Kingfisher School of Business and Finance

Mac Arthur Highway, Lucao District, Dagupan City

Performance Task No. 4:

Case Study about Different Historical Event in the Philippines

Case Studies
Presented to the Faculty of the
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT

In Partial Fulfillment
Of the
Requirements for the Subject
History 21: Readings in Philippine History

Submitted by:

Cabrera, Crystal Joyce R.

(1st year BSA)

Submitted to:

Mr. Leo P. Mamaril, LPT.

(College Instructor)
 CASE STUDY 1: Where did the first Catholic Mass take place in the Philippines?

I. Introduction

Somebody generally linked the introduction of Christianity on Philippine shores to the

celebration of the first Holy Mass between Butuan City and Limasawa, Southern Leyte, both
claim to be the venue of this historical religious rite. Butuan has long believed as the site of the
first Mass. It has been the case for three centuries, culminating in the erection of a monument
in 1872 near Agusan River, which commemorates the expedition's arrival and celebration of
Mass on April 8, 1521. But then, the National Historical Institute (NHI) has already concluded a
two-year study. In 1996, it reaffirmed the popular belief propelled by Republic Act 2733 that the
first Holy Mass was celebrated in Limasawa Island on March 31, 1521.

II. Body

The first Mass and the first baptism are the two utmost historical ministerial events that
focus on the quincentennial celebrations sanctioned by the CBCP and the Archdiocese of Cebu.
Cebu has identified as the first baptism site with Rajah Humabon, Queen Juana, and hundreds
of community members being the early converts. According to the accounts of Antonio
Pigafetta, a Venetian scholar and explorer and the chronicler of the Magellan-Elcano expedition.
Based on his account, the first baptism was on April 14, 1521, and the first Mass was celebrated
on March 31, 1521, an Easter Sunday. Pigafetta named to the venue as "Mazaua." Some say that
the medium is the island of Limasawa in Leyte. Several people, however, claim that Pigafetta
was referring to Masao, the community at Agusan River's mouth adjacent to Butuan's city.
Others say that the venue is the island of Limasawa in Leyte.

"As far as our history books, the first Mass is in Limasawa. But other places are claiming
that the first Mass was held in their locality. The historical commission somehow opens the
discussion among experts and historians," Mejia said.

Also, the differences concerning the documented latitudinal locations of Masawa and
Limasawa, as reported by the different chroniclers of that time, favor the former more than the
latter. It can be argued that the precision of these approximations, given the facilities of that
time, may not be that precise. Besides, there can also be strong motives for intentionally wrong
latitudinal locations to mislead enemies and competitors.

Another argument forwarded is that at that time, Masawa in Butuan had some
precedence over Limasawa since Masawa had a safe and prosperous harbor while Limasawa did
not have one at that time.

The NHI cited the memoirs of Antonio Pigafetta, who chronicled the expedition of
Ferdinand Magellan, as "the only credible primary source that yields the best evidence of the
celebration of the first Christian Mass on Philippine soil." This issue, however, remains
debatable despite the pronouncement from the NHI. The NHCP Board of Commissioners signed
Resolution No. 2 on July 15, adopting the report submitted by the investigating panel on the
1521 Easter Sunday Mass in the Philippines. The committee was formed in November 2018 after
several institutions, such as the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines, made requests
to authenticate the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass site. The claims have been completed in time for
the 500th anniversary of Christianity's introduction to the country in 2021.

"The panel recommended that Limasawa Island, Southern Leyte, be sustained as the site
of the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass," the commission concluded on their findings.

Some proponents insisted on Butuan City in Agusan del Norte as the real site of the first
Catholic Mass in the country, as evidenced by a monument erected in 1872 in Magallanes town
commemorating the said religious event that happened there. Using the primary source
available, Jesuit priest Miguel A. Bernad in his work Butuan or Limasawa: The Site of the First
Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of Evidence (1981), lays down the argument that in
the Pigafetta account, a crucial aspect of Butuan was not mentioned- the river. Butuan is the
riverine settlement, situated on the Agusan River. After making trips in Butuan and Limasawa as
part of their research, the NHCP panel found no sufficient evidence that the capital of Agusan
del Norte hosted the first Catholic Mass in the country.

"The panel unanimously agreed that the evidence and arguments presented by the pro-
Butuan advocates are not sufficient and convincing enough to warrant the repeal or reversal of
the ruling on the case by the NHI (National Historical Institute)." The NHCP panel said, citing the
previous rulings made by the commission's forerunner National Historical Institute in 1995 and
2008 affirming Limasawa as the original site of the first Catholic Mass in the country.

III. Conclusion

In conclusion, the first Catholic Mass in the Philippines was held on March 31, 1521,
Easter Sunday. It was officiated by a priest named Father Pedro Valderrama in the shore of
Mazaua in Pigafetta's journal, whom people believe is the town specifically in the shore of
Limasawa in Southern Leyte.

