One Past but Many Histories: Controversies and Conflicting Views in the Philippine History

Note: The following are different readings on the conflicting issues as presented by different authors
about the veracity or truthfulness of historical events.

A. The First Mass Controversy: Where is the site of the first mass? Butuan Historians Ask CBCP to
Resolve First Mass Controversy in City’s Favor By: Erwin Mascariñas (Links to an external site.)

BUTUAN CITY (MindaNews/03 April) – Decades after the debate on where the first Catholic mass
in the archipelago took place has remained unresolved, local historians yesterday said they have new
data and evidences to prove that the “honor” belongs to the city. They said they are hoping that the
Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) would finally declare that the first mass was held
in Mazaua, a place in Butuan now called Masao, not in Limasawa Island in Leyte as stated in history
books.

Speaking before the mass marking the 491st anniversary of the event on Saturday, March 31,
local historian and president of the Butuan City Heritage Society Greg Hontiveros said they are confident
their new data and evidences can now convince critics and skeptics. Honteviros said “it took us a long
time to finalize our research and gather more evidence. We felt the confidence, we finally completed
the quest in finding the truth about this issue. It was a huge effort, long process and time that we took
to have the position of Butuan.” He said the CBCP has already requested an inquiry and a resolution to
investigate the first mass controversy since the event is very symbolic and important to the church.

Accounts said that on March 31, 1521, Easter Sunday, Friar Pedro Valderrama celebrated mass
together with Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan and his men. With the Spaniards were the ruler
of Mazaua Rajah Siaiu and his brother Rajah Colambu, the ruler of Butuan. Afterwards they planted a
cross on the highest hill and stayed in the area for seven days and helped in the rice harvest for two days
together with more than a hundred of the Rajah’s men.

“When they arrived on Good Friday, they were harvesting rice for two days, that means to say, the
place where they went was the Mazaua, somewhere in Mindanao not in Limasawat. Because they
harvested for two days, what can you harvest in Limasawa when there was nothing [there]?” said Father
Joesilo Amalla, curator of Butuan Diocesan Liturgical Museum.
 “More than a hundred of people helped in the harvest, meaning it was a huge agricultural area. I’ve
been to Limasawa a lot of times. They have said that the rice harvested came from the surrounding
island, and they said they have harvested in the island itself. So their claim is wrong,” Amalla added. He
pointed out that one important evidence is the Yale Codex, which according to Magellan scholars, is
more impressive than the Ambrosiana Codex used in the past to justify both claims. He said the
document is now in the hands of Yale University while the other two French manuscripts are in Paris, in
the French National Library. The priest said they included the other versions of Antonio Pigafetta, the
chronicler of Magellan’s voyage, because there are subtle indicators that can be used.

Amalla also presented the manuscript for a soon-to-be-published book titled The Anthology of the
First Mass Controversy in the Philippines which he hopes would shed light on the CBCP inquiry. On
March 31, 1998, the National Historical Institute reaffirmed its previous pronouncements that Limasawa
is Magellan’s port. (Erwin Mascarinas/MindaNews)

B. The 1872 Cavite Mutiny: The Two Faces of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny by: Chris Antonette Piedad-Pugay
Posted on September 5, 2012 (Links to an external site.)

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 Cavite Mutiny 1872 event and
highlighted it as an attempt of the Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines. 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.

Secularization meant the replacement of the friars, who came exclusively from Spain, with
Filipino priests ordained by the local bishop. This movement, again, was successfully resisted, as friars
through the centuries kept up the argument that Filipino priests were too poorly qualified to take on
parish duties. Although church policy dictated that parishes of countries converted to Christianity be
relinquished by the religious orders to indigenous diocesan priests, in 1870 only 181 out of 792 parishes
in the islands had Filipino priests.

In the case of the Filipino priests like Gomburza, they called for having the same rights and
privileges to be given between the Spanish priests and Filipino priests. They were the known leading
figures who supported the secularization. The accounts Jose Montero y Vidal and Gov. Gen. Rafael
Izquierdo’s complimented and corroborated with one other. They both pointed out that the Cavite
mutiny of 1872 was a “revolution” which aimed to overthrow the existing Spanish government.

They enumerated the following reasons of the “revolution”. The main reasons of the “revolution”
was the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the workers of Cavite arsenal such as non-payment of tributes
and exemption from force labor 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.

Izquierdo 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.

Jose Montero y Vidal and Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo 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.

