CASE STUDY 1: WHERE DID THE FIRST CATHOLIC MASS TAKE PLACE IN THE

PHILIPPINES?

There has always been a discourse about where the first mass in the Philippines took
place – was it in Butuan or Limasawa. Antonio Pigafetta’s accounts tell us that it happened on
Easter Sunday, 31st of March 1521, on an island that was called “Mazaua”. There are two
contradictory claims as to its identity: one point to the little island south of Leyte which in the
maps is called Limasawa; the other rejects that claim and points instead to the beach call Masao
at the mouth of the Agusan River in northern Mindanao, near what was then a village and now
the city of Butuan.

Masao, Butuan City Evidences

There was a monument erected in Butuan to commemorate the site of the first mass,
which happened on April 8, 1521, in the Philippines year 1872. Also, Gregorio Zaide – a Filipino
historian, author, and politician – from Pagsanjan, Laguna, claims that the location of the first
mass was in Butuan based on Antonio Pigafetta’s accounts. According to primary documents,
the expedition traveled 20 to 25 leagues from Homonhon, the first landing point. If they had been
to Limasawa Island, the distance is only 14.6 leagues or one-half of that length. Also, the
relevance of the name Masao, to Pigafetta’s account, Mazaua as the name of the island. Also,
American historians Emma Helen Blair and John Alexander Robertson claimed last 1909 that the
island of Mazaua is the present island of Limawasa but did not give an explanation, and former
President Carlos P. Garcia did not sign the law R.A. No. 2733, a bill that states Limasawa as the
site of which the first mass had happened.

Limasawa, Southern Leyte Evidences

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 the Magellan’s ships -
Trinidad. He was one of the 18 survivors who returned with Sebastian Elcano on 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. Francisco Albo’s log is Diario o der Otero del viage de Magallanes
Desde el Cabo se S. Agustin en el brazil hasta el regreso a Espana de la nao Victoria, Escrito por
Francisco Albo,” Document no. xxii in Collecion de viages y descubrimientos que hicieron por
mar Los Espanoles Desde fines del Siglo XV, Ed. Martin Fernandez de Navarrete (reprinted
Buenos Aires 1945, 5 Vols.) IV, 191-225. It should be highlighted that in Albo’s account, the
location of Mazaua fits the location of the Island of Limasawa, at the southern tip of Leyte. On
the other hand, another primary source is Pigafetta’s testimony on the route of Magellan’s
expedition and Pigafetta and the seven days in Mazaua. Base on the primary sources available,
Jesuit priest Miguel A. Bernad in his work 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 the stated river. It is an inquisitive
omission in the record of the river, which makes part of the distinct features of Butuan’s
geography that seemed to be extremely important to be missed.

The National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) maintained findings that
the Limasawa Island in Southern Leyte as the site of the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass, the first
Catholic mass in the country, as they have conducted for there have been requests in
authenticating the site of the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass. These requests were made just right in
time for the 500th anniversary of the start of Christianity in the country in 2021. Some
enthusiasts insisted that Butuan City in Agusan del Norte is the authentic site of the first Catholic
mass in the country, as evidenced by a statue constructed in 1872 in Magallanes town
commemorating the said religious event that happened there. After doing trips in Butuan and
Limasawa as a portion of the research, the NHCP panel obtained no adequate evidence that the
capital of Agusan del Norte hosted the first Catholic mass in the nation. The committee
unanimously agreed that the shreds of evidence and cases presented by the pro-Butuan advocates
are not sufficient and persuasive enough to warrant the revocation or reversal of the judgment on
the case by the NHI (National Historical Institute), indicating that the former rulings made by the
commission's predecessor National Historical Institute in 1995 and 2008 asserting Limasawa as
the actual site of the first Catholic mass in the country. The NHCP panel also reviewed the Italian
and French versions of Italian chronicler Antonio Pigafetta’s records in the Magellan-Elcano
voyage, which revealed the coordinates of the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass are closer to Limasawa.
The national historical commission also scrutinized the 1895 journal reports of historians
Trinidad Pardo de Tavera and Pablo Pastells, SJ, which revisited Pigafetta’s accounts and
highlighted that Limasawa, not Butuan, as the place of the first Catholic mass in the country. The
1971 journey of naval historian Samuel Eliot Morison and Colombian historian Mauricio
Obregon and the chronicles of Spanish naval engineer Ignacio Fernandez Vial and merchant
marine captain Jose Luis Ugarte reinspected the Magellan-Elcano voyage and concluded that
Limasawa is the site of the premier Catholic mass in the country.

