A.

1898 DECLARATION OF PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE

by: Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista (17 December 1830 – 4 December 1903), also
known as Don Bosyong, was a lawyer and author of the Declaration of Philippine
Independence document. A distant relative of the Rizal family, Philippine national hero José
Rizal always sought his advice during his school days in Manila.
Bautista solicited funds to finance the campaign for the reforms in the Philippines. He
then became a member of the La Liga Filipina, Cuerpo de Compromisarios, and La
Propaganda. In 1896, the Spaniards arrested and imprisoned him at Fort Santiago, as he
was suspected for being involved in the Philippine Revolution. He defended himself and was
later released from prison. He became the first adviser of President Emilio Aguinaldo in
1898, and subsequently wrote the Declaration of Philippine Independence. On 14 July 1899,
Bautista was elected vice-president of Tarlac's Revolutionary Congress. He was later
appointed judge of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan.
CONTEXT ANALYSIS
The Act of Declaration of Philippine Independence was written and was read by
Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista in Spanish and translated by Sulpicio Guevara. It was written
to use for the declaration of freedom of the Philippines after the war against America and
Spain. The declaration was signed by 98 persons and at the end of it, emphasizing an
American present in there with no official role. It is said that there are American army officer
who witnessed. The main reason for having the declaration is to symbolize that Philippines
has the right to be independent and free from the Spaniards and is no longer tied politically
with them.
With a government in operation. Aguinaldo thought that it was necessary to declare
the independence of the Philippines. He believed that such a more would inspire the people
to fight more eagerly against the Spaniards and at the same time, lead the foreign countries
to recognize the independence of the country. Mabini, who had by now been made
Aguinaldo’s unofficial adviser, objected. He based his objection on the fact that it was more
important to reorganize the government in such a manner as to convince the foreign powers
of the competence and stability of the new government than to proclaim Philippine
independence at such an early period. Aguinaldo, however, stood his ground and won.
On June 12, between four and five in the afternoon, Aguinaldo, in the presence of a
huge crowd, proclaimed the independence of the Philippines at Cavite el Viejo (Kawit). For
the first time, the Philippine National Flag, made in Hongkong by Mrs. Marcela Agoncillo,
assisted by Lorenza Agoncillo and Delfina Herboza, was officially hoisted and the Philippine
National March played in public. The Act of the Declaration of Independence was prepared
by Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista, who also read it. A passage in the Declaration reminds one
of another passage in the American Declaration of Independence. The Philippine
Declaration was signed by ninety-eight persons, among them an American army officer who
witnessed the proclamation. The proclamation of Philippine independence was, however,
promulgated on August 1 when many towns has already been organized under the rules laid
down by the Dictatorial Government.
CONTENT ANALYSIS
Every year, the country commemorates the anniversary of the Philippine
Independence proclaimed on 12 June 1898, in the province of Cavite. Indeed, such event is
a significant turning point in the history of the country because it signaled the end of the 333
years of Spanish colonization. There have been numerous studies done on the events
leading to the independence of the country but very few students had the chance to read the
actual document of the declaration. This is in spite of the historical importance of the
document and the details that the document reveals on the rationale and circumstances of
that historical day in Cavite. Interestingly, reading the details of the said document in
hindsight is telling of the kind of government that was created under Aguinaldo, and the
forthcoming hand of the United States of America in the next few years of the newly created
republic. The declaration was a short 2,000-word document, which summarized the reason
behind the revolution against Spain, the war for independence, and the future of the new
republic under Emilio Aguinaldo.
The proclamation commenced with a characterization of the conditions in the
Philippines during the Spanish colonial period. The document specifically mentioned abuses
and inequalities in the colony. The declaration says:
"...taking into consideration, that their inhabitants being already weary of bearing the ominous
yoke of Spanish domination, on account of the arbitrary arrests and harsh treatment practiced by
the Civil Guard to the extent of causing death with the connivance and even with the express
orders of their commanders, who sometimes went to the extreme of ordering the shooting of
prisoners under the pretext that they were attempting to escape, in violation of the provisions of
the Regulations of their Corps, which abuses were unpunished and on account of the unjust
deportations, especially those decreed by General Blanco, of eminent personages and of high
social position, at the instigation of the Archbishop and friars interested in keeping them out of the
way for their own selfish and avaricious purpose, deportations which are quickly brought about.
By a method of procedure more execrable than that of the inquisition and which every civilized
nation rejects on account or a decision being rendered without a hearing of the persons accused."

The above passage demonstrates the justifications behind the revolution against
Spain. Specifically cited are the abuse by the Civil Guards and the unlawful shooting of
prisoners whom they alleged as attempting to escape. The passage also condemns the
unequal protection of the law between the Filipino people and the "eminent personages."
Moreover, the line mentions the avarice and greed of the clergy like the friars and the
Archbishop himself. Lastly, the passage also condemns what they saw as the unjust
deportation and rendering of other decision without proper hearing, expected of any civilized
nation.
From here, the proclamation proceeded with a brief historical overview of the Spanish
occupation since Magellan's arrival in Visayas until the Philippine Revolution, with specific
details about the latter, especially after the Pact of Biak-na-Bato had collapsed. The
document narrates the spread of the movement "like an electric spark" through different
towns and provinces like Bataan, Pampanga, Batangas, Bulacan, Laguna, and Morong, and
the quick decline of Spanish forces in the same provinces. The revolt also reached Visayas;
thus, the independence of the country was ensured. The document also mentions Rizal's
execution, calling it unjust. The execution, as written in the document, was done to "please
the greedy body of friars in their insatiable desire to seek revenge upon and exterminate all
those who are opposed to their Machiavellian purposes, which tramples upon the penal
code prescribed for these islands." The document also narrates the Cavite Mutiny of
January 1872 that caused the infamous execution of the martyred native priests Jose
Burgos, Mariano Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora, "whose innocent blood was shed through the
intrigues of those so-called religious orders" that incited the three secular priests in the said
mutiny.
The proclamation of independence also invokes that the established republic would
be led under the dictatorship of Emilio Aguinaldo. The first mention was at the very
beginning of the proclamation. It stated:
"In the town of Cavite Viejo, in this province of Cavite, on the twelfth day of June eighteen
hundred and ninety-eight, before me, Don Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista, Auditor of War and
Special Commissioner appointed to proclaim solemnize this act by the Dictatorial Government of
these Philippine islands, for the purposes and by virtue of the circular addressed by the Eminent
Dictator of the same Don Emilio Aguinaldo y Famy."

The same was repeated toward the last part of the proclamation. It states:
"We acknowledge, approve and confirm together with the orders that have been issued
therefrom. the Dictatorship established by Don Emilio Aguinaldo whom we honor as the Supreme
Chief of this Nation, which this day commences to have a life of its own, in the belief' that the is the
instrument selected by God in spite of his humble origin, to effect the redemption of this
unfortunate people, as foretold by Doctor Jose Rizal in the magnificent verses which he
composed when he was preparing to be shot, liberating them from the yoke of Spanish
domination in punishment of the impunity with which their Government allowed the commission of
abuses by its subordinates."