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.

Response to Injustice: The Filipino Version of the Incident (Cavite Mutiny of 1872)

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.

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 desire 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.

The friars, fearing that their influence in the Philippines would come to an end, they 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.

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 and not to
overthrow the Spanish govenment. The Frenchman, however, dwelt more on the execution of the three
martyr priests which he actually witnessed.

C. Cry of Balintawak or Pugadlawin In Focus: Balintawak: The Cry for a Nationwide Revolution
By: Milagros c. Guerrero, Emmanuel n. Encarnacion , Ramon N. Villegas (June 06, 2003)

Nineteenth-century journalists used the phrase “el grito de rebelion” or “the Cry of Rebellion” to
describe the momentous events sweeping the Spanish colonies; in Mexico it was the “Cry of Dolores”
(16 September 1810), Brazil the “City of Ypiraga” (7 September 1822), and in Cuba the “Cry of Matanza”
(24 February 1895). In August 1896, northeast of Manila, Filipinos similarly declared their rebellion
against the Spanish colonial government. It was Manuel Sastron, the Spanish historian, who
institutionalized the phrased for the Philippines in his 1897 book, La Insurreccion en Filipinas. All these
“Cries” were milestones in the several colonial-to-nationalist histories of the world.

The Raging controversy:

If the expression is taken literally –the Cry as the shouting of nationalistic slogans in mass
assemblies –then there were scores of such Cries. Some writers refer to a Cry of Montalban on April
1895, in the Pamitinan Caves where a group of Katipunan members wrote on the cave walls, “Viva la
indepencia Filipina!” long before the Katipunan decided to launch a nationwide revolution.

The historian Teodoro Agoncillo chose to emphasize Bonifacio’s tearing of the cedula (tax receipt)
before a crowd of Katipuneros who then broke out in cheers. However, Guardia Civil Manuel Sityar
never mentioned in his memoirs (1896-1898) the tearing or inspection of the cedula, but did note the
pacto de sangre (blood pact) mark on every single Filipino he met in August 1896 on his reconnaissance
missions around Balintawak.
 In 1970, the historian Pedro A. Gagelonia pointed out: The controversy among historians continues
to the present day. The “Cry of Pugad Lawin” (August 23, 1896) cannot be accepted as historically
accurate. It lacks positive documentation and supporting evidence from the witness.

The testimony of only one eyewitness (Dr. Pio Valenzuela) is not enough to authenticate and verify
a controversial issue in history. Historians and their living participants, not politicians and their
sycophants, should settle this controversy.

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 “na hindi sa Balintawak nangyari ang unang
sigaw ng paghihimagsik na kinalalagian ngayon ng bantayog, 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.

D. 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 influenced 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.

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 naging tanda ng 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.

The official stand of NHI is that the Cry took place on 23 August 1896. That date, however, is
debatable.The later accounts of Pio Valenzuela and Guillermo Masangkay on the tearing of cedulas on
23 August are basically in agreement, but conflict with each other on the location. Valenzuela points to
the house of Juan Ramos in Pugad Lawin, while Masangkay refers to Apolonio Samson’s in Kangkong.
Masangkay’s final statement has more weight as it is was corroborated by many eyewitnesses who were
photographed in 1917, when the earliest 23 August marker was installed. Valenzuela’s date (23 August )
in his memoirs conflict with 1928 and 1930 photographs of the surveys with several Katipunan officers,
published in La Opinion, which claim that the Cry took place on the 24th.

E. Rizal’s Retraction: Truth vs Myth by Tomas U. Santos (Links to an external site.) -October 4, 2011

THE DEBATE continues.

Since Rizal’s retraction letter was discovered by Father Manuel Garcia, C.M. in 1935, its content
has become a favorite subject of dispute among academicians and Catholics. The letter, dated
December 29, 1896, was said to have been signed by the National Hero himself. It stated:

“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.”

The controversy whether the National Hero actually wrote a retraction document only lies in the
judgment of its reader, as no amount of proof can probably make the two opposing groups—the
Masonic Rizalists (who firmly believe that Rizal did not withdraw) and the Catholic Rizalists (who were
convinced Rizal retracted)—agree with each other.

