MID-TERM EXERCISES

Lesson 1

Exercise 3.1 Discuss/explain the following questions below.

1. How do you understand the text? What it all about?
- Limasawa and Butuan different stand. The site of the first Mass in a long time is still a point of
contention. The major Mass can be held anywhere on Philippine land, although the site of the main Mass
is a matter of debate. The rajah of Mazaua and the rajah of Butuan, two local clan leaders, were present
when it was hoisted on Easter Sunday, March 31, 1521, on the island of "Mazaua," according to Pigafetta,
the Italian chronicler of the Magellan voyage. The congregation hiked up a little hill after the Mass and
put a wooden crucifix at the top. The congregation hiked up a little hill after the Mass and put a wooden
crucifix at the top. In this scenario, Mazaua's personality is the subject of discussion. In this case, one
school of thought concentrates on the little island south of Leyte, while the other disputes that promise
and instead focuses on the "Masao" shoreline near the mouth of the Agusan River in northern Mindanao,
next to the village (now city) of Butuan. Based on the actuality offered and the data and bits of proof I've
investigated, I claim that the first mass in a long time was held at Limasawa. Pigafetta's written dispatches
to Louise of Savoy and Simon de Montfort Coline are devoid of story. Pigafetta did not say that he gave
Louise of Savoy a reproduction of his original copy, but rather a specific endowment.

Magellan and his forces arrived at Cebu on April 15, 1521, according to Father Colin's testimony.
According to the ancient illustration, the main mass was hoisted on Butuan in April 1521. Given that
Butuan is 236 kilometers distant and the boats were not very swift in those days, it would be absurd to
expect to return to Butuan from Cebu in one day around the time of the mass. A cross was built on the
summit of a mountain at the same time as the mass, and according to Francis Albo, three islands may be
seen from the highest point of the mountain from the west and southwest, while Butuan is visible from
the north. It portrays the contemporary Limasawa based on Albo and Pigafetta's geographical
peculiarities. After all, Magellan didn't go to Butuan to meet the monarch. According While in the island
of Mazaua, Pigafetta and Albo met two tribal chiefs: one was the chieftain of Mazaua, and the other was
the tribe head of Butuan who was supposed to visit the island. In contrast, Francisco Combes S.J.'s book
Historia de Mindanao y Jolo, which he wrote while teaching in the Philippines, was written when he was
a student. Magellan proceeded to Butuan because they had heard the monarch of Butuan was
outstanding and wished to see him, according to him. Their assumptions were intended to be validated
by the lord. As a consequence, in a solemn occasion, they erected a cross on a steep hill as a sign of future
partnership. On the day they erected a cross in Francisco Colin's work, the main mass was held. Because
Pigafettas and Albo are observers in this case, I agree that their recordings can be considered firsthand
records. Pigafetta's book is the most extensive and accurate source of information concerning Magellan's
trip when compared to claims made by secondhand sources. Despite the fact that the evidence offered
are based on only two documents, they are considered valuable sources. The facts and assertions on those
two were verified, however the accusations made by the Pro-Butuan were primarily based on rehashed
testimonials.
2. Based on the primary sources given above, what is your stand about the site of the
first mass?
- For me, it is also refreshing and quite interesting because the first Catholic Mass in a long time was
held on Easter Sunday, March 31, 1521. A meeting was held It took place on the shores of what was
then known as Mazaua. According to the chronicle of Antonio Pigafetta. Pigafetta accompanied King
Charles I of Spain on his expedition to the Spice Islands, commanded by explorer Ferdinand Magellan.
Many people currently think that the great mass was held in Masao, Butuan, on the point of Southern
Leyte, but some say that it was held in Limasawa, on the tip of Southern Leyte.

3. Site evidences which would suggest that the first mass happened in Masau (Butuan)
and Limasawa (Southern Leyte).
- On Easter Sunday, March 31, 1521, the first recorded Catholic Mass in a long time was conducted. Today,
many historians and government officials agree that the main mass was celebrated in Limasawa, on the
southern tip of Leyte, although this has been questioned by some who claim that the main mass was
performed in Masao, Butuan.