Another detail in the proclamation that is worth looking at is its explanation on the
Philippine flag that was first waved on the same day. The document explained:
"And finally, it was unanimously resolved that, this Nation, independent from this clay,
must use the same flag used heretofore, whose design and colors and described in the
accompanying drawing, with design representing in natural colors the three arms referred to. The
white triangle represents the distinctive emblem of the famous Katipunan Society, which by
means of its compact of blood urged on the masses of the people to insurrection; the three stars
represent the three principal Islands of this Archipelago, Luzon, Mindanao and Panay, in which
this insurrectionary movement broke out; the sun represents the gigantic strides that have been
made by the sons of this land on the road of progress and civilization, its eight rays symbolizing
the eight provinces of Manila. Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, Bataan, Laguna and
Batangas, which were declared in a state of war almost as soon as the first insurrectionary
movement was initiated; and the colors blue, red and white, commemorate those of the flag of the
United States of North America, in manifestation of our profound gratitude towards that Great
Nation for the disinterested protection she is extending to us and will continue to extend to us."

This often-overlooked detail reveals much about the historically accurate meaning
behind the most widely known national symbol in the Philippines. It is not known by many for
example, that the white triangle was derived from the symbol of the Katipunan. The red and
blue colors of the flag are often associated with courage and peace, respectively. Our basic
education omits the fact that those colors were taken from the flag of the United States.
While it can always be argued that symbolic meaning can always change and be
reinterpreted, the original symbolic meaning of something presents us several historical
truths that can explain the subsequent events, which unfolded after the declaration of
independence on the 12th day of June 1898.
 B. THE MALOLOS CONSTITUTION AND THE FIRST PHILIPPINE REPUBLIC
by: Felipe G. Calderon
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Felipe Gonzales Calderon, known as the 'Father of the Malolos Constitution", was
born on April 4, 1868 in Santa Cruz de Malabon now Tanza), Cavite, to a Spanish nobleman,
Don Jose Gonzales Calderon, and Doña Manuela Roca who was of Spanish-Filipino
blood. Calderon was the author of the Malolos Constitution, which was enacted on January
20, 1899 by the Malolos Congress that established the First Philippine Republic. The
original was written in Spanish, which became the first official language of the Philippines.
Notably, Calderon established two law universities -- Liceo de Manila, the first law
college in the Philippines, and the Escuela de Derecho (School of Duties). He taught in
both institutions. In 1904, he was appointed member of a commission to draft a proposed
Penal Code. He also organized the La Proteccion de la Infancia (The Protection of Infants)
that established a humanitarian institution to protect and care for disadvantaged children.
His Encyclopedia Filipinas was published in 1908.
He died on July 6, 1908 at the age of 40.
CONTEXT ANALYSIS
After returning to the islands. Aguinaldo wasted little time in setting up an
independent government. On June 12, 1898, a declaration of independence modeled on the
American one, was proclaimed at his headquarters in Cavite. It was at this time that
Apolinario Mabini. a law, and political thinker, came to prominence as Aguinaldo’s principal
adviser. Born into a poor indio family but educated at the University of Santo Tomas, he
advocated "simultaneous external and internal revolution," a philosophy that unsettled the
more conservative landowners and ilustrados who initially supported Aguinaldo. For Mabini,
true independence for the Philippines would mean not simply liberation from Spain (or from
any other colonial power) but also educating the people for self-government and abandoning,
the paternalistic, colonial mentality that the Spanish had cultivated over the centuries.
Mabini's The True Decalogue, published in July 1898 in the form of ten commandments,
used this medium, somewhat paradoxically, to promote critical thinking and a reform of
customs and attitudes. His Constitutional Program for the Philippine Republic, published at
the same time, elaborated his ideas on political institutions.
On September 15,1898, a revolutionary congress was convened at Malolos, a market
town located thirty-two kilometer north of Manila, for the purpose of drawing up a constitution
for the new republic. A document was approved by the congress on November 2,1898.
Modeled on the constitution of France, Belgium, and Latin American countries, it was
promulgated at Malolos on January 21, 1899, and two days later Aguinaldo was inaugurated
as president.
American observers traveling in Luzon commented that the areas controlled by the
republic seemed peaceful and well governed. The Malolos congress had set up schools, a
military academy, and the Literary University of the Philippines. Government finances were
organized, and new currency was issued. The army and navy were established on a regular
basis. having regional commands. The accomplishments of the Filipino government,
however, counted for little in the eyes of the great powers as the transfer of the islands from
Spanish to United States rule was arranged in the closing months of 1898.
 The Treaty of Paris aroused anger among Filipinos. Reacting to the US$20 million
sum paid to Spain, La Independencia (Independence), a newspaper published in Manila by
a revolutionary. General Antonio Luna, stated that "people are not to be bought and sold like
horses and houses. Upon the announcement of the treaty, the radicals, Mabini and Luna,
prepared for war, and provisional articles were added to the constitution giving President
Aguinaldo dictatorial powers in times of emergency. President William McKinley issued a
proclamation on December 21, 1898, declaring United States policy to be one of
"Benevolent Assimilation" in which "the mild sway of justice and right" would be substituted
for "arbitrary rule." When this was published in the islands on January 4, 1899, references to
"American sovereignty" having been prudently deleted, Aguinaldo issued his own
proclamation that condemned "violent and aggressive seizure" by the United States and
threatened war.
CONTENT ANALYSIS
Excerpts from the Malolos Constitution
Article 3. Sovereignty resides exclusively in the people.
Article 5. The State recognizes the freedom and equality of all religions, as well as
the separation of Church and State.
Article 19. No Filipino in the full enjoyment of his civil and political rights shall be
hindered in the free exercise of the same.
Article 20.1. Neither shall any Filipino be deprived of: The right of expressing freely
his ideas and opinions either by word or by writing, availing himself of the press or
any other similar means.
Article 20.2. Neither shall any Filipino be deprived of: The right of joining any
association for all the objects of human life which may not be contrary to public
morals.
Article 23. Any Filipino can find and maintain establishments of instruction or of
education, in accordance with the regulations that may be established. Popular
education shall be obligatory and gratuitous in the schools of the nation.
Table of Titles
1. The Republic
2. The Government
3. Religion
4. The Filipinos and Their National and Individual Rights
5. The Legislative Power
6. The Permanent Commission
7. The Executive Power
8. The President of the Republic
9. The Secretaries of Government
10. The Judicial Power
11. Provincial and Popular Assemblies
12. Administration of the State
13. Amendment of the Constitution
14. Constitutional Observance, Oath, and Language
 The Malolos constitution is the first important Filipino document ever produced by the
people's representatives. It is anchored in democratic traditions that ultimately had their
roots in American soil. It created a Filipino state whose government was "popular,
representative and responsible" with three distinct branches -- the executive, the legislative
and the judicial. The constitution specifically provided for safeguards against abuses and
enumerated the national and individual rights not only of the Filipinos and of the aliens.
The legislative powers were exercised by the Assembly of Representatives
composed of delegates elected according to law. To make the function of Congress
continuous, the document provided for a Permanent Commission which would sit as a
law-making body when Congress was not in session. The assembly elected the President of
the Republic. The Cabinet, composed of the Secretaries of the different Departments of the
government, was responsible not to the President, but to the Assembly. The administration
of justice was vested in the Supreme Court and in inferior courts to be established according
to law. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was to be elected by the Assembly with the
concurrence of the President and the Cabinet.
The constitution as a whole is a monument to the capacity of the Filipinos to chart
their own course along democratic lines. In a period of storm and stress, it symbolized the
ideals of a people who had emerged from the Dark Ages into the Light of Reason.
The Malolos Republic
Owing to the objections of Mabini to some provisions in the Constitution, Aguinaldo
did not immediately promulgate it.
The leaders of Congress compromised by inserting some amendments. After
promulgating the Malolos Constitution, the Filipino leaders proceeded to inaugurate the first
Filipino Republic on January 23, 1899.

