MODULE 3-Chapter 3

Republic of the Philippines
NUEVA VIZCAYA STATE UNIVERSITY

Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
INSTRUCTIONAL MODULE
IM No.: IM-GEHIST-2ndSEM-2020-2021
College of Arts and Sciences

Bayombong Campus
DEGREE PROGRAM General Education COURSE NO. GE HIST

SPECIALIZATION Philippine History COURSE TITLE Readings in Philippine History
YEAR LEVEL All level TIME FRAME 12 hrs WK NO. 7-10 IM NO. 3
I. UNIT TILE/CHAPTER TITLE: “One past but many histories”: Controversies and
Conflicting Views in Philippine History
II. LESSON TITLE:

A. Site of the First Mass
B. Cavite Mutiny
C. Retraction of Rizal
D. Cry of Balintawak or Pugadlawin
III. LESSON OVERVIEW:
This chapter comprises events in Philippine History wherein there are controversies and
conflicting views coming from different authors. Students should learn to analyze text from
various perspectives considering historical sources especially the primary source. The first lesson
is a case study of the place of first Catholic mass in the country followed by the different accounts
on the investigation of Cavite Mutiny, then on the issue about the retraction letter of Dr. Jose P.
Rizal and the place where the first cry of revolution was held.
IV. DESIRED LEARNING OUTCOMES:
At the end of this chapter, you should be able to:
1. to interpret historical events using primary sources;

2. to recognize the multiplicity of interpretation that can be read from a historical context;
3. to identify the advantages and disadvantages in employing critical tools in interpreting
historical events through primary sources; and
4. to demonstrate the ability to argue for or against a particular issue using primary sources
V. LESSON CONTENT
CASE STUDY 1:
WHERE DID THE FIRST CATHOLIC MASS TAKE PLACE IN THE PHILIPPINES?
Site of the First Mass

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.
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 1 of

24
“In accordance with Section 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work of Republic Act 8293, the copyrighted works included in
this material may be reproduced for educational purposes only and not for commercial distribution.
Decades after the debate on where the Catholic mass in the Philippines took place has remained
unsolved, local Butuan historians asked the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP)
to resolve the first mass controversy in the city’s favor (Macarinas, 2012). Local historians in Butuan
believed that the first site of the Catholic mass took place in Mazawa, a place in Butuan now called
Masao, not in Limasawa Island in Leyte as stated in history books. 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 April 8, 1521. The Butuan claim has been based on a rather elementary
reading of primary sources from the event.
Local historians and president of the Butuan City Heritage Society (BCHS) Greg Hontiveros said
that the “honor” belongs to the City of Butuan and not in Leyte. He also requested the CBCP to
investigate the first mass controversy since the event is very symbolic and important to the church.
Here is the detailed historical presentation of the BCHS account of the ceremony:
On March 31, 1521, Easter Sunday, Friar Pedro Valderrama celebrated mass together with
Portugese explorer Ferdinand Magellan and his men. With the Spaniards were the ruler of Mazawa,
Rajah Siaias and his brother Rajah Colambu, the ruler of Butuan. Afterwards, they planted a cross
in the highest hill and stayed in the area for seven days together with more than a hundred of the
Rajah’s men.
Father Joesilo Conalla, curator of Butuan Diocesan Liturgical Museum likewise believed that the
site of the first mass was in Butuan, not in Limasawa because the people who attended the mass
harvested rice for two days, meaning that the place was a huge agricultural area. Limasawa island
was not an agricultural area, therefore there is nothing to harvest there, Amalla further stated.
He also pointed out that one important evidence is the Yale Codex, which according to Magellan’s
history scholars, is more impressive than the Ambrosiana Codex used in the past to justify both
claims. He further stated that the document (referring to the Yale Codex) is now kept at Yale
University while the other two French manuscripts are in the French National Library. Another proof,
according to Fr. Amalla are the versions of Antonio Pigafetta, Magellan’s voyage chronicler,
because there are subtle indicators that can be used.
However, on March 31, 1998, the National Historical Institute chose to adopt the finding in the
Gancayco Panel which dismissed the Ginés de Mafra account as fake and forthwith unilaterally
reverted the discussion to pre-de Mafra context which was back to whether the site of the first mass
was Limasawa, the isle without anchorage, or Butuan, which is not an islet.
Another evidence to prove that the first Catholic site was held somewhere in Butuan and not in
Limasawa Island was the historical account of Joelito Monzon Ramirez Jr., a local historian and
writer.
(1) There was no island named Limasawa in 1521. On that event, Pigafetta recorded
today’s Limasawa as Gatighan Island, between Bohol and Panaon south of Leyte. Magellan never
landed in Gatighan. The name Limasawa appeared only in 1667, Historia de Mindanao, by
Combes. Pigafette saw these islands on their way out from Mazaua after their departure on April
4, after the first mass was celebrated on March 31. (2) They went to Mazaua from Suluan by sailing,
as recorded, downwards – west. From Suluan, Limasawa can be reached by sailing northwest –
but that is not their course. They sailed downwards – west. (3) Upon their departure, they sailed
northwards for Cebu. Had they been in Limasawa, that direction would have landed them in Ormoc
of Leyte.

