provided by the
department via CARP. Both colors imply the economic growth and sound rural development can be
achieved through agrarian reform. (Department of Agrarian Reform, n.d.)