Proofs, documents

History books tell most people that the first draft of the retraction was sent by Archbishop
Bernardino Nozaleda to Rizal’s cell in Fort Santiago the night before his execution in Bagumbayan. But
Rizal was said to have rejected the draft because it was lengthy. Father Vicente Balaguer was born in
Alcoy, Alicante, Spain on January 19, 1851. He came to the Philippines in 1894. In 1896, he was
transferred to Dapitan, where he met Rizal. Months later, he was attesting to have heard the most
important final words of Dr. Jose Rizal. According to a testimony by Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit
missionary who befriended the hero during his exile in Dapitan, Rizal accepted a shorter retraction
document prepared by the superior of the Jesuit Society in the Philippines, Father Pio Pi.

“Personally, I did not believe he retracted, but some documents that was purchased by the
Philippine government from Spain in the mid-1990s, the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila,” showed some
interesting points about the retraction, said Jose Victor Torres, professor at the History department of
the De La Salle University.Despite this, Torres said his perception of the Filipino martyr would not
change even if the controversies were true.

“Even though it would be easy to say he retracted all that he wrote about the Church, it still did
not change the fact that his writings began the wheels of change in Philippine colonial society during the
Spanish period—a change that led to our independence,” Torres said. “The retraction is just one aspect
of the life, works, and writings of Rizal.” But then, Torres noted that the controversy is irrelevant today.
“The way Rizal is taught in schools today, the retraction means nothing,” he said. Filipino historian
Nicolas Zafra considered the controversy as “a plain unadorned fact of history, having all the marks and
indications of historical certainty and reality” in his book

The Historicity of Rizal’s Retraction.

Dr. Augusto De Viana, head of UST’s Department of History, also believes that Rizal retracted and
said the National Hero just renounced from the Free Masonry and not from his famous nationalistic
works. “He (Rizal) retracted. He died as a Catholic, and a proof that he died as a Catholic was he was
buried inside the sacred grounds of Paco Cemetery,” said De Viana, who compared the martyr with
Apolinario Mabini, a revolutionary and free mason who was buried in a Chinese cemetery.

De Viana said it is not possible that the retraction letter had been forged because witnesses were
present while Rizal was signing it.He added that the evidence speaks for itself and moves on to the
question on Rizal’s character as some argue that the retraction is not in line with Rizal’s mature beliefs
and personality.

“Anti-retractionists ask, ‘What kind of hero is Jose Rizal?’ They say he was fickle-minded. Well, that may
be true, but that is human character. Rizal was not a perfect person,” De Viana said.
 He also mentioned that just like any person, Rizal was prone to flip-flop. He believes that Rizal
retracted because the national hero wanted to be at peace when he dies. But would Rizal’s works deem
irrelevant and futile because of his retraction? De Viana answered, “Rizal awakened our knowledge of
nationalism. For me, that is enough. The issue will not invalidate his works in any way.” Rizal remains a
living and burning issue among us.

Things to ponder:

It was solely one Jesuit priest, Vicente Balaguer,S.J, who laid the basis for the story that Rizal
retracted his words and deeds. It was also he who made the claim that he married Jose Rizal and
Josephine Bracken at 6.15 a.m. on December 30, just minutes before Rizal was executed.

In the final chapters of his biography of Rizal, Austin Coates totally demolishes the veracity of
Balaguer’s claims, which were made the basis of the archbishop’s announcement of a retraction, and
which were also contained in a letter from Balaguer to his Jesuit superior, Fr. Pio Pi.

Balaguer’s retraction claim was not corroborated by the two Jesuits who were present at Rizal’s
execution. If Rizal had indeed retracted, they would surely have given Rizal a Catholic burial. How would
he have been deprived of even a coffin, as in fact happened. Balaguer himself was not present at the
execution. Josephine Bracken was also absent during Rizal’s final moments. The Rizal family did not
accept the retraction and the marriage. They knew that that if he had retracted, he would certainly have
said so in his 6a.m. communication to his mother on the fateful day of his execution. Balaguer’s account
exposed itself through major discrepancies in his story. His claim of marrying Rizal and Josephine was
totally belied by the facts.

In his account, Balaguer was totally unaware that Rizal had written “Mi Último Adiós” on the eve of
his execution. The poem in its third stanza carries the exact date and time when it was written. In his
claim of having performed the canonical marriage of Rizal and Josephine, Balaguer said he performed it
in front of one of Rizal’s sisters between 6 and 6:25 a.m. on December 30. But none of Rizal’s sisters
went to the fort that morning.
 First of all there is the matter of the handwriting. To date, the only scientific study criticizing the
authenticity of the document was made by Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual of the University of the Philippines
shortly after the document was found. Having some of Rizal’s writings dating from the last half of
December 1896 as his “standard”, he notes a number of variations with the handwriting of the
document, he further concluded that it was a “one-man document” because of the similarities in several
respects between the body of the Retraction and the writing of all three signers: Rizal and the two
witnesses.