Base on the aforementioned pieces of evidence, therefore it is concluded that the first
Catholic Mass in the Philipines was held on March 31, 1521, Easter Sunday. It was officiated by
a priest named Father Pedro Valderrama upon the orders of Portuguese navigator Ferdinand
Magellan in the shore of Mazaua in Pigafetta’s journal, whom people believe is the town
particularly in the shore of Limasawa in Southern Leyte. It is popularly known as the birthplace
of the Roman Catholicism in the Philippines, which prevails as the nation's dominant religion in
the country up until now.

References:

Yumol, D. (2020). NHCP affirms Limasawa Island as site of first Catholic mass in the country.
Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://www.cnn.ph/news/2020/8/20/NHCP-affirms-
Limasawa-Island-as-site-of-first-Catholic-mass-in-the-country.html

Castro Follow, F. (2019, August 12). Case study 1. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from
https://www.slideshare.net/FayeCastro2/case-study-1-163036166

Castro Follow, F. (2019, August 12). Case study 1. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from
https://www.slideshare.net/FayeCastro2/case-study-1-163036166
 CASE STUDY 2: WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CAVITE MUTINY?

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

1872 Cavite Mutiny: Spanish Perspective

Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian documented the event and highlighted it
as an attempt of the Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines. Meanwhile,
Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo’s official report magnified the event and made use of it to implicate
the native clergy, which was then active in the call for secularization. The two accounts
complimented and corroborated with one other, only that the general’s report was more spiteful.
Initially, both Montero and Izquierdo scored out that the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the
workers of Cavite arsenal such as non-payment of tributes and exemption from force labor were
the main reasons of the “revolution” as how they called it, however, other causes were
enumerated by them including the Spanish Revolution which overthrew the secular throne, dirty
propagandas proliferated by unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and republican books and
pamphlets reaching the Philippines, and most importantly, the presence of the native clergy who
out of animosity against the Spanish friars, “conspired and supported” the rebels and enemies of
Spain. In particular, Izquierdo blamed the unruly Spanish Press for “stockpiling” malicious
propagandas grasped by the Filipinos. He reported to the King of Spain that the “rebels” wanted
to overthrow the Spanish government to install a new “hari” in the likes of Fathers Burgos and
Zamora. The general even added that the native clergy enticed other participants by giving them
charismatic assurance that their fight will not fail because God is with them coupled with
handsome promises of rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the army. Izquierdo, in
his report lambasted the Indios as gullible and possessed an innate propensity for stealing.
 The two Spaniards deemed that the event of 1872 was planned earlier and was thought of it
as a big conspiracy among educated leaders, mestizos, abogadillos or native lawyers, residents of
Manila and Cavite and the native clergy. They insinuated that the conspirators of Manila and
Cavite planned to liquidate high-ranking Spanish officers to be followed by the massacre of the
friars. The alleged pre-concerted signal among the conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the
firing of rockets from the walls of Intramuros.

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

When the news reached the iron-fisted Gov. Izquierdo, he readily ordered the reinforcement
of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The “revolution” was easily crushed when the
expected reinforcement from Manila did not come ashore. Major instigators including Sergeant
Lamadrid were killed in the skirmish, while the GOMBURZA were tried by a court-martial and
were sentenced to die by strangulation. Patriots like Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma.
Regidor, Jose and 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.

A Response to Injustice: The Filipino Version 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.

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
Two important events occurred in 1872, first was the 1872 Cavite Mutiny, and the other
was the suffering of the three martyr priests in the forms of Fathers Mariano Gomes, Jose
Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora (GOMBURZA). However, not all of us grasped that there were
several accounts of the stated event. All Filipinos should know the various sides of the story
since this event led to another tragic, yet meaningful part of our history. The execution of
GOMBURZA which in effect a major factor in the awakening of nationalism among the
Filipinos.

1872 Cavite Mutiny: Spanish Perspective

Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian documented the event and highlighted it
as an attempt of the Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines. Meanwhile,
Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo’s official report magnified the event and made use of it to implicate
the native clergy, which was then active in the call for secularization. The two accounts
complemented 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 forced labor were
the main reasons of the “revolution” as to 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
a charismatic assurance that their fight will not fail because God is with them coupled with
handsome promises of rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the army. Izquierdo, in
his report, lambasted the Indios as gullible and possessed an innate propensity for stealing.