POLITICAL CARICATURES OF THE AMERICAN ERA

by: Alfred McCoy
In the second part our lesson, we will examine some political caricatures/cartoons,
which is a form of art that gained full expression during the American era. These cartoons
were made by Filipino artists to record national attitudes toward the coming of the Americans
as well as the changing mores and times in the Philippines.
Cartoons became an effective tool of publicizing opinions through heavy use of
symbolism, which is different from a verbose written editorial and opinion piece. The unique
way that a caricature represents opinion and captures the audience's imagination is reason
enough for historians to examine these political cartoons. Commentaries in mass media
inevitably shape public opinion and such kind of opinion is worthy of historical examination
(Readings in Philippine History, 2018).
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Born on June 8,1945 in Concord, Massachusetts, United States, Dr. Alfred "Al”
W. McCoy is a Professor of SE Asian History at the University of Wisconsin at Madison
where he also serves as director of the Center for SE Asian Studies. He's spent the past
quarter-century writing out the politics and history of the optimum trade.
McCoy has spent the thirty years writing about Southeast Asian History and politics.
His publications include Philippine Cartoons (1985), Anarchy of families (1994), Closer Than
rothers: Manhood at the Philippine Military Academy (2000) and Lives at the Margin (2001).
After earning a Ph.D. in Southeast Asian history at Yale, the writings of McCoy on this region
has focused on two topics; Philippine Political History and Global Opium Trafficking. The
Philippines remains the major focus of his research. His teaching interests include; Modern
Philippine social and political history, U.S. foreign policy; Colonial empires in Southeast Asia;
illicit drug trafficking; and CIA covert operations.
POLITICAL CARICATURES
 In his book Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of the American Era
(1900-1944), Alfred McCoy, together with Alfredo Roces, compiled political cartoons
published in newspaper dailies and periodicals in the aforementioned time period. For
this part, we are going to look at selected cartoons and explain the context of each one.
 The first example shown was published in The Independent on May 20, 1916. The
cartoon shows a politician from Tondo, named Dr. Santos, passing his crown to his
brother-in-law, Dr. Barcelona. A Filipino guy is depicted wearing salakot and barong
tagalog was trying to stop Santos, telling the latter to stop giving Barcelona the crown
because it is not his to begin with.
 The second cartoon was also published by The Independent on 16 June 1917. This was
drawn by Fernando Amorsolo and was aimed as a commentary to the workings of
Manila Police at that period. Here, we see a Filipino child who stole a skinny chicken
because he had nothing to eat. The police officer was relentlessly pursuing the said child.
A man wearing a salakot, labeled Juan de la Cruz was grabbing the officer, telling him to
leave the small-time pickpockets and thieves and to turn at the great thieves instead. He
was pointing to huge warehouses containing bulks of rice, milk, and grocery products.
 The third cartoon was a commentary on the unprecedented cases of colorum
automobiles in the city streets. The Philippine Free Press published this commentary
when fatal accidents involving colorum vehicles and taxis occurred too often already.
 The fourth cartoon depicts a cinema. A blown-up officer was at the screen saying that
couples are not allowed to neck or make love in the theater. Two youngsters looked
horrified while an older couple seemed amused.
 The next cartoon was published by The Independent on 27 November 1915. Here, we
see the caricature of Uncle Sam riding a chariot pulled by Filipinos wearing school
uniforms. The Filipino boys were carrying American objects like baseball bats, whiskey,
and boxing gloves. McCoy, in his caption to the said cartoon, says that this cartoon was
based on an event in 1907 when William Howard Taft was brought to the Manila pier
riding a chariot pulled by students of Liceo de Manila. Such was condemned by the
nationalists at that time.
 The last cartoon was published by Lipang Kalabaw on 24 August 1907. In the picture,
we can see Uncle Sam rationing porridge to the politicians and members of
the Progresista Party (sometimes known as the Federalista Party) while members of
the Nacionalista Party look on and wait for their turn. This cartoon depicts the patronage
of the United States being coveted by politicians from either of the party.
 FILIPINO GRIEVANCES AGAINST GOVERNOR WOOD
by: Jose Abad Santos and Jorge Bacobo
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Jose Abad Santos was born in San Fernando, Pampanga. He was a Pencionado
and studied law in Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. He was appointed
Undersecretary of Justice in 1921 but gave up the position at the height of the cabinet crisis
in 1923. He served as chief legal counsel of the Senate President and the Speaker of the
House of Representative and it was during this time when he joined the Anti-Wood
campaign. He was appointed Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in 1932 and became
Chief Justice nine years later. On April 11, 1942, the Japanese army arrested him in Barili,
Cebu and he was subsequently brought to Mindanao. On May 7, 1942, he was executed
in Malabang, Lanao in the presence of his son Pepito.
Jorge Bocobo was born in Gerona, Tarlac on October 19, 1886. In 1907,
he earned his Bachelor of Law degree from Indiana University under the Pensionado
program of the colonial government. He was a close associate of Manuel L. Quezon and
served as one of his speech writers. He became president of the University of the
Philippines from 1934 to 1939 and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court from
1942-1944. He died on July 23, 1965.
GOVERNOR LEONARD WOOD AND THE FILIPINOS
After Woods replaced the highly popular Harrison on October 5, 1921, he vetoed 64
of 217 bills passed by the Legislature compared to only five under Harrison. According to the
Filipinos, the bills were dismissed on the flimsiest motives. Wood for his part saw the vetoed
bills as poorly made or unconstitutional. The strictness of Wood was perceived as an affront
to the newly found liberties by Filipino leaders like Quezon. Wood was also aghast to learn
that the government was in a financial crisis and it was subsidizing losing corporations like
the Philippine National Bank, the Manila Railway Company, and Manila Coal Company
which became inefficient because of having too many employees, many of whom were
recommended by Filipino officials. Wood moved to streamline these corporations and make
them self-sufficient. The threat of removing officials placed there by patronage of Filipino
officials made Wood their personal enemy.
The point of confrontation between Wood and the Filipino officials led by Quezon
came to the fore with the Cabinet Crisis of 1923. This crisis was sparked over Wood’s order
to reinstate an American police detective named Ray Conley. Conley was the head of vice
squad of the Manila Police tasked with running after the operators of gambling and opium
den and their patrons. He was charged with accepting bribes from gambling den operators
apparently as revenge by criminal elements because of his efficient drive against them. The
city mayor of Manila, Ramon Fernandez, and the Secretary of Interior, Jose P. Laurel,
believed in Conley’s guilt. The Court of First Instance, however, found the evidence against
Conley as insufficient and inconsistent, and ordered the case against the detective
dismissed. Wood ordered Conley reinstated but Conley’s enemies wanted him charged
administratively of keeping a mistress and having made false statement that the mistress
was his wife. Laurel tried to have Conley investigated administratively but Wood objected
saying that this would make Conley’s accusers his judges. Wood himself encouraged the
investigation of Conley on the charge of keeping a mistress and making false statement. An
independent Committee of Investigation was convened and it found Conley not guilty of the
charges. Wood then sent a memorandum to Laurel ordering Conley’s reinstatement. Laurel
transmitted a letter to Mayor Fernandez requesting compliance and then tendered his
resignation as Secretary of the Interior. Conley who was later reinstated, retired with full
benefits.
Filipino officials then accused Wood of meddling in the details of the local government
which should have been handled by the Filipinos. Quezon saw this incident as an
opportunity to embarrass Governor Wood by resigning form the Council of State. At the time,
the ruling Nacionalista party was facing the prospect of defeat in the 1923 elections. Quezon
needed a villain to fight and keep himself in power. Following Quezon’s resignation, Mayor
of Manila, Speaker of the House, Manuel Roxas, and all the Filipino Department Secretaries
also resigned. Wood accepted the mass resignation of the Filipino officials. Quezon, as
President of the Philippine senate, refused to confirm for his part, and refused to confirm all