The only scholarly answer and criticism to Pascual is that given by Dr. José I. Del Rosario. Rosario’s
main criticism may be said to be that Pascual does not include enough of Rizal’s writings by way of
comparison and concluded that the hand-writing is genuine.

A second argument directed against the authenticity of the document itself is based on the
principles of textual criticism. Several critics have noted differences between the text of the document
found in 1935 and other versions of the Retraction including the one issued by Father Balaguer. To date,
from the morning of December 30, 1896 there have been, discounting numerous minor variations, two
distinct forms of the text with significant differences with regards to the use of certain phrases within
the document
 Evolution of the Philippine Constitution

A. What is a Constitution?

In its broadest sense, a constitution is a body of fundamental rules governing the affairs of an
organized group. Applied to states, the constitution embodies the doctrines and practices that form the
basis for organizing the political state. Constitution is the body of doctrines and practices that form the
fundamental organizing principle of a political state (Encyclopedia Britannica).

Another definition of constitution is, it is a body of basic laws and principles that describes the
general organization and operation of the state and contains fundamental principles and norms that
underlie and guide all government action (Hedling, 2017).

Merriam-Webster dictionary defined constitution as the basic principles and laws of a nation,
state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain
rights to the people. In essence, the constitution is a social contract between the rulers and the ruled

Background: During the American Occupation, the Philippines was governed by the laws of the United
States of America. Organic Acts were passed by the United States Congress for the administration of the
Government of the Philippine Islands. The first was the Philippine Organic Act of 1902, which provided
for a Philippine Assembly composed of Filipino citizens. The second was the Philippine Autonomy Act of
1916, which included the first pledge of Philippine independence. These laws served as constitutions of
the Philippines from 1902 to 1935 (Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines, n.d).

B. The 1899 Malolos Constitution

The Malolos Constitution is the first Philippine Constitution and the first republican constitution in
Asia. It was drafted and adopted by the First Philippine Republic which lasted from 1899 to 1901. It
declared that sovereignty resides exclusively in the people, stated basic civil rights, separated the church
and state, and called for the creation of an Assembly of Representatives to act as the legislative body. In
the Article 5 of the constitution, the State recognizes the freedom and equality of all religions, as well as
the separation of the Church and the State. The president was elected for a term of four years by a
majority of the Assembly.
C. The 1935 Constitution

Background: The Jones Law of 1916 promised granting the Philippine independence once Filipinos were
ready for self-governance. The law led to the creation of an all-Filipino legislature composed of the
Philippine Senate and House of Representatives. However, the position of Chief Executive, the
Governor-General and what was considered the most important cabinet posts were reserved for the
American officials appointed by the President of the United States. Half of the Philippine Supreme Court
was reserved for Americans as well.

The OsRox Independence Mission (1931) was a campaign for self-government led by former
Senate President Sergio Osman and House Speaker Manuel Roxas. This mission brought home the Hare–
Hawes–Cutting Act that would establish the Philippine Commonwealth as a transition government for 10
years before receiving independence on July 4, 1946. However, Senate President Manuel Quezon
objected the act because it allowed American military reservations in the Philippines and did not truly
grant the Philippines independence.

Years later, in 1933, Quezon secured another independence bill which was a near copy of the
Hare–Hawes–Cutting Act called the Tyddings- McDuffie Act. It removed the provision of military
reservations in the Philippines and substituted for “ultimate settlement as to naval bases and fueling
stations. Hence, the United States Congress authorized the creation of a constitution for the Philippines
in accordance with the Tydings-Mcduffie Act of 1934

The Tydings-McDuffie Act resulted to the birth of the Commonwealth Government. Under the
act, it provided for a ten-year transition period to independence, during which the Commonwealth of
the Philippines would be established. The commonwealth would have its own constitution and would be
self-governing, although foreign policy would be the responsibility of the United States. Laws passed by
the legislature affecting immigration, foreign trade, and the currency system had to be approved by the
United States president.