4. How credible is this account in explaining the site of the first mass?
- The Gancayco Commission, which is led by a resigned Supreme Court Justice, is looking into the
matter. In May 1996, when the NHI gathered it to resolve a highly delicate verified problem concerning
our nation and our kin, Emilio A. Gancayco, legal counsel Bartolome C. Fernandez, and Dr. Maria Luisa T.
Camagay came at the decision. "The board ends the program to guarantee that any residual uncertainties
in respect to such fine information are finally settled," the bonus declared in its verdict, paraphrasing what
the Bible states, "reality with a twist regarding a prior point in Philippine history will set us free." The
Gancayo Commission delivered its conclusions to Samuel K. Tan, the NHI's seat and chief executive, on
March 20, 1998. Regardless, this find was simply handed over to Limasawa officials on March 31 during
the 478th anniversary of the First Mass. It was a historic moment for festival visitors when Violeta
Barcelona Omega, president of the Don Jose Ecleo Memorial Foundation College of Science and
Technology in Surigao del Norte, gave over the first NHI choice awarded to her by Tan to Limasawa Mayor
Albert Esclamado. Tan also stated in a news release that he has received the conclusions of the Gancayo
Commission, which he plans to use to resolve the Limasawa Butuan dispute.

5. How do the evidences presented in the text help you understand the controversy on

the first Catholic mass in the Philippines?

- On the contrary, the evidence presented on the text help me understand the controversy on the first
Catholic mass in the Philippines, by creating a notion in considering our presence as a citizen and a follower
of Roman Catholic as a significant deed. As I finished my thorough researched and observation, I found
out that the Spaniards who led the expedition that brought religion to the Philippines is quite interesting
and helpful for us Filipino citizen who only believed in early century or generations about rituals and even
a culture of one another, and it is not about conquering power, but spreading or enhancing the religion
which is the Roman Catholic. The controversy on the first Catholic mass in the Philippines is not that fragile
because of the will of its people.
Activity 3.1 Write a position paper about your viewpoint as to where the first mass
happened. Present relative information and evidences in your writing that will

strengthen your stand.

At the cenacle in Jerusalem, Christ instituted the first mass. Today, Jews do not parade
through the streets proclaiming that the establishment of the mass occurred in their midst. Is it
legitimate for Butuan or Limasawa to debate about the Philippines' first mass, which took place
two thousand years later? Does it make sense to maintain Butuan's persistent clamoring by
refusing to give up its claim to the country's first mass since there is a good likelihood that masses
were held in the archipelago long before March 21, 1521, despite the lack of historical records?
Such historical allusion is not hard to accept, given the Portuguese presence in the Moluccas
during the first quarter of the sixteenth century, which provided strong nautical access into the
islands of Mindanao and Visayas. Isn't it probable that a service was already in process when
Magellan's ship landed in Homonhon on Holy Tuesday, March 16, 1621? We Butuan supporters
are concerned about these issues since there appears to be no convincing reason to doubt the
veracity of the aforementioned statement. Was it really worth the bother for local historians to
trawl through enormous libraries in Europe and America just to justify a stance that had already
been rejected twice by the National Historical Institute (NHI). The growing conviction that
employing the NHI is virtually futile and, as a result, should be abandoned has enraged several
local historians. Some local historians are already skeptical, wondering whether such an effort
was merely the consequence of a hasty emotional outpouring at the loss of something that
Butuanons thought was rightfully theirs, without even considering the issue of whether or not
the items were of true worth.
Butuan's reaction to Limasawa's assertion of fact fascinates me since, clearly, this
hasn't been the case for over three centuries. We all know that the people of Butuan were either
inattentive or apathetic to the situation for the first three hundred years after Easter mass was
performed in the Philippine archipelago. The first mass issue was taken for granted by the
majority prior to the Martial Law period, and only a few individuals in Butuan were concerned
about it. However, as time passes, the outcry becomes louder, proof refuses to be muted by
politicians, and a growing percentage of Butuanons perceive the charge as worthwhile to pursue.
But why was it supposed to be correct to begin with?
Mazaua is often assumed to be Limasawa, a small island off the coast of Leyte with
latitude 90 56' N and longitude 1250 5' E. Every piece of circumnavigation literature has the
ceremonial footnote that Mazaua is now Limasawa. This ceremony is rarely discussed in recent
publications, and Mazaua is not mentioned at all in Bergreen's book. Léonce Peillard, a French
marine historian, is an exception who pays little heed to this literary tradition. In reality, he
locates Mazaua in the Genoese Pilot's 90 N (Pigafettad 314) and declares the isle to be in
Mindanao outright (Pigafettad 317). These bold claims appear to be planned to directly address
important aspects in the Mazaua dispute, which has previously been a localized problem
unknown outside of the Philippines. Peillard does not say if his departure from orthodoxy is due
to awareness of the problem, but he is the only navigation historian who has such a radical
viewpoint. Despite this, Peillard provides no explanation for how he came to the conclusion that
Mazaua is in Mindanao. As a result, while his perspective is noteworthy, it isn't really useful for
our needs.
In any event, the belief that Limasawa is Mazaua is ubiquitous, save for a few
unreconstructed holdouts who are indifferent with the National Historical Institute's arbitrary
powers. It is enshrined in two Philippine statutes: Republic Acts 2733 and 7822. Top Philippine
historians, both living and deceased, have endorsed it. Its authenticity has been certified three
times by the national historical body, the Philippine Historical Commission in 1953, the National
Historical Institute in 1980, and the National Historical Institute in 1998. And it's a dangerous, if
not wicked, worldview to espouse. In its most recent affirmation, the National Historical Institute
claims to have "conclusively confirmed" Mazaua's identity as Limasawa. It also draws moral
support from the Bible in obtaining its findings (Gancayco 24). When the "ultimate truth" was
revealed, its former occupants reacted angrily. A strange concept for a trained historian to
embrace. The chairman even encouraged "unbelievers" to stop from further study.