officials appointed by Wood to replace the officials who resigned. The Cabinet Crisis
plagued the rest of Wood’s term until his death on August 7, 1927 while being operated on
for a brain tumor.
THE PROTEST
"In the face of this critical situation, we, the constitutional representatives of the Filipino
people, met to deliberate upon the present difficulties existing in the Government of the
Philippine Islands and to determine how best to preserve the supremacy and majesty of the
laws and to safeguard the right and liberties of our people, having faith in the sense of justice
of the people of the United States and inspired by her patriotic example in the early days of
her history, do hereby, in our behalf and in the name of the Filipino people, solemnly and
publicly make known our most vigorous protest against the arbitrary acts and usurpations of
the present Governor-General of the Philippine Islands, particularly against Executive Order
No.
SPEECH OF CORAZON AQUINO DURING THE JOINT SESSION OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS
Philippines being in Martial Law under the leadership of Ferdinand Marcos
experienced a lot of brutality from the government. This urged Corazon Aquino to be a
strong advocate for the restoration of democratic country to bring back the power to Filipino
people. To declare freedom from Marcos regime, to mark a new beginning for Filipinos and
to appeal financial assistance to cope with all the adversities the Philippines is facing during
her time were the intentions of her speech. She also credited her husband Ninoy Aquino for
conceptualizing achieving peace through peaceful means in her speech. Corazon being the
first female president successfully restored civil rights and abolish 1973 constitution and
made remarkable contributions to the Philippines.
AUTHOR’S BACKGROUND
President Corazon C. Aquino was the 11th president and the first female president of the
Philippines. When President Ferdinand Marcos called for a snap election in 1986, she
became the opposition’s presidential candidate. When she narrowly lost the election, Aquino
and her supporters challenged the results. This resulted to the so-called EDSA revolution,
prompting Marcos to seek exile in Hawaii. On the 25th of February 1986, Aquino was sworn
into office.
 Speech of Her Excellency Corazon C. Aquino
President of the Philippines
During the Joint Session of the United States Congress
Three years ago, I left America in grief to bury my husband, Ninoy Aquino. I thought I had left it also
to lay to rest his restless dream of Philippine freedom. Today, I have returned as the president of a
free people.
In burying Ninoy, a whole nation honored him. By that brave and selfless act of giving honor, a nation
in shame recovered its own. A country that had lost faith in its future found it in a faithless and brazen
act of murder. So in giving, we receive, in losing we find, and out of defeat, we snatched our victory.
For the nation, Ninoy became the pleasing sacrifice that answered their prayers for freedom. For
myself and our children, Ninoy was a loving husband and father. His loss, three times in our lives,
was always a deep and painful one.
Fourteen years ago, this month was the first time we lost him. A president-turned-dictator, and traitor
to his oath, suspended the Constitution and shut down the Congress that was much like this one
before which I am honored to speak. He detained my husband along with thousands of others –
senators, publishers and anyone who had spoken up for the democracy as its end drew near. But for
Ninoy, a long and cruel ordeal was reserved. The dictator already knew that Ninoy was not a body
merely to be imprisoned but a spirit he must break. For even as the dictatorship demolished one by
one the institutions of democracy – the press, the Congress, the independence of the judiciary, the
protection of the Bill of Rights – Ninoy kept their spirit alive in himself.
The government sought to break him by indignities and terror. They locked him up in a tiny, nearly
airless cell in a military camp in the north. They stripped him naked and held the threat of sudden
midnight execution over his head. Ninoy held up manfully–all of it. I barely did as well. For 43 days,
the authorities would not tell me what had happened to him. This was the first time my children and I
felt we had lost him.
When that didn’t work, they put him on trial for subversion, murder and a host of other crimes before
a military commission. Ninoy challenged its authority and went on a fast. If he survived it, then, he felt,
God intended him for another fate. We had lost him again. For nothing would hold him back from his
determination to see his fast through to the end. He stopped only when it dawned on him that the
government would keep his body alive after the fast had destroyed his brain. And so, with barely any
life in his body, he called off the fast on the fortieth day. God meant him for other things, he felt. He
did not know that an early death would still be his fate, that only the timing was wrong.
At any time during his long ordeal, Ninoy could have made a separate peace with the dictatorship, as
so many of his countrymen had done. But the spirit of democracy that inheres in our race and
animates this chamber could not be allowed to die. He held out, in the loneliness of his cell and the
frustration of exile, the democratic alternative to the insatiable greed and mindless cruelty of the right
and the purging holocaust of the left.
And then, we lost him, irrevocably and more painfully than in the past. The news came to us in
Boston. It had to be after the three happiest years of our lives together. But his death was my
country’s resurrection in the courage and faith by which alone they could be free again. The dictator
had called him a nobody. Two million people threw aside their passivity and escorted him to his
grave. And so began the revolution that has brought me to democracy’s most famous home, the
Congress of the United States.
The task had fallen on my shoulders to continue offering the democratic alternative to our people.
Archibald Macleish had said that democracy must be defended by arms when it is attacked by arms
and by truth when it is attacked by lies. He failed to say how it shall be won.
I held fast to Ninoy’s conviction that it must be by the ways of democracy. I held out for participation
in the 1984 election the dictatorship called, even if I knew it would be rigged. I was warned by the
lawyers of the opposition that I ran the grave risk of legitimizing the foregone results of elections that
were clearly going to be fraudulent. But I was not fighting for lawyers but for the people in whose
intelligence I had implicit faith. By the exercise of democracy, even in a dictatorship, they would be
prepared for democracy when it came. And then, also, it was the only way I knew by which we could
measure our power even in the terms dictated by the dictatorship.
The people vindicated me in an election shamefully marked by government thuggery and fraud. The
opposition swept the elections, garnering a clear majority of the votes, even if they ended up, thanks
to a corrupt Commission on Elections, with barely a third of the seats in parliament. Now, I knew our
power.
Last year, in an excess of arrogance, the dictatorship called for its doom in a snap election. The
people obliged. With over a million signatures, they drafted me to challenge the dictatorship. And I
obliged them. The rest is the history that dramatically unfolded on your television screen and across
the front pages of your newspapers.
You saw a nation, armed with courage and integrity, stand fast by democracy against threats and
corruption. You saw women poll watchers break out in tears as armed goons crashed the polling
places to steal the ballots but, just the same, they tied themselves to the ballot boxes. You saw a
people so committed to the ways of democracy that they were prepared to give their lives for its pale
imitation. At the end of the day, before another wave of fraud could distort the results, I announced
the people’s victory.
The distinguished co-chairman of the United States observer team in his report to your President
described that victory:
“I was witness to an extraordinary manifestation of democracy on the part of the Filipino people. The
ultimate result was the election of Mrs. Corazon C. Aquino as President and Mr. Salvador Laurel as
Vice-President of the Philippines.”
Many of you here today played a part in changing the policy of your country towards us. We, Filipinos,
thank each of you for what you did: for, balancing America’s strategic interest against human
concerns, illuminates the American vision of the world.
When a subservient parliament announced my opponent’s victory, the people turned out in the
streets and proclaimed me President. And true to their word, when a handful of military leaders
declared themselves against the dictatorship, the people rallied to their protection. Surely, the people
take care of their own. It is on that faith and the obligation it entails, that I assumed the presidency.
As I came to power peacefully, so shall I keep it. That is my contract with my people and my
commitment to God. He had willed that the blood drawn with the lash shall not, in my country, be paid