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

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

When the news reached the iron-fisted Gov. Izquierdo, he readily ordered the reinforcement
of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The “revolution” was easily crushed when the
expected reinforcement from Manila did not come ashore. Major instigators including Sergeant
Lamadrid were killed in the skirmish, while the GOMBURZA were tried by a court-martial and
were sentenced to die by strangulation. Patriots like Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma.
Regidor, Jose, and 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 an artillery force to be composed exclusively of the Peninsulares.

On 17 February 1872 in an attempt by 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.

A Response to Injustice: The Filipino Version 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 the 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’ insight. 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 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 the 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 despite the native clergy’s zest for secularization.

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 to 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 the
Philippine Revolution of 1896. The French writer Edmund Plauchut’s account complimented
Tavera’s account by confirming that the event happened due to the 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 witnessed.

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.

The road to independence was rough and tough to toddle, many patriots named and
unnamed shed their blood 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 freedom, 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.”

In conclusion there was an uprising revolution on the side of Filipinos and the three priest
named Mariano Gomes, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, respectively were executed because
they were accused of being the masterminds or the said revolution.

References:

The Two Faces of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny. (2015, September 06). Retrieved October 11, 2020,
from https://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/
 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.

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. 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.

Document of retraction by Rizal translated from the document found by Fr. Manuel
Garcia on 18 May 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 have caused and so that God and people may pardon
me.”
 The reason behind this account, was the arrival of Josephine Bracken as he fell in love
with her, he wanted to marry this woman according to the cannon law. However, the guide of
Bracken and her step father, Manuela Orlac, objected the plan of Rizal, the guide stated that
Rizal cannot do so unless he signs a profession of faith to the Catholic Church. So this means he
would really write a retraction formula by then which would be checked by the archbishop of
Cebu. But according to Professor Agustin Craig, his close friend Father Obach, the priest in
Dapitan shared to him that Rizal realizing "late" that this retraction was the one thing that friars
has been waiting to get from him so he hurriedly reclaims the letter as Obach was already set to
send the mail to the archbishop of Cebu. Within this argument, it can be concluded that some
way or another, Rizal did really retract just in order to marry Bracken by the canon law.

The Balaguer Testimony

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. Rizal then wrote his retraction
after making some modifications in the document. In his retraction, he disavowed Masonry and
religious thoughts that opposed Catholic belief. “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. Popularly
known as the Katipunan and Rizal documents, the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila is a body of
documents on the Philippine revolutions that contains confidential reports, transcripts, clippings,
and photographs from Spanish and Philippine newspapers.

Another eyewitness account surfaced in 2016, through the research of professor Rene R.
Escalante. In his research, documents the Cuerpo De Vigilancia included a report on the last
hours of Rizal, written by Federico Moreno.

The Testimony of Cuerpo De Vigilancia

Source: Michael Charleston Chua, "Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga Bagong Dokumento at
Pananaw," GMA news online, Published 29 December 2016
Last hours of Rizal;

At 7:50 yesterday morning, Jose Rizal entered death row accompanied by his counsel,
Señor Taviel de Andrade, and the Jesuit priest Vilaclara. Señor Andrade left death row at 10 and
Rizal Spoke for long while with the Jesuit fathers, March and Vilaclara, regarding religious
matters, it seems. At 3 in the afternoon, Father March entered the chapel and Rizal handed him
what he had written. At 5 in the morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal Arrived at the prison
dressed in mourning.

Rizal's Connection to Katipunan

Precursor of Katipunan as an organization is the La Liga Filipina, an organization

founded by Rizal with Andres Bonifacio as one of its members. Rizal may not have been
officially part of the Katipunan, but the Katipuneros showed great appreciation of his work
toward the same goals. Out of the 28 members of the leadership of the Katipunan, 13 were
former members of La Liga Filipina. Katipuneros even used Rizal's name as a password.
Katipuneros decided to inform Rizal of their plans to launch the revolution.

Connection to Katipunan

Did Jose Rizal really retract? First was the copy of the retraction paper that was allegedly
signed by Rizal that was even kept secret and was only published in newspapers. When Rizal’s
family requested for the original copy, it was said that it was lost. Could the Jesuits be this
irresponsible to not know the value of the paper? Or was it just hidden? Why would Rizal retract
when he knows for a fact that even if he signs the retraction paper he would still be executed?
Since the Archbishop and Jesuits cannot do anything to mitigate his penalty because the judicial
process involved was purely a military tribunal where civilian or church interference was
uncommon and not allowed. Rizal was accused of participating in filibusterous propaganda
where the penalty as provided by the Spanish Code is death. The same of what happened to the
three priests who were executed years earlier, even though they were still a part of the church;
they were still treated as rebellious and were also not given a proper burial.