24
Toward the end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th century, together with the increasing
scholarship on the history of the Philippines, a more nuanced reading of the available evidence
was made, which brought to light more considerations in going against the more accepted
interpretation of the first Mass in the Philippines, made both by Spanish and Filipino scholars.
It must be noted that there are only two primary sources that historians refer to in identifying the
site of the first Mass. One is the log kept by Francisco Albo, a pilot of one of Magellan’s ship,
Trinidad. He was one of the 18 survivors who returned with Sebastian Elcano on the ship Victoria
after they circumnavigated the world. The other, and the more complete, was the account by
Antonio Pigafetta, Primo viaggio intorno al mondo (First Voyage Around the World). Pigafetta, like
Albo, was a member of the Magellan expedition and an eyewitness of the events, particularly, of
the first Mass.
Primary Source: Albo’s Log
Source: “Diario ó derotero del viage de Magallanes esde el cabo se S. Agustin en Brazil hasta el regreso
a Espana de la nao Victoria, escrito por Frandsco Albo,” Document no. xxii in Colleción de viages y
descrubrimientos 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 is 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 Homonhom, at 10 degrees North latitude.)
4. From that island they sailed westwards towards a large island named Seilani that was inhabited
and was known to have gold. (Seilani – or, as Pigafetta calls it, “ Ceylon” – was the island of
Leyte.)
5. Sailing southwards along the coast of that large island of Seilani, they turned southwest to a small
island called “Mazava”. That island is also at a latitude of 9 and two-thirds degrees North.
6. The people of that island Mazava were very good. There the Spaniards planted a cross upon a
mountain-top, and from there they were shown three islands to the west and southwest, where
they were told there was much gold. “They showed us how the gold was gathered, which came
in small pieces like peas and lentils.”
7. From Mazava they sailed northwards again towards Seilani. They followed the coast of Seilani in
a northwesterly direction, ascending up to 10 degrees of latitude where they saw three small
islands.
8. From there they sailed westwards some ten leagues, and there they saw three islets, where they
dropped anchor for the night. In the morning they sailed southwest some 12 leagues, down to a