by blood drawn by the sword but by the tearful joy of reconciliation.
We have swept away absolute power by a limited revolution that respected the life and freedom of
every Filipino. Now, we are restoring full constitutional government. Again, as we restored
democracy by the ways of democracy, so are we completing the constitutional structures of our new
democracy under a constitution that already gives full respect to the Bill of Rights. A jealously
independent Constitutional Commission is completing its draft which will be submitted later this year
to a popular referendum. When it is approved, there will be congressional elections. So within about
a year from a peaceful but national upheaval that overturned a dictatorship, we shall have returned to
full constitutional government. Given the polarization and breakdown we inherited, this is no small
achievement.
My predecessor set aside democracy to save it from a communist insurgency that numbered less
than 500. Unhampered by respect for human rights, he went at it hammer and tongs. By the time he
fled, that insurgency had grown to more than 16,000. I think there is a lesson here to be learned
about trying to stifle a thing with the means by which it grows.
I don’t think anybody, in or outside our country, concerned for a democratic and open Philippines,
doubts what must be done. Through political initiatives and local reintegration programs, we must
seek to bring the insurgents down from the hills and, by economic progress and justice, show them
that for which the best intentioned among them fight.
As President, I will not betray the cause of peace by which I came to power. Yet equally, and again
no friend of Filipino democracy will challenge this, I will not stand by and allow an insurgent
leadership to spurn our offer of peace and kill our young soldiers, and threaten our new freedom.
Yet, I must explore the path of peace to the utmost for at its end, whatever disappointment I meet
there, is the moral basis for laying down the olive branch of peace and taking up the sword of war.
Still, should it come to that, I will not waver from the course laid down by your great liberator: “With
malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the rights as God gives us to see the rights,
let us finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne
the battle, and for his widow and for his orphans, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and
lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”
Like Lincoln, I understand that force may be necessary before mercy. Like Lincoln, I don’t relish it.
Yet, I will do whatever it takes to defend the integrity and freedom of my country.
Finally, may I turn to that other slavery: our $26 billion foreign debt. I have said that we shall honor it.
Yet must the means by which we shall be able to do so be kept from us? Many conditions imposed
on the previous government that stole this debt continue to be imposed on us who never benefited
from it. And no assistance or liberality commensurate with the calamity that was visited on us has
been extended. Yet ours must have been the cheapest revolution ever. With little help from others,
we Filipinos fulfilled the first and most difficult conditions of the debt negotiation the full restoration of
democracy and responsible government. Elsewhere, and in other times of more stringent world
economic conditions, Marshall plans and their like were felt to be necessary companions of returning
democracy.
When I met with President Reagan yesterday, we began an important dialogue about cooperation
and the strengthening of the friendship between our two countries. That meeting was both a
confirmation and a new beginning and should lead to positive results in all areas of common
concern.
Today, we face the aspirations of a people who had known so much poverty and massive
unemployment for the past 14 years and yet offered their lives for the abstraction of democracy.
Wherever I went in the campaign, slum area or impoverished village, they came to me with one cry:
democracy! Not food, although they clearly needed it, but democracy. Not work, although they surely
wanted it, but democracy. Not money, for they gave what little they had to my campaign. They didn’t
expect me to work a miracle that would instantly put food into their mouths, clothes on their back,
education in their children, and work that will put dignity in their lives. But I feel the pressing
obligation to respond quickly as the leader of a people so deserving of all these things.
We face a communist insurgency that feeds on economic deterioration, even as we carry a great
share of the free world defenses in the Pacific. These are only two of the many burdens my people
carry even as they try to build a worthy and enduring house for their new democracy, that may serve
as well as a redoubt for freedom in Asia. Yet, no sooner is one stone laid than two are taken away.
Half our export earnings, 2billionoutof4 billion, which was all we could earn in the restrictive markets
of the world, went to pay just the interest on a debt whose benefit the Filipino people never received.
Still, we fought for honor, and, if only for honor, we shall pay. And yet, should we have to wring the
payments from the sweat of our men’s faces and sink all the wealth piled up by the bondsman’s two
hundred fifty years of unrequited toil?
Yet to all Americans, as the leader of a proud and free people, I address this question: has there
been a greater test of national commitment to the ideals you hold dear than that my people have
gone through? You have spent many lives and much treasure to bring freedom to many lands that
were reluctant to receive it. And here you have a people who won it by themselves and need only the
help to preserve it.
Three years ago, I said thank you, America, for the haven from oppression, and the home you gave
Ninoy, myself and our children, and for the three happiest years of our lives together. Today, I say,
join us, America, as we build a new home for democracy, another haven for the oppressed, so it may
stand as a shining testament of our two nation’s commitment to freedom.
Analysis of Cory Aquino’s Speech
Cory Aquino’s speech was an important event in the political and diplomatic history of
the country because it has arguably cemented the legitimacy of the EDSA government in the
international arena. The speech talks of her family background, especially her relationship
with her late husband, Ninoy Aquino. It is well known that it was Ninoy who served as the
real leading figure of the opposition of that time. Indeed, Ninoy’s eloquence and charisma
could very well compete with that of Marcos. In her speech, Cory talked at length about
Ninoy’s toil and suffering at the hands of the dictatorship that he resisted. Even when she
proceeded talking about her new government, she still went back to Ninoy’s legacies and
lessons. Moreover, her attributions of the revolution to Ninoy’s death demonstrates not only
Cory’s personal perception on the revolution, but since she was the president, it also
represents what the document discourse was at that point in our history.
The ideology or the principles of the new democratic government can also be seen in
the same speech. Aquino was able to draw the sharp contrast between her government and
her predecessor by expressing her commitment to a democratic constitution upholds and
adheres to the rights and liberty of the Filipino people. Cory also hoisted herself as the
reconciliatory agent after more than two decades of a polarizing authoritarian politics. For
example, Cory saw the blown-up communist insurgency as a product of a repressive and
corrupt government. Her response to this insurgency rooted from her diametric opposition of
the dictator. (i.e. initiating reintegration of the communist rebels to the mainstream
Philippines society.) Cory claimed that her main approach to this problem was through pace
and not through the sword of war.
Despite Cory’s efforts to hoist herself as the exact opposite of Marcos, her speech still
revealed certain parallelisms between her and the Marco’s government. This is seen in
terms of continuing the alliance between the Philippines and the United States despite the
known affinity between the said world super power and Marcos. The Aquino regime, as seen
in Cory’s acceptance of the invitation to address the U.S. Congress and to the content of the
speech, decided to build and continue the alliance between the Philippines and the United
States and effectively implemented an essentially similar foreign policy to that of dictatorship.
For example, Cory recognized that the large sum of foreign debts incurred by the Marcos
regime never benefited the Filipino People. Nevertheless, Cory expressed her intentions to
pay off those debts. Unknown to many Filipinos was the fact that there was a choice of
waiving the said debt because those were the debt of the dictator and not the country. Cory’s
decision is an indicator of her government’s intention to carry on a debt driven economy.
Reading through Aquino’s speech, we can already take cues, not just on Cory’s
individual ideas and aspirations, but also the guiding principles and framework of the
government that she represented.
 LESSON 3: Speech of President Ferdinand Marcos during the termination of
Martial Law