For a non-navigation historian, the relevance of this restriction is lost. "Shipwreck" is merely
a phrase to him. For the seafarer, it's the end of the world. His ambitions for money, and possibly
his life, were dashed. There's no better incentive to make sure sailors observe this fundamental
rule than this. The idea that Magellan's armada moored east is illogical from both a nautical and
historical standpoint. Bernad 28 states that it is a "agreed" position but offers no proof or
reasoning. The east is not mentioned by any eyewitness. Magellan's port was the furthest
easterly, according to the NHI.
We conclude that will all the proofs and evidences from both sides, we decided to believe
that it is Masao.

Lesson 2

Exercises 3.2 We conclude that will all the proofs and evidences from both sides, we decided to believe
that it is Masao.

1. How do you understand the word “mutiny”?

- Mutiny is defined as a systematic group rebellion against established government, usually with an
element of conspiracy among some of the organizers.

2. How does Gov. Rafael Izquierdo describe Cavite Mutiny compared to the version of

Dr. Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera?

- As according to Governor-General Izquierdo, native clergy, mestizos, and lawyers motivated and
planned the revolt as a rebellion against the government's injustice, including not having to pay the
provinces for tobacco crops, paying tribute, and forced labor.

3. What does the account of Jose Montero y Vidal tell us? To which version does the

account related to? Explain.

- The event, according to Jose Montero y Vidal, was an attempt to overthrow the Spanish government
in the Philippines. Despite his status as a historian, his account of the mutiny was criticized as far too
biased and zealous for a scholar.

4. Among the three version of Cavite Mutiny, which one do you think is the most

credible? Why?

- Among the three versions of the Cavite mutiny, I feel the revolt of 200 Filipino troops and workers in
1872 is the most credible. owing to the 200-day workers' and Filipinos' revolt at the Cavite arsenal served
as a reason for the Spanish.

5. Compare the three versions according to their definition of Mutiny, its causes and

effects.

- Filipinos are being mistreated and their rights were violated, as according to Trinidad Pardo de Tavera's
account, sparking a popular revolt against the government. Rafael Izquirdo appears to believe that
because the GOMBURZA were executed, their words before their execution fueled and inspired Filipinos
to fight back against the Spanish administration.

Lesson 3

Exercise 3.1 Give a concise explanation/discussion on the following questions below.

1. What was the issue on the first cry depicts about the Filipinos?

- The Filipinos' reluctance to be subjugated by Spaniards in their own land is depicted in the first
cry of independence. To show that they were regaining their property Filipinos tore their cedulas
apart in celebration of their independence.
2. How does the account of Santiago Alvarez differ from all other versions?
- Basically, from my perspective, among other authors, Santiago Alvarez was not there at the
time of the incident. As a result, despite the fact that the authors of the other accounts were
there at the historic event, this version of him is not given the same weight as the others.
Therefore, I conclude that the absence of his presence in the historic event put a gap from any
other authors.
3. Which account do you believe? Why?
- Guillermo Masangkay's story appeals to me since he was an eyewitness to the historic event,
and his date and location were acknowledged by the American government. He was a Katipunan
officer and Andres Bonifacio's acquaintance, and he was there at the incident, hence his story is
a main source.
4. How reliable is the version of Guillermo Masangkay regarding the issue?