24
latitude of 10 and one-third degree. There they entered a channel between two islands, one of
which was called “Matan” and the other “Subu.”
9. They sailed down that channel and then turned westward and anchored at the town (la villa) of
Subu where they stayed many days and obtained provisions and entered into a peace-pact with
the local king.
10. The town of Subu was on an east-west direction with the islands of Suluan and Mazava. But
between Mazava and Subu, there were so many shallows that the boats could not go westward
directly but has to go (as they did) in a round-about way.
It must be noted that in Albo’s account, the location of Mazava fits the location of the island of Limasawa,
at the southern tip of Leyte, 9°54’N. Also, Albo does not mention the first Mass, but only the planting of
the cross upon a mountain-top from which could be seen three islands to the west and southwest, which
also fits the southern end of Limasawa.
Primary Source: Pigafetta’s Testimony on the Route of Magellan’s Expedition
Source: Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson, The Philippine Islands, Vols. 33 and 34, as cited
in Miguel A. Bernad, “Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination
of Evidence” 1981, Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.
1. Saturday, 16 March 1521 – Magellan’s expedition sighted a “high land” named “Zamal” which was
some 300 leagues westward of Ladrones (now the Marianas) Islands.
2. Sunday, March 17 – “The following day” after sighting Zamal Island, they landed on “another
island which was uninhabited” and which lay “to the right” of the above-mentioned island of
“Zamal.” (To the “right” here would mean on their starboard going south or southwest.) There they
set up two tents for the sick members of the crew and had a sow killed for them. The name of this
island was “Humunu” (Homonhon). This island was located at 10 degrees North latitude.
3. On that same day (Sunday, March 17), Magellan named the entire archipelago the “Islands of
Saint Lazarus,” the reason being that it was Sunday in the Lenten season when the Gospel
assigned for the Mass and the liturgical Office was the eleventh chapter of St. John, which tells
of the raising of Lazarus from the dead.
4. Monday, March 18 – In the afternoon of their second day on that island, they saw a boat coming
towards them with nine men in it. An exchange of gifts was effected. Magellan asked for food
supplies, and the men went away, promising to bring rice and other supplies in “four days.”
5. There were two springs of water on that island of Homonhon. Also they saw there some
indications that there was gold in these islands. Consequently, Magellan named 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

24
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 Ibusson) is an island east of Leyte’s southern
tip. Thus, it is easy to see what Pigafetta meant by sailing “toward the west southwest” past those
islands. They left Homonhon sailing westward towards Leyte, then followed the Leyte coast
southward, passing between the island of Hibuson on their portside and Hiunangan Bay on their
starboard, and then continued southward, then turning westward to “Mazaua.”
10. Thursday, March 28 – In the morning of Holy Thursday, March 28, they anchored off an island
where the previous night they had seen a light or a bonfire. That island “lies in a latitude of nine
and two-thirds towards the Arctic Pole (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.”
11. They remained seven days on Mazaua Island.
12. Thursday, April 4 – They left Mazaua, bound for Cebu. They were guided thither by the king of
Mazaua who sailed in his own boat. Their route took them past five “islands” namely: “Ceylon,
Bohol, Canighan, Baibai, and Gatighan.”
13. At Gatighan, they sailed westward to the three islands of the Camotes Group, namely, Poro,
Pasihan and Ponson. Here the Spanish ships stopped to allow the king of Mazaua to catch up
with them, since the Spanish ships were much faster than the native balanghai – a thing that
excited the admiration of the king of Mazaua.
14. From the Camotes Islands they sailed southwards towards “Zubu.”
15. Sunday, April 7 – At noon they entered the harbor of “Zubu” (Cebu). It had taken them three days
to negotiate the journey from Mazaua northwards to the Camotes Islands and then southwards
to Cebu.
It must be pointed out that both Albo and Pigafetta’s testimonies coincide and corroborate each other.
Pigafetta gave more details on what they did during their weeklong stay at Mazaua.
Primary Source: Pigafetta and Seven Days in Mazaua
Source: Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson, The Philippine Islands, Vols. 33 and 34, as cited
in Miguel A. Bernad, “Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination
of Evidence” 1981, Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.
1. Thursday, March 28 – In the morning they anchored near an island where they had seen a light
the night before a small boat (boloto) came with eight natives, to whom Magellan threw some
trinkets as presents. The natives paddled away, bu 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