IV. Reference

Danao, E. (2015, January 23) Where was the first Mass in the Philippines held? The Manila
Times. Retrieve from: https://www.manilatimes.net/2015/01/23/opinion/columnists/first-mass-
philippines-held/157730/

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

Fr. Cimagala, R. (2018, June 7) Where did the first Mass in the Philippines take place? Retrieve
from: https://www.panaynews.net/where-did-the-first-mass-in-the-philippines-take-place/

Ragas, E. (2018, July 22) Case Study 1. Retrieve from: https://prezi.com/ni9p-xd9vuhp/case-

study-1/
 CASE STUDY 2: What happened in the Cavite Mutiny?

I. Introduction

In 1872 is the controversy of Cavite mutiny where the Filipino soldier and the labourer
often portraying as a new start by the friars to eliminate the people involved in the incident. The
revolt is a rebellion against the Spaniard. And around 200 soldiers and labourers believe that it
would be elevated to a national uprising. After all, the mutiny dints successful, and the soldiers
were executed and imprisoned. Gov. Izquirdo uses the incident to frame the three priests:
Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora and executed by the garrotte on February 17,
1872.

In 1872 the Filipino soldier and the labourer launched their rebellion against the Spanish
because they force them to pay the taxes and forced to work. In the late of January they punish
and sentenced the 41 mutineers to death who involved in the rebellion, and also the Spanish
are finding the ones that are involved in assisting the soldiers including the 3 priests that
executed by garrotte. The 3 priest who executed on February 17, 1872, at Bagumbayan is
Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora. This controversy is one of the most many
people die because they fight for their rights as a citizen of the Philippines. Filipino people know
as never and ever going to be a slave for other people and to another country that's why they’re
so many Filipino’s hero’s dies because their fight for our country rights to get our freedom from
the hands of the conqueror.

II. Body

The controversy of the Cavite Mutiny has two versions, which are the Spanish perspective, and
the Filipino version.

1872 Cavite Mutiny: Spanish Perspective and Filipino version

The documented the event by a Spanish historian, Jose Montero Y Vidal. According to his
account and features as an attempt of the Indios to overthrow the Spanish in the Philippines.
According to one source in 1872, the event was planned and was thought of as a big scheme.
And base on the statement of two Spaniards, on January 20, 1872, there is a big mistake
happened. In the district of the Sampaloc, they are celebrating the feast of Virgin Loreto.
Filipinos have a hobby that if there is an occasion, they usually use a fireworks display as a
symbol of the announcement of special occasion, and those people in Cavite who planned to
have a rebellion against to Spaniards mistook the firework as a sign of the attack and led to the
death of 200 men by Sergeant Lamadrid. After what happened, the news spread and reached
Gov. Izquirdo, and he immediately ordered the reinforcement of the Spanish to end the mutiny.

This is where the Gomburza was trial by the court-martial and decided to sentence to
imprison and executed along with the other people who were involved in the revolt. And
according to the Filipino version, Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera blamed Gov.
Izquirdo’s policies such as the act of the rights of the workers and native army members of the
arsenal and the forbidding of the founding of the school of the arts and dealing for the Filipinos,
which they believe that the abolition is planned as a cover-up for the organization of the
political club.

The evidence stated by the people involved in the incident in Cavite; Some of their
evidence it’s not easy to stand.

III. Conclusion

Positive Stand

After the study of the evidence presented by Dr. Trinidad Padro de Tavera which is the
Filipino version, he believes that the Spanish friars and Izquirdo use the Cavite mutiny to assign
a new king to rule the government. According to Tavera that the la Madrid government believe
that the scheme was true without investigating the real facts and also Tavera confirmed that the
event .happened due to the unhappiness of the workers and soldier in Cavite fort. The abolition
is to enjoy the freedom by the workers of Cavite arsenal such, non-payment of tributes from
forced labor was the main reason for the revolution.
Negative Stand

Gov. Izquirdo uses the Cavite mutiny to blame the 3 priests that in involved in the
incident so that they can stall a new king that will rule the government. Also Izquirdo, exacting
personal taxes from Filipino workers, and requiring them to perform forced labour like ordinary
subjects. After the incident happens Gov. Izquirdo quelled the revolt and punishes the people
who are involved in the incident.

Final Stand

By looking and study hard the evidence given of the incident my final stand is Filipino

version which is account of Dr. Tinidad Padro de Tavera because according to the evidence

the mutiny happened because of the cruel of the government. And one people account

which is Frenchman writer (Edmund Plauchut’s) complimented Tavera’s account by

confirming that the event happened due to dissatisfaction of the arsenal workers and

soldiers in Cavite fort.

The road to independence was rough and tough to toddle, many patriots named and

unnamed shed their bloods to attain reforms and achieve independence. 12 June 1898 may

be a glorious event for us, but we should not forget that before we came across to victory,

our forefathers suffered enough. As we enjoy our 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.”
IV. References

Piedad-Pugay, C. (2012). The two faces of the 1872 Cavite mutiny. Retrieved on September 12,
2012 from: http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/

Pino, G. (2019). Cavite celebrates history, traditions this June. Retrieved on June 4, 2019 from:
https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1071473

Guia, J. (2012). Cavite: the historical Capital of the Philippines. Retrieved on June 20, 2012
from: https://www.vigattintourism.com/tourism/articles/Cavite-The-Historical-Capital-of-The-
Philippines
 CASE STUDY 3: Did Rizal Retract?