INTRODUCTION:
 It was on September 21, 1972 when the late President Ferdinand Marcos promulgated
Proclamation No. 1081, placing the entire Philippines under Martial Law in order to protect the
integrity of the Republic from the rising wave of lawlessness and the threat of a communist
insurgency. This curtailed press freedom and other civil liberties, closed down Congress and
media establishments, and caused the arrest of opposition leaders and militant activists.

 Then, by virtue of Proclamation No. 2045, Marcos lifted the state of martial law to show the
Filipino people and the world that the situation in the Philippines was back to normal and that
the 1973 Constitution and the government were working smoothly.

 In this lesson, we are going to examine the speech made by President Marcos during the
termination of Martial law in the country, titled Encounter with Destiny. We will also discover
how the legacy of the Marcos administration and the Martial Law continues to affect our political
landscape as we move forward as a democratic country.

SPEECH OF PRESIDENT MARCOS

DURING THE TERMINATION OF MARTIAL LAW
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
 Ferdinand Emmanuel Edralin Marcos Sr. was born on September 11, 1917, in Ilocos Norte
province. He was a member of the Philippine House of Representatives (1949-1959) and
Senate (1959-1965) before winning the presidential election. After winning a second term, he
declared martial law in 1972, that eventually leads to economic stagnation and recurring
reports of human rights violations. Marcos held onto the presidency until 1986 when his people
rose against his rule and he was forced to flee. He died on September 28, 1989 in exile in
Honolulu, Hawaii.
 During World War II, Ferdinand Marcos served as an officer with his country's armed forces,
later claiming that he was also a top figure in the Filipino guerrilla resistance movement. At the
end of the war, when the American government granted the Philippines independence on July
4, 1946, the Philippine Congress was created.
 Marcos was inaugurated on December 30, 1965. His first presidential term was notable for his
decision to send troops into the fray of the Vietnam War, a move he had previously opposed as
a Liberal Party senator. He also focused on construction projects and bolstering the country's
rice production. Marcos was reelected in 1969, the first Filipino president to win a second term,
but violence and fraud were associated with his campaign, which was believed to be funded
with millions from the national treasury. Marcos decreed martial law in 1972.

CONTEXTUAL & CONTENT ANALYSIS

 On September 21, 1972, President Ferdinand Marcos placed the Philippines under Martial Law.
The declaration issued under the Proclamation 1081 suspended the civil rights and imposed
military authority in the country. Marcos defended the declaration stressing the need for extra
powers to suppress the rising wave of violence allegedly caused by communists.

 Marcos wants to save the republic from evil elements like communists by declaring the Military
Law. Instead of losing and losing communists, their members grew stronger and more, they
fueled against the Marcos regime.

 Marcos wanted to change society through the Military Law. He already changed society
because the Filipinos are already afraid of him. Social reforms also included the
implementation of a nutrition program. There are 4,000-daycare centers all over the land. Their
model, which has been adopted by the United Nations—health program, a family planning
 program which had been long denied the humblest and the poorest of the countrymen.
Government reform a program in the word “PLEDGES” which means Peace and Order; Land
Reform; Economic Development; Development of moral values; Government Reform;
Educational Reforms and Social Services.

 The Gross National Product increased from P55,526 million in 1972 to P192,911 million in 1979
at 1972 constant prices or P269,781 million at current prices. The Gross National Product
increased from P55,526 million in 1972 to P192,911 million in 1979 at 1972 constant prices or
P269,781 million at current prices. Savings and time deposits have increased from P5,402
million in 1972 to P49,116 million as of September 1980. Gross domestic investments have not
only doubled but trebled, quadrupled, quintupled. From P11,573 million in 1972, it was
increased to about P78,198 million in 1980, while gross national savings increased from
P11,679 million in 1972 to P62,395 million in 1980. There was a time when the debt service
ratio before this administration was more than 40 percent of the dollar earnings the previous
year. This has been reduced to 20 percent; and now, as of 1980, reduced to 18.72 percent of
foreign exchange earnings in the previous year.

 When Marcos took over as President in 1965, most of the indebtedness was short-term
indebtedness payable within one year, two years, three years, and five years. More than 90
percent. All of these were immediately shifted or converted into long-term indebtedness, for
some reason or other, because of inefficient management of our affairs. Because of their bad
creditworthiness, they could not borrow any money from anywhere. The most that the World
Bank could lend them before 1965 was $40 million. By 1975 and 1976, the World Bank had
changed its opinion of the Philippines so much so that it was ready to lend at a single time $500
million. But most of these borrowings did not go to the government. They went into productive
enterprises. The borrowings of government do not go to pay for salaries or what those, in
government, call ordinary or current expenditures— housekeeping, salaries of officers and
employees, as well as furniture and equipment. On the current budget, there is always a
surplus. Since 1965 to the present, there has always been a surplus in the current budget of the
Republic of the Philippines.

 They have borrowed but only for purposes of productive enterprise. These are the self-paying
and the self-regenerating enterprises which people must support. And, incidentally, nobody
lends you money if you cannot put up a counterpart fund. The least amount of counterpart fund
that is required is about 50 percent of the entire cost of the project.

 The international reserves were increased from practically zero in 1965. The statistics say the
US $282 million were left in the Central Bank. When Marcos asked the Central Bank, however,
he was told that their commitments exceeded the US $300 million. And, therefore, they did not
have enough foreign exchange to pay their indebtedness as of 1965. The foreign exchange
reserves were practically zero. And later they have the US $3.1 billion in the Central Bank as
the foreign exchange reserves of the Republic of the Philippines. It was said truly that the rich
will grow richer because they have the funds and the capital. And they have no intention of
confiscating private property. It is not a part of the ideology of the New Society to confiscate
private property and private enterprise. But they shall regulate wealth so it shall not be utilized
to brutalize the poor and the weakness of our people. And thus, it is that the rich must pay
heavier taxes.

 In 1972, the percentage of families with incomes of P1,999 and below was 24.3 percent. In
1979, this had been reduced to 11.2 percent, or by more than one-half. The families with
incomes of P30,000 and more. In 1972, there was only 5 percent of them out of the entire
population. Now, there are more than twice that. There is 12.8 percent of those who have this
high income. And considering that almost all of these families that Marcos speak of life in the
rural areas, the New Society certainly has effectively changed the standard of living of the
 Filipino masses. Finally, the effective minimum wage had increased from P4.75 in 1972 to
P23.30-24.70 in 1980.

 There has been a major change in government since the proclamation of Martial Law. The
Congress that makes and outsourcing laws has been abolished. The senators and
representatives have been removed from duty. Under the Military Act, the President had the
legislative power. He made Presidential Decrees, General Orders, and Letter of Instruction.
These will govern the Government and all civilian powers. The Presidential Order is valid and
forceful as the laws issued by the former Congress.

HISTORICAL & CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE

 As the country was suffering from grinding poverty, widespread corruption, a stalled political
and judicial system, and internal violence, three alternative explanations for the martial law
decision may include the following:
 The official, the constitutional explanation is the threat of violent rebellion.

 Another view sees martial law as Marcos' way of circumventing congressional and bureaucratic
obstruction to achieve reforms and eliminate corruption--whether for altruistic or selfish
reasons.

 The "imperialist lackey" view focuses on Marcos' relations to the United States and
multinational business interests. Marcos is protecting foreign investors and granting huge
incentives for oil exploration, against the wishes of the Congress; some believe that his
purpose is to stabilize himself in power and avoid demanding that the United States pay rent on
its Philippine bases.

 This document will help constructively recognize the contributions of President Marcos to the
country's economic, social, cultural, and educational development. These contributions have
shaped our nation as it is today. We also have to put a premium on his legacies which we
undeniably enjoy now. Moreover, the primary source should let us learn from the lessons of the
past.