24
exchange of gifts was effected. In the afternoon that day, the Spanish ships weighed anchor and
came closer to shore, anchoring near the native king’s village. This Thursday, March 28, was
Thursday in Holy Week, i.e., Holy Thursday.
2. Friday, March 29 – “Next day. Holy Friday.” Magellan sent his slave interpreter ashore in a small
boat to ask the king if he could provide the expedition with food supplies, and to say that they had
come as friends and not as enemies. In reply the king himself came in a boat with six or eight
men, and this time went up Magellan’s ship and the two men embraced. Another exchange of
gifts was made. The native king and his companions returned ashore, bringing with them two
members of Magellan’s expedition as guests for the night. One of the two was Pigafetta.
3. Saturday, March 30 – Pigafetta and his companion had spent the previous evening feasting and
drinking with the native king and his son. Pigafetta deplored the fact that, although it was Good
Friday, they had to eat meat. The following morning (Saturday) Pigafetta and his companion took
leave of their hosts and returned to the ships.
4. Sunday, March 31 – “Early in the morning of Sunday, the last of March and Easter day,” Magellan
sent the priest ashore with some men to prepare for the Mass. Later in the morning Magellan
landed with some fifty men and Mass was celebrated, after which a cross was venerated.
Magellan and the Spaniards returned to the ship for the noon-day meal, but in the afternoon, they
returned ashore to plant the cross on the summit of the highest hill. In attendance both at the4
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 dfone that
day because the two kings were sleeping off their drinking bout the night before.
7. Tuesday, April 2 and Wednesday, April 3 – Work on the harvest during the “next to days,” i.e.,
Tuesday and Wednesday, the 2nd and 3rd of April.
8. Thursday, April 4 – They leave Mazaua, bound for Cebu.
Using the primary sources available, Jesuit priest Miguel A. Bernad in his work Butuan or Limasawa: The
Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Re-examination of Evidence (1891) 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 characteristics of Butuan’s geography
that seemed to be too important to be missed.
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.

24
CASE STUDY 2:
WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CAVITE MUTINY?
Cavite Mutiny happened on the night of January 20, 1872 which is a brief uprising or revolt of 200 Filipino
troops and workers led by Sgt. La Madrid in Cavite. Almost a month after investigations was conducted,
three priests was said to be the mastermind of the said event. They were executed through a garrote at
Bagumbayan Field (now Rizal Park) on February 30, 1872. They are known as the three martyr or
GOMBURZA namely Mariano Gomez, 85 years old, Jose Burgos, 30 years old and Jacinto Zamora, 35
years old. Jose P. Rizal dedicated his novel, El Filibusterismo, in memory of the three martyred priests,
a scene Rizal purportedly witness when he was young. Those two are major events in Philippine history
that is an important factor to awaken nationalism among the Filipinos.
There are different sides of the story wherein investigations coming from different sources. The Spanish
version by Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian and the Filipino version by Dr. Trinidad Pardo
de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher. Sources are both based form Chris Antonette Piedad-
Pugay, a history writer. Included here is another version. a primary source, which is an excerpt by
Edmund Plauchut, a French writer.
Spanish Perspective of 1872 Cavite Mutiny
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.

24
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 Pio Basa 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.
Filipino Perspective of the Incident
Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher, wrote the Filipino version
of the bloody incident in Cavite. In his point of view, the incident was a mere mutiny by the native Filipino
soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal who turned out to be dissatisfied with the abolition of their
privileges. Indirectly, Tavera blamed Gov. Izquierdo’s cold-blooded policies such as the abolition of
privileges of the workers and native army members of the arsenal and the prohibition of the founding of
school of arts and trades for the Filipinos, which the general believed as a cover-up for the organization
of a political club.
On 20 January 1872, about 200 men comprised of soldiers, laborers of the arsenal, and residents of
Cavite headed by Sergeant Lamadrid rose in arms and assassinated the commanding officer and
Spanish officers in sight. The insurgents were expecting support from the bulk of the army unfortunately,
that didn’t happen. The news about the mutiny reached authorities in Manila and Gen. Izquierdo
immediately ordered the reinforcement of Spanish troops in Cavite. After two days, the mutiny was
officially declared subdued.
Tavera believed that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a powerful lever by
magnifying it as a full-blown conspiracy involving not only the native army but also included residents of
Cavite and Manila, and more importantly the native clergy to overthrow the Spanish government in the
Philippines. It is noteworthy that during the time, the Central Government in Madrid announced its
intention to deprive the friars of all the powers of intervention in matters of civil government and the
direction and management of educational institutions. This turnout of events was believed by Tavera,
prompted the friars to do something drastic in their dire sedire to maintain power in the Philippines.
Meanwhile, in the intention of installing reforms, the Central Government of Spain welcomed an
educational decree authored by Segismundo Moret promoted the fusion of sectarian schools run by the
friars into a school called Philippine Institute. The decree proposed to improve the standard of education
in the Philippines by requiring teaching positions in such schools to be filled by competitive examinations.
This improvement was warmly received by most Filipinos in spite of the native clergy’s zest for
secularization.