It was argued that Rizal retracted in order to save his family from further persecution, to
give Josephine Bracken a legal status as his wife and to assure reforms from the Spanish
government. It is more likely to be of Rizal’s mentality however, come to think of it, would Rizal
just simply neglect all the writing he conceived with his hard work? The same writings that
brought him to the point of being executed? Let us look at Rizal’s character as a man aged 33. He
was mature enough to realize the consequences of the choice he had made even before he
opposed to the Jesuits; he had been anticipating this to happen and would be unlikely if he had a
behavior showing a threat from death. Anyone who has been studying his biography and had
been acquainted with him knows this is so, even the priests had admitted that Rizal showed a
behavior consistent of what he was throughout his mature years.

In the Philippines today, forgery is usually resorted to redirect the flow of money from the
rightful beneficiary to the unworthy pockets of invisible people. That money is usually the target
of forgery is known and practiced all over the world, but forgery in the hands of the wily, has
power to effect a redirection of events and undoing of history. It has the power to obscure or
believe an occurrence or create an event that did not actually transpire. It also has the power to
enslave and destroy.

The document of the retraction of Jose Rizal, too, is being hotly debated as to its authenticity.
It was supposed to have been signed by Jose Rizal moments before his death. There were many
witnesses, most of them Jesuits. The document only surfaced for public viewing on May 13,
1935. It was found by Fr. Manuel A. Garcia at the Catholic hierarchy’s archive in Manila. But the
original document was never shown to the public, only reproductions of it. However, Fr. Pio Pi, a
Spanish Jesuit, reported that as early as 1907, the retraction of Rizal was copied verbatim and
published in Spain, and reprinted in Manila. Fr. Garcia, who found the original document, also
copied it verbatim. In both reproductions, there were conflicting versions of the text. Add to this
the date of the signing was very clear in the original Spanish document which Rizal supposedly
signed. The date was “December 29, 1890.” Later, another supposedly original document
surfaced, it bears the date “December 29, 189C”. The number “0” was evidently altered to make
it look like a letter C. Then still later, another supposedly original version came up. It has the
date “December 29, 1896”. This time, the “0” became a “6”. So which is which? Those who
strongly believed the faking of the Rizal retraction document, reported that the forger of Rizal’s
signature was Roman Roque, the man who also forged the signature of Urbano Lacuna, which
was used to capture Aguinaldo. The mastermind, they say, in both Lacuna’s and Rizal’s signature
forging was Lazaro Segovia. They were approached by Spanish friars during the final day of the
Filipino-American war to forge Rizal’s signature. This story was revealed by Antonio K. Abad,
who heard the tale from Roman Roque himself, them being neighbours.

To this day, the retraction issue is still raging like a wild fire in the forest of the night.
Others would like to believe that the purported retraction of Rizal was invented by the friars to
deflect the heroism of Rizal which was centered on the friar abuses. Incidentally, Fr. Pio Pi, who
copied verbatim Rizal’s retraction, also figured prominently during the revolution. It was him,
Andres Bonifacio reported, who had intimated to Aguinaldo the cessation of agitation in
exchange of pardon. There are also not a few people who believe that the autobiography of
Josephine Bracken, written on February 22, 1897 is also forged and forged badly. The document
supposedly written by Josephine herself supported the fact that they were married under the
Catholic rites. But upon closer look, there is a glaring difference between the penmanship of the
document, and other letters written by Josephine to Rizal. Also, there is no source document to
be found that proves Rizal and Bracken’s marriage.

In conclusion, Rizal retracted based on the documents that surfaced. 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 according to Dr. Augusto De Viana, head of UST’s Department of History.

References:

Nombrado, S. (n.d.). Phil History. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://prezi.com/p/_fudy_-
mzcaj/phil-history/

The Rizal Retraction and other cases. (2015, September 06). Retrieved October 11, 2020, from
https://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-other-cases/

Santos, T. (2011, October 09). Rizal's retraction: Truth vs Myth. Retrieved October 11, 2020,
from https://varsitarian.net/news/20111004/rizals_retraction_truth_vs_myth
 CASE STUDY 4: WHERE DID THE CRY OF PUGAD REBELLION HAPPENED?