LESSON 4: Paintings of Juan Luna and Fernando Amorsolo

JUAN LUNA'S PAINTINGS
AUTHOR’S BACKGROUND
 Juan Luna (October 23, 1857- December 7, 1899) was known as the “Finest arts and First
International Filipino Painter”. He was the son Juaquin Luna de San Pedro y Posadas and
Laureana Novicio y Ancheta that was born on October 23, 1857, in Badoc, Ilocos Norte. He
was influenced to paint by his brother Manuel who was also a painter. Juan Luna is considered
one of the greatest Filipino artists in Philippine history with masterpieces such as Solarium, The
Death of Cleopatra, and Blood Compact. He was a Filipino painter, sculptor, and a political
activist of the Philippine Revolution during the late 19th century. He was one of the first
recognized Philippine artists. His close friendship with National Hero Jose Rizal has sparked
Philippine nationalism and pride. Juan Luna was mostly known for his works as being dramatic
and dynamic, focusing on romanticism and realism styles of art.

 On December 8, 1886, Luna married Maria de la Paz Pardo de Tavera, a sister of his friend
Felix and Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, the couple traveled to Europe and settled in Paris. They
had one son, whom they named Andres and a daughter who died in infancy.

Educational Background
 He received his degree in Bachelor of Arts at Ateneo de Manila and enrolled later at Escuela
Nautica de Manila where he became a sailor. This did not stop Luna from his pursuit of
developing his artistic skills. He took lessons under the famous painting teacher Lorenzo
 Guerrero and also enrolled at Academia de Dibujo y Pintura under the Spanish artist Agustin
Saez.

 Luna left for Barcelona in 1877, together with his elder brother Manuel, who was a violinist.
While there, Luna widened his knowledge of the art and he was exposed to the immortal works
of the Renaissance masters. One of his private teachers, Alejo Vera, a famous contemporary
painter in Spain, took Luna to Rome to undertake certain commissions. In 1877, Juan Luna
traveled to Europe to continue his studies and enrolled at Escuela de Bellas Artes de San
Fernando. It was in 1881 when he received his first major achievement as an artist and this is
through winning a silver medal at the Nacional de Bellas Artes(National Demonstration of Fine
Arts) with his work “The Death of Cleopatra.” From there, he continued to gain recognition and
respect as an artist. Juan Luna kept on impressing the European and Filipino society through
the Nacional de Bellas Artes with outstanding works such as the “Spolarium” which won gold in
1884 and “Battle at Lepanto” in 1887.

Awards
 Silver Medal for La Muerte de Cleopatra (Death of Cleopatra), Rome 1881
 Silver Palette for Dafinis Y Cloe (Roman Youths), Rome, 1881
 1st Gold Medal (1st Class) for Sploliarium (Rome, 1884
 Silver Palette with Laurel for Spoliarium (Madrid, 1884)
 1st Gold Meda (3rd Class) for Spoliarium (Madrid, 1884)
 Diploma of Honor for Las Damas Romanas (Roman Ladies), Paris, 1886
 Diploma of Honor for La Mestiza en Su Tocador (The Mestiza in her Boundier), Venice, 1886
 Gold Medal/Special Award for La Batalla de Lepanto (Paris, 1887)
 Bronze Medal for Hymen, Oh Hymenee (A Roman Wedding) (Venice, 1886)
 Honorary Award for Chiffonier (Paris, 1888)
 Gold Medal (Posthumous Award) for Peuple et Rois (People and Kings), Paris, 1882
 Silver Medal (Posthumous Award for El Pacto de Sangre (The Blood Compact), Paris, 1886
 Silver Medal (Posthumous Award) for Don Miguel Lopez de Legazpi, Paris, 1886

CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS
 The masterpieces of Juan Luna were created during the Spanish Colonization of the
Philippines in the 19th Century and some were created during the midyears of American Rule
in the Philippines.

CONTENT ANALYSIS
 Death of Cleopatra, Rome 1881 The famous painting was a silver medalist or second prize
winner during the 1881 National Exposition of Fine Arts in Madrid. The 1881 Madrid painting
contest was Luna's first art exposition. Because of the exposure, Luna received a pension
scholarship at the Ayuntamiento de Manila. After the painting competition, Luna sold it for 5,000
Spanish pesetas, the highest price for a painting at the time. As Luna's "graduation work", The
Death of Cleopatra was acquired by the Spanish government for one thousand euros.

 Blood Compact, Paris 1885 It depicts the traditional “kasikasi” or drinking ceremony which
was a symbol of friendship, peace, and goodwill among those executing the compact. Blood
Compact executed by the Spaniards in the Philippines held on March 16, 1565, between Don
Miguel Lopez de Legazpi and Rajah Sikatuna of Bohol.

 Spoliarium The painting features a glimpse of Roman history centered on the bloody carnage
brought by gladiatorial matches. Spoliarium is a Latin word referring to the basement of the
Roman Colosseum where the fallen and dying gladiators are dumped and devoid of their
worldly possessions.
 At the center of Luna’s painting are fallen gladiators being dragged by Roman soldiers. On the
left, spectators ardently await their chance to strip off the combatants of their metal helmets and
other armories. In contrast with the charged emotions featured on the left, the right side
 meanwhile presents a somber mood. An old man carries a torch perhaps searching for his son
while a woman weeps the death of her loved one.
 The Spoliarium is the most valuable oil-on-canvas painting by Juan Luna, a Filipino educated at
the Academia de Dibujo y Pintura (Philippines) and at the Academia de San Fernando in
Madrid, Spain. With a size of 4.22 meters x 7.675 meters, it is the largest painting in the
Philippines. A historical painting, it was made by Luna in 1884 as an entry to the prestigious
Exposicion de Bellas Artes (Madrid Art Exposition, May 1884) and eventually won for him the
First Gold Medal.

 The Parisian Life Juan Luna painted this masterpiece in 1892 when he was staying in Paris,
France. It is called The Parisian Life but is also known as Interior d’un Cafi (meaning “inside a
cafe”). He used oil on canvas to create this 22 x 31-inch painting.
 This may seem like any other old piece of artwork but the details and story of this masterpiece
are one of a kind. The men in the background are actually three well known Filipinos: Juan
Luna himself, Jose Rizal, a very famous author and hero, and Ariston Bautista Lin, the first
owner of the painting. These men were all living in France at that time.

 España Y Filipinas Her mirror image is said to resemble the archipelago of the Philippines –
her outstretched arm being the island of Palawan. Another interesting detail is the darkness on
the woman’s neck and the line going from her head to the top of the picture. This apparently
shows that the Philippines was going through a time of struggle which could very well be
because they were being oppressed by the Spanish at that time.
 España Y Filipinas meaning “Spain and the Philippines” is an oil on wood painting of Juan Luna
in 1886. The two women together are the representation of Spain and the Philippines. The
painting also is known as España Guiando a Filipinas (Spain Leading the Philippines).
 In this painting, Juan Luna wants to show the strong bond between Spain and the Philippines. It
also revealed the true hope and desire of every Filipino to have an equal treatment between
Spain and the Philippines, even Spain leading the Philippines in a progressive country.