24
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 Government as a vast conspiracy organized throughout the
archipelago with the object of destroying Spanish sovereignty. Tavera sadly confirmed that the Madrid
government came to believe that the scheme was true without any attempt to investigate the real facts
or extent of the alleged “revolution” reported by Izquierdo and the friars.
Convicted educated men who participated in the mutiny were sentenced life imprisonment while
members of the native clergy headed by the GOMBURZA were tried and executed by garrote. This
episode leads to the awakening of nationalism and eventually to the outbreak of Philippine Revolution of
1896. The French writer Edmund Plauchut’s account complimented Tavera’s account by confirming that
the event happened due to discontentment of the arsenal workers and soldiers in Cavite fort. The
Frenchman, however, dwelt more on the execution of the three martyr priests which he actually
witnessed.
Edmund Plauchut’s, “The Cavite Munity of 1872 and the Martyrdom of Gom-Bur-Za”
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 introduced:

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 transforms flying the Spanish flag.
5. Establishment of an advisory council to inform the Minister of Overseas Affairs in Madrid in 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 official’s every time there is a change of ministry.
8. Study of direct-tax system.
9. Abolition of the tobacco monopoly
Unraveling the Truth
Considering the four accounts of the 1872 Mutiny, there were some basic facts that remained to be
unvarying: First, there was dissatisfaction among the workers of the arsenal as well as the members of
the native army after their privileges were drawn back by Gen. Izquierdo; Second, Gen. Izquierdo
introduced rigid and strict policies that made the Filipinos move and turn away from Spanish government
out of disgust; Third, the Central Government failed to conduct an investigation on what truly transpired
but relied on reports of Izquierdo and the friars and the opinion of the public; Fourth, the happy days of
the friars were already numbered in 1872 when the Central Government in Spain decided to deprive
them of the power to intervene in government affairs as well as in the direction and management of
schools prompting them to commit frantic moves to extend their stay and power; Fifth, the Filipino clergy
members actively participated in the secularization movement in order to allow Filipino priests to take
hold of the parishes in the country making them prey to the rage of the friars; Sixth, Filipinos during the
time were active participants, and responded to what they deemed as injustices; and Lastly, the execution
of GOMBURZA was a blunder on the part of the Spanish government, for the action severed the ill-
feelings of the Filipinos and the event inspired Filipino patriots to call for reforms and eventually
independence. There may be different versions of the event, but one thing is certain, the 1872 Cavite
Mutiny paved way for a momentous 1898.

24
The road to independence was rough and tough to toddle, many patriots named and unnamed shed their
bloods to attain reforms and achieve independence. 12 June 1898 may be a glorious event for us, but
we should not forget that before we came across to victory, our forefathers suffered enough. As we enjoy
our freeedom, may we be more historically aware of our past to have a better future ahead of us. And
just like what Elias said in Noli me Tangere, may we “not forget those who fell during the night.”
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 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.
Rizal’s retraction letter was discovered by Father Manuel Garcia, C.M. in 1935. From this time on, the
letter’s content has become a favorite subject of dispute among history writers, history professors, and
academicians. The retraction letter dated December 29, 1896 was said to have been signed by Rizal
himself.
Primary Source: Rizal’s Retraction
Source: Translated from the document found by Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. on May 18, 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
Diaro de Manila on the day of the execution, 30 December 1896. The second text appeared in Barcelona,
Spain, in the magazine La Juventad, 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.
Prelude to Rizal’s Signing of the Retraction Document
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 10