The “Cry of Rebellion” marks the start of the revolutionary events that swept the Spanish
colonies in the late 19th century. This happens on August 1896, northeast of Manila.
Controversies arise as to when and where this event happened. Teodoro Agoncillo said it was
when Bonifacio tore the cedula before the Katipuneros while others say it was when Aguinaldo
commissioned the “Himno de Balintawak” after the pact of Biak – na – Bato failed. A monument
for the heroes of 1896 was erected at the corner of Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA) and in
Bonifacio Drive on 1962 and then on the Cry was celebrated every 26th of August. Various
accounts say different places and dates of the Cry. The Cry happened in Balintawak on August
25, 1896 according to Lt. Olegario Diaz. Also, the Cry happened in Balintawak on August 25,
1896 according to Teodoro M. Kalaw (a historian).

Dates and Places of the Cry Primary Sources

Santiago Alvarez is Katipunero and the son of Mariano Alvarez, a leader of Magdiwang
Faction in Cavite said it happened in Bahay Toro in Quezon City on August 24, 1896.

Pio Valenzuela is also a Katipunero and privy in many events concerning Katipunan said
it happened at Pugad Lawin on 23rd of August.

Gregorio Zaide identified that it happened at Balintawak, 26th of August.

Teodoro Agoncillo put it at Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896 in accordance to Pio
Valenzuela’s account.

Guillermo Masangkay’s Account

On August 26, 1896, a big meeting was held at Antonio Samson, Cabeza of Balintawak in
Caloocan. Present were Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Aguedo del Rosario, Tomas Remigio,
Briccio Pantas, Teodoro Plata, Pio Valenzuela, Enrique Pacheco and Francisco Carreon: all
leaders of Katipunan and Board of Directors of the organization. Also present are delegates from
Bulacan, Cabanatuan, Cavite and Morong. The meeting was opened by Bonifacio at 9 o’clock in
the morning while Jacinto act as secretary with the agenda of when the uprising would take
place. Plata, Pantas, and Valenzuela opposed the idea for it is too early for the rebellion for them.
Bonifacio went out sensing he would lose the discussion. Bonifacio appealed to the people
outside saying his speech and the people responded shouting: “You remember the fate of our
countrymen who were shot at Bagumbayan …… Our organization has been discovered and we
are marked men. If we don’t start the uprising the Spaniards will get us anyway. What then you
say?” “Revolt!” Bonifacio asked the people’s pledge and told them that the sign of Spanish
slavery to Filipinos were the cedula. “If it is true that you are ready to revolt …. I want to see
you destroy your cedulas. It will be a sign that all of us have declared our severance from the
Spaniards”

Pio Valenzuela’s Account

On August 19, 1896, Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Procopio Bonifacio, Teodoro
Plata and Aguedo del Rosario arrived at Balintawak. On August 20, 1896 Pio Valenzuela arrived
on that place. On August 22, 1896, the first place where some 500 Katipuneros met was the
house of Apolonio Samson at Kangkong. Also present were Briccio Pantas, Alejandro Santiago,
Ramon Bernardo, Apolonio Samson, and others. On August 23, 1896, the debate to whether the
revolution starts on August 29, 1896 or not was carried out in Pugad Lawin, in the yard of Juan
Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino, where 1000 Katipuneros were gathered. After the turbulent
meeting, many of those present tore their cedula certificates and shouted: “Long live the
Philippines! … Long live the Philippines!”

With the accounts presented, there is a markable disagreement to where and when the Cry
happenned. Using primary and secondary sources, it happened in four places: Balintawak,
Kangkong, Pugad Lawin and Bahay Toro, while the dates differ: 23, 24, 25, or 26th of August
1986. In Valenzuela’s account, he once told the Spanish investigators that the Cry happened on
Wednesday, 26th of August in Balintawak but later in his work “Memoirs of the Revolution” he
said it happened at Pugad Lawin on 23rd of August. According to Guerrero, Encarnacion and
Villegas, these places are in Balintawak, formerly in Caloocan, now, in Quezon City. For the
dates, this is due to Bonifacio’s movement from different place from time to time in evading the
Spanish Government who were pursuing the Katipuneros. This explains why there are several
accounts of the Cry.

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.

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.