I. Introduction

The flow of history is as inescapable as the tidal flow of an angry ocean. But so often in
our collective recollection, it is remembered that sometimes the skillful use of forgery can divert
the flow of history itself. Fraud is usually resorted to diverting money from the rightful
beneficiary to invisible people's unworthy pockets in the Philippines today. That money is the
target of forgery is known and practiced worldwide, but fraud in the wily's hands has the power
to effect a redirection of events and undoing of history. It can obscure or believe an occurrence
or create an event that did not take place.

Jose Rizal is identified as a hero of the revolution for his writings that center on ending
colonialism and liberating Filipino minds to create the Filipino nation. Rizal's lifework's
significant volume 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
primary agents of injustice in the Philippine society.

II. Body

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

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 the son of the Catholic Church.”

The controversy, whether the National Hero 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.
 In a letter to Ferdinand Blumentritt shortly after the execution, Fredrich Stahl, a Manila
pharmacist, wrote:

"On the day of the execution, the Spaniards published an article in all the local papers,
according to which, Rizal, in a written declaration made by him on the day of his death,
retracted all his writings and deeds and proclaims himself to be a repentant sinner and a loyal
Spaniard. But nobody here believes this, as the Spaniards publish the same thing about
everyone who is shot. Besides, nobody has ever seen his written declaration. It is in the hands
of the archbishop."

The following assertions bring about the testimonies that Rizal did not retract before his
execution.

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 the
original copy, it is said to have lost. Could the Jesuits be this irresponsible not to know the value
of the paper? Or was it just hidden?

Thirty-nine years later, the original copy was found in the archdiocesan archives. Ricardo
Pascual Ph. D, who was given permission by the Archbishop Nozaleda to examine the document
and later concluded in his book, “Rizal beyond the Grave” that the documents presented was a
forgery. The common rebuttal of this argument was either Father Balaguer or Father Pi had
made errors in reproducing another copy of the original.

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.

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 to 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 were 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 revolution that contains confidential reports,
transcripts, clippings, and photographs from Spanish and Philippine newspapers. 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.

III. Conclusion

In conclusion, somebody argued that Rizal retracted to save his family from further
persecution, give Josephine Bracken a legal status as his wife, and ensure reforms from the
Spanish government. It is more likely to be of Rizal's mentality; however, come to think of it,
would Rizal neglect all the writing he conceived with his hard work? Let us look at Rizal's
character as a managed 33. He was mature enough to realize the consequences of Rizal's choice
even before 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 acquainted with him knows this is so. Even the priests had admitted that
Rizal showed behavior consistent with what he was throughout his mature years.
 Whatever further study that may emerge as to the truth about Rizal's retraction
controversy, "It detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino."

IV. Reference

Santos, T (2011, October 4) Rizal’s Retraction: Truth vs Myth. Retrieve from:

https://varsitarian.net/news/20111004/rizals_retraction_truth_vs_myth

Nombrado, SJ (2019, February 20) Phil History. Retrieve from: https://prezi.com/p/_fudy_-

mzcaj/phil-history/

Posted under General History. Retrieve from:

https://kahimyang.com/kauswagan/articles/2247/did-rizal-really-retracted-all-his-words-and-
deeds-about-the-chruch-moments-before-his-execution
 CASE STUDY 4: Where did the Cry of Rebellion happened?

I. Introduction

The “Cry of Rebellion” marks the start of the revolutionary events that swept the
Spanish colonies in the late 19th century. This happens in August 1896, northeast of Manila. A
journalist from the nineteenth-century used the phrase “el Grito de rebelion” or “the Cry of
Rebellion” o 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 Philippine Revolution against over three centuries of Spanish domination began with
Andrés Bonifacio, leader of the Katipunan, a liberalist movement that sought independence for
the Philippines from Spanish colonial rule. The Katipunan was an offshoot from José Rizal’s La
Liga Filipina, a movement that sought to bring about political reform in the colonial government
of the Spanish. Rizal had been deported just after his organization was formed with their first
meeting.

II. Body

Controversies

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 in 1962 and then on the Cry was
celebrated every 26th of August.

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 in April 1895, in the Pamitinan Caves where a group of Katipunan members wrote on
the cave walls, “Viva la Independencia 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 Biak-na-Bato.

Determining the date

The final stand of NHI is that the Cry of Rebellion 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.

III. Conclusion

With the accounts presented, there is a markable disagreement to where and when the
Cry happened. 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 the 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 a 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.
IV. Reference

Malubay, EM. (2019, April 17) Cry of Rebellion. Retrieve from:

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

Guerrero, Encarnacion, and Villegas (2003, June 6) In Focus: Balintawak: The Cry for a
Nationwide Revolution. Retrieve from: http://gwhs-stg02.i.gov.ph/~s2govnccaph/about-culture-
and-arts/in-focus/balintawak-the-cry-for-a-nationwide-revolution/

Ojo, P. (2018, July 17) The Cry of Pugad Lawin and the Birth of the Revolution. Retrieve from:
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/history/pugad-lawin-birth-revolution.html