In 1934, the United States Congress passed the Philippine Independence Act which mandated
the Philippine Legislature to call for an election of delegates to a Constitutional Convention to draft a
Constitution for the Philippines. The 1935 Constitution was written in 1934, approved and adopted by
the Commonwealth of the Philippines (1935–1946) and later used by the Third Republic (1946–1972).
 The original 1935 Constitution provided for unicameral National Assembly and the President was
elected to a six-year term without re-election. It was amended in 1940 to have a bicameral Congress
composed of a Senate and House of Representatives, as well the creation of an independent electoral
commission. The Constitution now granted the President a four-year term with a maximum of two
consecutive terms in office.

In 1940, the 1935 Constitution was amended by the National Assembly of the Philippines. The
legislature was changed from a unicameral assembly to a bicameral congress. The amendment also
changed the term limit of the President of the Philippines from six years with no reelection to four years
with a possibility of being reelected for a second term.

C. The 1943 Constitution

During World War II the Japanese-sponsored government nullified the 1935 Constitution and
appointed Preparatory Committee on Philippine Independence to replace it. The 1943 Constitution was
drafted by a committee appointed by the Philippine Executive Commission, the body established by the
Japanese to administer the Philippines in lieu of the Commonwealth of the Philippines which had
established a government-in-exile. Upon approval of the draft by the Committee, the new charter was
ratified in 1943 by an assembly of appointed, provincial representatives of the Kalibapi, the organization
established by the Japanese to supplant all previous political parties. Upon ratification by the Kalibapi
assembly, the Second Republic was formally proclaimed (1943–1945). José P. Laurel was appointed as
President by the National Assembly and inaugurated into office in October 1943.

However, the 1943 Constitution was not taught in schools, and the laws of the 1943-44. It was
never recognized as valid or relevant, legitimate or binding by the governments of the United States or
of the Commonwealth of the Philippines. After the announcement of Japan's surrender, Laurel formally
dissolved the Second Republic.

Upon the liberation of the Philippines in 1945, the 1935 Constitution came back into effect and
remained unaltered until 1947 and remained the same until the declaration of martial law on
September 23, 1972.
D. The 1973 Constitution

The 1935 Constitution was suspended in 1972 with Marcos' proclamation of martial law. In 1973,
after the declaration of martial law, the 1935 Constitution was replaced by a new charter, the 1973
Constitution. It has been said that even before President Marcos declared Martial Law, a Constitutional
Convention was already in the process of deliberating on amending or revising the 1935 Constitution.
Consequently, the revised 1935 constitution was materialized and submitted to President Marcos.
President Marcos then, issued Presidential Decree No. 86, s. 1972, creating citizens assemblies to ratify
the newly drafted constitution by means of a Viva Voce vote (voting by voice) in place of secret ballots.
Later, Marcos announced that it had been ratified and would take effect on January 17, 1973. Despite of
oppositions from some government officials, the ratification of the 1973 Constitution was considered
valid and was enforced.

E. The 1986 Constitution

When Marcos regime was topped down in 1986, the 1973 Constitution was replaced by the freedom
constitution. The freedom constitution gave President Corazon C. Aquino a personal power until a new
constitution is ratified.
In 1986, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Proclamation No. 3, suspending certain provisions of the
1973 Constitution. The president also issued Proclamation No. 9 in the same year which created a
Constitutional Commission tasked with writing a new charter to replace the 1973 Constitution. After the
task was done by the commission, the National Plebiscite was held on February 2, 1987 to ratify the new
constitution. By virtue of Proclamation No. 58, President Aquino announced the ratification of the draft
constitution. The 1987 Constitution finally came into full force.

F. Constitution of the Philippines (1987)

The present Constitution of the Philippines:

Approved by the 1986 Constitutional Commission on October 12, 1986, the 1987 Constitution of
the Republic of the Philippines was presented to President Corazon C. Aquino on October 15, 1986. It
was ratified on February 2, 1987 by a plebiscite. It was proclaimed on February 11, 1987.
 The Constitution is divided into a Preamble and 18 parts called Articles. The Preamble introduces
the Constitution, identifies the author and the purposes of the fundamental law and aids the authorities
in the interpretation of the Constitution since it lays down the visions of the government.

The Preamble reads:

We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and
humane society and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the
common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the
blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom,
love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.
Introduction: Why Land Reform?