Some writers consider the first military engagement with the enemy as the defining
moment of the Cry. To commemorate this martial event upon his return from exile in Hong
Kong, Emilio Aguinaldo commissioned a “Himno de Balintawak” to herald renewed fighting
after the failed peace of the pact of Biyak na Bato.

On 3 September 1911, a monument to the Heroes of 1896 was erected in what is now the
intersection of Epifanio de los Santos Avenue and Andres Bonifacio Drive –North Doversion
Road. From that time on until 1962, the Cry of Balintawak was officially celebrated every 26
August.

It is not clear why the 1911 monument was erected there. It could not have been to mark
the site of Apolonio Samson’s house in barrio Kangkong; Katipuneros marked that site on
Kaingin Road, between Balintawak and San Francisco del Monte Avenue. Neither could the
1911 monument have been erected to mark the site of the first armed encounter which,
incidentally, the Katipuneros fought and won. A contemporary map of 1896 shows that the
August battle between the Katipunan rebels and the Spanish forces led by Lt. Ros of the Civil
Guards took place at sitio Banlat, North of Pasong Tamo Road far from Balintawak. The site has
its own marker.

It is quite clear that first, eyewitnesses cited Balintawak as the better-known reference
point for a larger area. Second, while Katipunan may have been massing in Kangkong, the
revolution was formally launched elsewhere. Moreover, eyewitnesses and therefore historians,
disagreed on the site and date of the Cry.

But the issue did not rest there. 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.

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

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.

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

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

The NHI files on the committee’s findings show the following: In August 1983, Pugad Lawin in
barangay Bahay Toro was inhabited by squatter colonies. The NHI believed that it was correct in
looking for the house of Juan Ramos and not of Tandang Sora. However, the former residence of
Juan Ramos was clearly defined. There was an old dap-dap tree at the site when the NHI
conducted its survey I 1983. Teodoro Agoncillo, Gregorio Zaide and Pio Valenzuela do not
mention a dap-dap tree in their books. Pio Valenzuela, the main proponent of the “Pugad Lawin”
version, was dead by the time the committee conducted its research. Teodoro Agoncillo tried to
locate the marker installed in August 1962 by the UP Student Council. However, was no longer
extant in 1983.

In spite of the above findings and in the absence of any clear evidence, the NHI
disregarded its own 1964 report that the Philippine Historical Committee had determined in 1940
that the Pugad Lawin residence was Tandang Sora’s and not Juan Ramos’s and that the specific
site of Pugad Lawin was Gulod in Banlat. The presence of the dap-dap tree in the Pugad Lawin
site determined by Agoncillo and the NHI is irrelevant, since none of the principals like Pio
Valenzuela, Santiago Alvarez, and others, nor historians like Zaide- and even Agoncillo himself
before that instance- mentioned such a tree.

On the basis of the 1983 committee’s findings, the NHI placed a marker on 23 August
1984 on Seminary Road in barangay Bahay Toro behind Toro Hills High School, the Quezon
City General Hospital and the San Jose Seminary. It reads:

Ang Sigaw ng Pugad Lawin (1896)

Sa paligid ng pook na ito, si Andres Bonifacio at mga isang libong Katipunero at nagpulong
noong umaga ng ika-23 Agosto 1896, at ipinasyang maghimagsik laban sa Kastila sa Pilipinas.
Bilang patunay ay pinag-pupunit ang kanilang mga sedula na 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.

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

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

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

What can we conclude from all of these? First, that “Pugad Lawin” was never officially
recognized as a place name on any Philippine map before Second World War. Second, “Pugad
Lawin” appeared in historiography only from 1928, or some 32 years after the events took place.
And third, the revolution was always traditionally held to have occurred in the area of
Balintawak, which was distinct from Kalookan and Diliman. Therefore, while the toponym
“Pugad Lawin” is more romantic, it is more accurate to stick to the original “Cry of Balintawak.”
References:

Malubay, E. (2019). Cry of Rebellion. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from

https://prezi.com/p/pmxxkpjgl7ty/cry-of-rebellion/

Guerrero, M., Encarnacion, E., & Villegas, R. (n.d.). In Focus: Balintawak: The Cry for a
Nationwide Revolution. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from http://gwhs-
stg02.i.gov.ph/~s2govnccaph/about-culture-and-arts/in-focus/balintawak-the-cry-for-a-
nationwide-revolution/

Salazar, K. (2018). Cry of Pugadlawin or Balintawak. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from
https://prezi.com/p/r9v71jn3dekg/cry-of-pugadlawin-or-balintawak/