- Guillermo Masangkay's account is trustworthy. He was not just Andres Bonifacio's boyhood
buddy, but also a Katipunan General and an eyewitness. According to him, Cry happened on
August 25, 1896, at Balintawak, as evidenced by the paragraph he penned. It is supposed to have
happened in the latter week of August 1896 in Kangkong, Balintawak. The Cry of Balintawak
signaled the start of the Philippine Revolution against the Spanish Empire. The ripping up of
personal community tax certificates (cédulas personales) in protest of their allegiance to Spain
may also be referred to in the yell (Filipino language: Sigaw ng Pugad Lawin). His version was
approved by the American authorities.
5. What makes Pio Valenzuela’s Cry of Pugad Lawin a controversy?

- This became controversy because he eventually revised his original remark to a different one,
Pio Valenzuela's account of the Cry of Pugad Lawin was regarded contentious. At the original
version of his account, he reported that The Cry took place in Balintawak on August 26, 1986.
Later in his life, he stated in his memoir that the scream occurred on August 23, 1986, in Pugad
Lawin.

ACTIVITY 3.2 (Mapping Out)

CLAIMANTS DATE PLACE BASIS
There are many questions in
the minds of the readers
about the true location and
date of this occurrence. 'The
Cry' is linked to certain
accounts that connect straight
Lt. Oligario Diaz August 25, 1896 Balintawak to Balintawak. The event took
place at Balintawak, according
 to Lt. Olegario Diaz of the
Spanish Civil Guards, who
corroborated the stories of
historians Gregorio Zaide and
Teodoro Kalaw.
The event occurred during the
last week of August 1896 at
Teodoro Kalaw Last week of Kangkong, KangKong, Balintawak,
1896 Balintawak according to Teodoro Kalaw's
1925 book THE FILIPINO
REVOLUTION.
Internal evidence indicates
that Alvarez's description of
the August 24, 1896, meeting
Santiago Alvarez August 24, 1896 Bahay is based on information
Toro,Quezon City obtained from Bernardo, a
Katipunan commander who
was present at the
conference.
On August 23, 1896, around
1000 Katipunan members
gathered and discussed in
Pio Valenzuela August 23, 1896 Pugad Lawin Pugad Lawin, the house,
storehouse, and yard of Juan
Ramos, son of Melchora
Aquino.
On August 23, 1896, the
Balintawak cried out. The
scream marked the beginning
of the Filipinos' rejection of
Guillermo August 23, 1896 Balintawak Spanish colonial rule over the
Masangkay Philippines. The people, with
tears in their eyes, pulled out
their cedulas and tore them
up as one. The remarks of
Katipunan General Guillermo
Masangkay's firsthand
testimony were included in an
article published in the Sunday
Tribune Magazine on August
21, 1932.
On August 25, 1896, the third
revolutionary scream was
 heard near Caloocan.
Katipunan's operations were
Gregoria de Jesus August 25, 1896 Near Caloocan so widespread across the
Philippime archipelago that
when its existence was
established, some of its
members were able to return
to Caloocan almost quickly
In 1954, he stated at his works
that the Cry occurred on
August 26, 1896 in Balintawak.
Gregorio Zaide August 26, 1896 Balintawak For the Liberation War,
Bonifacio and his troops
assembled on the highlands of
Balintawak.
In saying the pasya at Juan
Teodoro Agoncillo August 23, 1896 Pugad Lawin Ramo's house in Pugad Lawin,
Agoncillo opted to follow
Valenzuela's "memoirs."
According to an essay he
Milagros Guererro, Tandang Sora’s published in 1960, more than
Emmanuel Barn in Gulod, 1,000 Katipunan members
Encarnacion, and August 24, 1896 BaranggayBanlat, arrived in the yard of Juan A.
Ramon Villegas Quezon City Ramos in the morning of
August 23rd and went through
to Pasong Tamo.
President Diosdado
Macapagal directed that the
cry be commemorated on
August 23rd, and that Pugad
NHI August 23, 1896 Pugad Lawin Lawin be designated as its site,
following the NHI's approval.
When the NHI performed the
study in 1983, there was an
ancient dap-dap tree on the
property. In their writings,
Teodoro Agoncillo, Zaide, and
Valenzuela do not mention a
dap-dap tree.
Assessment of claims:

The Filipinos' revolution, led by Andres Bonifacio, was in response to the Spaniards'
harsh treatment. The question today is where and when the Filipinos' rejection of Spanish
colonial rule became a turning point. Other accounts cited different dates and locations for
the first cry, making it difficult to identify exactly when and where it happened ( Pugad Lawin
or Balintawak). On the other hand, knowing the exact date and place of the first scream was
of minor importance to me. What matters most is that our forefathers faced Spaniards with
courage and bravery despite a paucity of personnel and weaponry. It's how they deal with
tow that matters.