Title: Politics and Economics of Land Reform in the Philippines: A survey (A background paper prepared
for a World Bank Study) By Nobuhiko Fuwa May, 2000 ,

Recent developments in both theoretical and empirical economics literature have demonstrated
many aspects of the negative socio-economic consequences of high inequality in the distribution of
wealth. High inequality tends to hinder subsequent economic growth ( Persson and Tabellini 1994),
inhibits the poor from realizing their full potential in economic activities and human development
through credit constraints (e. g., Deininger and Squire 1998), encourage rent-seeking activities (Rodrik,
1996), and seriously hinder the poverty reduction impact of economic growth ( Ravallion and Dutt ).

The Philippines is a classic example of an economy suffering from all of these consequences. The
Philippines has long been known for its high inequality in distribution of wealth and income; unlike many
of its Asian neighbors characterized by relatively less inequality by international standards, the
Philippine economy has often been compared to Latin American countries which are characterized by
high inequality in land distribution.

Partly due to its historically high inequality there has long been intermittent incidence of peasant
unrest and rural insurgencies in the Philippines. As a result, the issue of land reform (or ‘agrarian reform’
as more commonly called in the Philippines, of which land reform constitutes the major part) has
continuously been on political agenda at least since the early part of the 20th century; nevertheless land
reform in the Philippines has been, and still is, an unfinished business.

Background: Philippine history is marked by several major epochs: prehispanic era, Spanish period
(1565-1898); American period (1898-1941); and Japanese occupation (1941-1945);. All these periods
affected the land distribution that become concentrated in landed elites and large masses of peasants
were displaced and became landless.

Pre-Spanish Period; There was an indication that indigenous land-tenure arrangements in pre-Hispanic
Philippine society were characterized by communal ownership of land. It was feudal like, with a warrior
class loyal to warlords. This class lived on the labor of serfs and slaves in exchange for protection. The
datus (chiefs) who served as master or lord of the barangays and the serfs served as tenants who tilled
the land. Both master and serf equally divided the produce of the land.
Spanish Period: The inequality of land distribution started when the Spaniards introduced the
encomienda system. It resulted to the control over vast tracts of land by the upper class favored by the
Spanish crown and the dispossession of peasants of the land that they and their ancestors had been
tilling for generations. The dispossession of the land led the peasants to experience poverty,
exploitation and oppression. The issue of inequalities in landownership resulted in armed agrarian
unrest and saw the birth of rural social movements that demanded the breaking of the land monopoly
(Carranza, 2015). Since, the vast tracts of the country’s best agricultural lands had been in the hands of a
very few landowners. This contributed according directly to the widespread of poverty in rural areas.
Therefore, a comprehensive land reform program was deemed necessary to address rural poverty, with
landless farmers and tenants among the most affected groups (ADB, 2009).

The encomenderos became the first hacendados in the country. They acquired the right to collect
tribute from the natives. The tributes soon became land rents, and the people living within the
boundaries of the encomienda became tenants. Religious orders, mainly Dominicans and Augustin
became owners of vast tracts of friar land which was leased to natives and mestizos. Meanwhile the
colonial government took the place of the datus. The datu was now called cabeza de barangay, but it
was the proprietors of the estates who held the real power in the barangay or community. Thus “the
most significant Spanish innovation concerning property rights was the introduction of the concept of
legal title to land, that is private ownership” (Riedinger, 1995).

The American period: American colonizers attempted to establish land reform measures in the
Philippines for the first time in the 1930s. The first effort, initiated during The William H. Taft
administration, was able to purchase 166,000 hectares of friar landholdings to be distributed to about
60,000 tenants. However, it has been reported that because of the tenants’ ignorance of the law and
the colonial government’s policy of selling the lands at a very high price, the bulk of these estates went
to American firms, businessmen, and landlords (Adriano, 1991).

The Rice Tenancy Act (Public Act No. 4054) of 1933, also fostered by the American administration,
provided for a 50-50 sharing arrangement between the tenant and the landowner, a 10 percent interest
ceiling on loans by the tenants, and the non-dismissal of tenants on tenuous grounds. One of the
provisions, however, was that majority of the municipal council members should petition for the
implementation of the law in their place (Adriano, 1991).