of 24
Some authors of history books dealing with Life, Works, and Writings of Jose Rizal stated that the first
draft of the retraction letter was sent by Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda to Rizal’s cell in Fort Santiago
the night before his execution. Fort Santiago was the place where Rizal was imprisoned and where Rizal
wrote his 14-stanza poem “Mi Ultimo Adios.” But Rizal was said to have rejected the draft because it was
lengthy and did not like the wordings.
According to a testimony of Fr. Vicente Balaguer who became Rizal’s friend in Dapitan, Rizal accepted
a short retraction document prepared by Fr. Pio Pi, the head of the Jesuit Society of the Philippines.
However, Rizal wrote his own retraction after making some modification in the shorter retraction letter
shown to him. In his own retraction letter, he disavowed masonry and religious thoughts that opposed
Catholic belief.
Concluding Statement on Rizal’s Controversial Retraction
Whether Rizal signed a retraction or not, Rizal is still Rizal. It did not diminish his stature as a great patriot,
the hero who courted death “to prove to those who deny our patriotism that we know how to die for our
duty and our beliefs.” (Jose Diokno’s statement).
Rizal’s retraction or not did not change the fact that his works and writings began the “wheels of change”
in the Philippine colonial society – a change that led to the Philippine independence. The retraction is just
one aspect of the life, works, and writings of Jose Rizal. (Jose Victor Torres).
Torres noted that the controversy in Rizal’s retraction is irrelevant today. The way Rizal is taught today,
the retraction means nothing at all, Torres added.
CASE STUDY 4:
WHERE DID THE FIRST CRY OF REVOLUTION HAPPENED?
Interpreting history requires incorporating source materials that reflect different views of an event in
history. This historical even happened during the struggle for Philippine independence. Andres Bonifacio
and his Katipunan comrades tore their cedulas which is said to be the starting signal of the revolution in
our country.
Sample copy of cedula
The following accounts are derived from different witnesses when the first cry of revolution happened.
Take note that we have to correct history as we analyze what really transpired, in what place according
to different witnesses and author.
a) Lt. Olegario Diaz: officer of the Spanish Guardia Civil, took place in Balintawak on August 25,
1896
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 11

of 24
b) Teodoro Kalaw (Filipino historian): in his

1925 book The Filipino Revolution, took
place during the last week of August 1896
at Kangkong, Balintawak.
c) Santiago Alvarez: son of Mariano Alvarez,

the leader of the Magdiwang in Cavite
stated in 1927 that it took place in Bahay
Toro now in Quezon City on August
24, 1896.
d) Teodoro Agoncillo: historian, took

place in Pugad Lawin on August 23,
1896, echoing Pio Valenzuela's statement
e) Milagros Guerrero, Emmanuel

Encarnacion and Ramon Villegas
(historians): taken place in Tandang Sora's
barn in Gulod, Barangay Banlat, Quezon City
f) Dr. Pio Valenzuela
 At September 1896, stated that Katipunan meetings took place from Sunday to Tuesday
or August 23 to 25 at Balintawak
 At 1911, states that Katipunan began meeting on August 22 while the "Cry" took place on
August 23 at Apolonio Samson's house in Balintawak
 Stated that "hindi sa Balintawak nangyari ang unang sigaw ng paghihimagsik na

kinalalagian ngayon ng bantayog, kung di sa pook na kilala sa tawag na Pugadlawin."
 Valenzuela memoirs (1964, 1978) states that the Cry took place on 23 August at the house
of Juan Ramos at Pugad Lawin. The NHI 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.
g) John N. Schumacher, S.J, of the Ateneo de Manila University
“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.”
The story is that on August 23, 1896, in Pugad Lawin, at the backyard house of Juan Ramos (son of
Melchora Aquino aka “Tandang Sora”), the Katipunans listened to the speech of Andres Bonifacio, tore
their cedula and vowed to fight against Spaniards.
A marker at present is found along the Seminary Road, in barangay Bahay Toro of Quezon City.
VI. LEARNING ACTIVITIES (Learning activities are included in the answer sheet next to this page)
VII. ASSIGNMENT (Assignments are included in the answer sheet next to this page)
VII. EVALUATION
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 12

of 24
VII. EVALUATION
The Tejeros Convention: A Comparative Analysis

Sources:
A. Emilio Aguinaldo (1964). Mga Gunita ng Himagsikan, Manila: C.A. Suntay
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 13