A Commonwealth was established in 1935 and the Nationalist Party of Manuel Quezon dominated
Philippine electoral politics until World War II. Around this period, problems with land tenure gave rise
to armed uprisings, such as the Colorum Revolt in 1931 and the Sakdal Revolt, mounted by Benigno
Ramos in 1935

In 1935. Quezon implemented a program of social justice and espoused the concept of legal
protection of tenants. These rebellions were responding to deteriorating relations between landlords
and tenants, as increasing population and scarcity of land aggravated the already difficult situation of
tenants. Efforts to address these tensions were aborted during the Japanese occupation

The Japanese Period: Japan launched a surprise attack on the Philippines on December 8, 1941, just ten
hours after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Japanese occupied the Philippines during World War II. Tensions
between landlords and tenants escalated during this period. The Huk rebellion, which lasted from 1946
to 1954 is reflection of the deteriorating situation of the tenants due to land distribution inequalities.

Marcos Era Reforms: Ferdinand Marcos won the Presidency in 1965. In 1969 election, he was the first
President of the Philippines to win a second term in office. In 1972, Marcos declared Martial and
justified that part of his declaration, as a means of breaking the landed elite’s grip on Philippine politics
and attempting land distribution reform (Riedinger, 1995).

President Ferdinand Marcos declared the entire Philippines a land reform area. The first major
attempt at land reform was Presidential Decree No. 27, declared by President Marcos in 1972 under
Martial Law. Data on land distribution in 1971 showed that over half (52 percent) of all agricultural lands
were controlled by the top 15 percent of landowners.

Under the Presidential Decree No. 27, any tenant living on a rice or corn farm whose landlord had
more than seven hectares of land was eligible to purchase a piece of the land he had previously tilled."
Holdings of more than seven hectares were to be purchased and parceled out to individual tenants (up
to three hectares of irrigated, or five hectares of unirrigated, land), who would then pay off the value of
the land over a fifteen-year period. Sharecroppers on holdings of less than seven hectares were to be
converted to leaseholders, paying fixed rents.

The law potentially placed the bulk of agriculture lands under land reform except that the
coverage of PD27 was limited to rice and corn farmlands. Plantations and sugar lands thus were
protected from the program. On paper, the program was the most comprehensive ever attempted in
the Philippines, notwithstanding the fact that only rice and corn lands were included.
 In the country as a whole, however, the program was generally considered a failure. Only 20
percent of rice and corn land, or 10 percent of total farm land, was covered by the program, and in
1985, thirteen years after Marcos’s proclamation, 75 percent of the expected beneficiaries had not
become owner-cultivators. In fact, as Marcos searched for ways to maintain power, he abandoned his
initial impetus for agrarian reform and switched to favoring an industrial and agricultural elite

C. What is CARP (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program), or RA 6657?

When President Corazon Aquino came to power in 1986, CARP was introduced. CARP, or the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, is the redistribution of public and private agricultural lands to
farmers and farmworkers who are landless, irrespective of tenurial arrangement. The legal basis for
CARP is the Republic Act No. 6657 otherwise known as Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL)
signed by President Corazon C. Aquino on June 10, 1988. It is an act which aims to promote social justice
and industrialization, providing the mechanism for its implementation, and for other purposes. One of
the major programs of CARP is Land Tenure Improvement, which seeks to hasten distribution of lands to
landless farmers. Similarly, the Department offers Support Services to the beneficiaries such as
infrastructure facilities, marketing assistance program, credit assistance program, and technical support
programs. Furthermore, the department seeks to facilitate, resolve cases and deliver Agrarian Justice.

The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) is an expanded version of previous land
reform programs in the country beginning the mid-1930s. Similar to the early land reform initiatives,
CARP included both developmental and redistributive programs. The developmental program provides
for the disposal of public alienable and disposable (A&D) lands with the intent to open up frontier lands
while the redistributive program involves the redistribution of property or rights on private agricultural
lands and the abolition of agricultural (or share) tenancy.

Riedinger (1990, 1995) expresses skepticism and highlights the main shortcomings of CARP.

The 10-year implementation schedule encouraged evasion especially with the exemption of commercial
farms. Several exception laws facilitated the exclusion of certain large estates from CARP or reclassified
the land so the estate was off-limits for CARP. These exemptions occurred in some areas where
landlessness was the highest.
There was the issue of the corporate farms and their constitutional right to own land. With a retention
limit of 5 hectares, almost 85% of the land would be off-limits for the reform.

the practice of anticipatory and fraudulent land transfers.

A complex and unfair land valuation system, which favored landowners and gave rise to corruption.

the penalties for non-compliance with CARP were weak and the financial support was meager

Progress under the government’s land redistribution program has been slow due to inadequate funding,
administrative problems of surveying and land valuation, and opposition of landlords.