of 24
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 14 of 24


B. Santiago Alvarez (1998). Katipunan and the Revolution: Memoirs of a General. QC: Ateneo de
Manila Press








IX. REFERENCES
De Viana, Augusto and Picadizo, Ma. Venice (2018). Pahiwatig. A Guide for Understanding Readings in
Philippine History. Books Atbp. Publishing Corp.
Furay, Conal and Salevouris, Michael. 2000. The Methods and Skills of History: A Practical Guide. Illinois:
Harlan Davison Inc.
Howell, Martha and Prevenier, Walter. 2001. From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods.
Michigan: Cornell University Press.
Hull, C. (1914). The Service of Statistics to History. Publications of the American Statistical Association, 14(105),
30-39. doi:10.2307/2965084
Schumacher, John. 1991. The Making of a Nation: Essays on 19th Century Nationalism. Quezon City: Ateneo
University Press.
Szasz, Ferenc. (1974). The Many Meanings of History, Part I. The History Teacher, 7(4), 552-563.
doi:10.2307/492061
Veneracion, J. B. 1998. Ang Kasaysayan sa Kasalukuyang Henerasyon. In Santillan and Conde, Kasaysayan
at Kamalayan: Mga Piling Akda Ukol sa Diskursong Pangkasaysayan (pp. 1-15). Quezon City: Limbagang
Pangkasaysayan.
Ariola, M. et.al. (2018). Readings in Philippine History. Unlimited Books Library Services & Publishing
Inc.
Retrieved on September 22, 2020 from ttps://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/
Retrieved on September 22, 2020 https://www.coursehero.com/file/p2ofrlm/Primary-Source-Excerpts-

from-Plauchuts-Account-of-the-Cavite-Munity-Edmund/
Videolink: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CwmcUCwuv8
Mariano M. Ariola, “The Life of Dr. Jose Rizal,” (December 29, 1896 at 10:00 p.m. (draft of retraction
letter shown to Rizal at his prison cell in Fort Santiago), Philippine History and Government, p.57.
Hand-outs given during the training-seminar held at Polytechnic University of the Philippines on
November 2019.
Retrieved from https://prezi.com/p/r9v71jn3dekg/cry-of-pugadlawin-or-balintawak/ 2014-11-24

Xiao_Time_Via_Crucis_ni_Andres_Bonifacio_Ang_Tejeros_Convention visitpinas.com


MODULE 3-Chapter 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MODULE 3-Chapter 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

NUEVA VIZCAYA STATE UNIVERSITY

College of Arts and Sciences

DEGREE PROGRAM General Education COURSE NO. GE HIST

II. LESSON TITLE:

III. LESSON OVERVIEW:

IV. DESIRED LEARNING OUTCOMES:

At the end of this chapter, you should be able to:

1. to interpret historical events using primary sources;

Site of the First Mass

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 1 of

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 2 of

Primary Source: Albo’s Log

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 3 of

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

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 4 of

11. They remained seven days on Mazaua Island.

Primary Source: Pigafetta and Seven Days in Mazaua

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 5 of

8. Thursday, April 4 – They leave Mazaua, bound for Cebu.

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 6 of

Spanish Perspective of 1872 Cavite Mutiny

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 7 of

Filipino Perspective of the Incident

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 8 of

Here is the summary of the reforms they considered necessary to introduced:

Unraveling the Truth

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 9 of

Primary Source: Rizal’s Retraction

Manila 29 of December of 1896

Prelude to Rizal’s Signing of the Retraction Document

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 10

Sample copy of cedula

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 11

b) Teodoro Kalaw (Filipino historian): in his

c) Santiago Alvarez: son of Mariano Alvarez,

d) Teodoro Agoncillo: historian, took

e) Milagros Guerrero, Emmanuel

f) Dr. Pio Valenzuela

 Stated that "hindi sa Balintawak nangyari ang unang sigaw ng paghihimagsik na

g) John N. Schumacher, S.J, of the Ateneo de Manila University

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 12

The Tejeros Convention: A Comparative Analysis

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 13

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 14 of 24

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 15 of 24

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 16 of 24

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 17 of 24

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 18 of 24

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 19 of 24

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 20 of 24

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 21 of 24

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 22 of 24

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 23 of 24

Retrieved on September 22, 2020 from ttps://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/

Retrieved on September 22, 2020 https://www.coursehero.com/file/p2ofrlm/Primary-Source-Excerpts-

Retrieved from https://prezi.com/p/r9v71jn3dekg/cry-of-pugadlawin-or-balintawak/ 2014-11-24

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 24 of 24

You might also like