FERNANDO AMORSOLO'S PAINTINGS

AUTHOR'S BACKGROUND
 Fernando Cueto Amorsolo (May 30, 1892 – April 26, 1972) is one of the most important artists
in the history of painting in the Philippines. Amorsolo was a portraitist and painter of rural
Philippine landscapes. Fernando Amorsolo was born on May 30, 1892, in Paco, Manila to
Pedro Amorsolo, a bookkeeper, and Bonifacia Cueto. Amorsolo spent his childhood in Daet,
Camarines Norte, where he studied in a public school and was tutored at home in Spanish
reading and writing. After his father’s death, Amorsolo and his family moved to Manila to live
with Don Fabian de la Rosa, his mother’s cousin, and a Philippine painter. At the age of 13,
Amorsolo became an apprentice to De la Rosa, who would eventually become the advocate
and guide to Amorsolo’s painting career. During this time, Amorsolo’s mother embroidered to
earn money, while Amorsolo helped by selling watercolor postcards to a local bookstore for 10
centavos each. Amorsolo’s brother, Pablo, was also a painter.

 During his lifetime, Amorsolo was married twice and had 14 children. In 1916, he married Salud
Jorge, with whom he had six children. After Jorges death in 1931, Amorsolo married Maria del
Carmen Zaragoza, with whom he had eight more children. Among her daughters are Sylvia
Amorsolo Lazo and Luz Amorsolo. Five of Amorsolo children became painters themselves.
Amorsolo was a close friend to the Philippine sculptor Guillermo Tolentino, the creator of the
Caloocan. It is believed that he had painted more than 10,000 pieces, his Rice Planting (1922),
which appeared on posters and tourist brochures, became one of the most popular images of
the Commonwealth era. He died on April 24, 1972, at the age of 79.
Educational Background
 Amorsolo earned a degree from the Liceo de Manila Art School in 1909 and entered the
University of the Philippines' School of Fine Arts. He was a portrait artist and known painter of
rural Philippine landscapes. He graduated with honors from the U.P. in 1914 and got a study
grant in Madrid, Spain. He was also able to visit New York, where he encountered postwar
impressionism and bism, which would be major influences on his work. Don Fabian De La
Rosa advocate and guide to Amorsolo’s painting career while Diego Velasquez is the major
influence of Amorsolo’s and Enrique Zobel De Ayala gave him the grant to study in Madrid,
Spain

Awards
 1908 2nd Prize, Bazar Escolta (Asociacion Internacional de Artistas), for Levendo Periodico
 1922 1st Prize, Commercial and Industrial Fair in the Manila Carnival
 1929 (1939?) 1st Prize, New York’s World Fair, for Afternoon Meal of Rice Workers (also
known as Noonday Meal of the Rice Workers)
 1940 Outstanding University of the Philippines Alumnus Award
 1959 Gold Medal, UNESCO National Commission
 1961 Rizal Pro Patria Award
 1961 Honorary Doctorate in the Humanities, from the Far Eastern University
 1963 Diploma of Merit from the University of the Philippines
 1963 Patnubay ng Sining at Kalinangan Award, from the City of Manila
 1963 Republic Cultural Heritage Award
 1972 Gawad CCP para sa Sining, from the Cultural Center of the Philippines

CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS
 The masterpieces of Amorsolo were created during the American colonial rule and the
Japanese occupation of the Philippines during World War II.

CONTENT ANALYSIS
 The painter Fernando Amorsolo (1892-1972) was a dominant figure in the visual arts of the
Philippines during the decades before the Second World War and into the post-war period. His
oeuvre is characterized by scenes of the Filipino countryside, harmoniously composed and
richly colored, saturated with bright sunlight and populated by beautiful, happy people: it is an
art of beauty, contentment, peace, and plenty – which perhaps explains its enduring popularity
in the Philippines to this day. Moreover, Amorsolo's paintings commemorate the different
tradition, cultures, and customs of Filipinos.

 Planting Rice with Mayon Volcano was painted in 1949. Happy Filipino villagers in their
bright clothes and straw hats work together amid a green and sunlit landscape of plenty.
Behind them, releasing a peaceful plume of steam rises the beautifully symmetrical cone of
Mayon stratovolcano. It is the ash erupted by the volcano over its highly-active history that has
made the surrounding landscape fertile, and the tranquil cone appears here to be a beneficial
spirit of the earth standing guardian over the villagers and their crops. Mayon’s eruptions can
be very destructive (as in the violent eruption of 1947, not long before this picture was painted,
when pyroclastic flows and lahars brought widespread destruction and fatalities) but here the
relationship between the volcano and the surrounding landscape is depicted as a positive,
fruitful and harmonious one. Mayon is a celebrated symbol of the Philippines, and its presence
in Amorsolo’s painting emphasizes his wish to represent the spirit of the nation on canvas.

 The Fruit Pickers under the Mango Tree Fernando Amorsolo created this painting during the
year 1937. This year was the rise of women's rights. Many events for the Filipinas occurred
during that time. One, the Philippines held a plebiscite for Filipino women on whether they
should be extended the right to suffrage; over 90% voted in the affirmative. Also, for the
first-ever, Filipino women were given the right to vote during elections.
 The artist, Amorsolo, created this artwork to show the true value of Filipinos. They are
hardworking yet happy of what they are doing. It was to also make the world aware of the true
Filipina beauty. Overall, this painting was intended to show Filipino’s characteristic glow. This
can be proven by looking at the characters in the painting.
 The artwork is entitled Fruit Pickers Under the Mango Tree. It was painted by Fernando
Amorsolo a famous Filipino artist. It was made by using oil on 25 1/4 x 37 1/2 inches canvas
and was finished in the year 1937.

 The Making of the Philippine Flag The painting shows three women namely Marcella Marino
de Agoncillo (on the right side) refer as the mother of the Philippine flag, with the help of
Lorenza and Delfina Herbosa de Natividad which is actually the daughter of Marcela. They
were tasked by Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo to sew the first flag for the new republic. The clothes that
the women are wearing are an older style, more vintage, and really depict the traditional styles.
The skirts the women are wearing are long and their tops were like a traditional “kimona”. The
three women are sewing passionately which demonstrates elegance. The painting was not that
kind of vibrant in the eyes but can set your mood is calm. The setting is inside of a house which
is more like a “Bahay Kubo” The main colors that were used in the painting were brown, red,
blue, and yellow. The mood and visual effects that this painting can be considered are
calmness and serenity. The painting shows a contrast of colors of brown to yellow which is not
harmonious. The artist balanced his characters and the background in his painting which
makes the painting balanced. There are no real lines in the painting because it is painted in a
pointillist style.

 Defense of a Filipina Woman’s HonourThis is a representative of Amorsolo's World War

II-era paintings. Here, a Filipino man defends a woman, who is either his wife or daughter, from
being raped by an unseen Japanese soldier. Note the Japanese military cap at the man's foot.
 After the onset of World War II, Amorsolo's typical pastoral scenes were replaced by the
depictions of a war-torn nation. During the Japanese occupation of the Philippines during World
War II, Amorsolo spent his days at his home near the Japanese garrison, where he sketched
war scenes from the house's windows or rooftop.
 During the war, he documented the destruction of many landmarks in Manila and the pain,
tragedy, and death experienced by Filipino people, with his subjects including "women
mourning their dead husbands, files of people with pushcarts and makeshift bags leaving a
dark burning city tinged with red from fire and blood."Amorsolo frequently portrayed the lives
and suffering of Filipina women during World War II. Other World War II-era paintings by
Amorsolo include a portrait in absentia of General Douglas MacArthur as well as self-portraits
and paintings of Japanese occupation soldiers.

LESSON 5: The Raiders of Sulu Sea

THE RAIDERS OF SULU SEA
THE BACKGROUND OF THE AUTHORS AND NARRATORS
 Icelle Gloria Durano Borja Estrada was born in Zamboanga City and was a 7th generation
direct descendant of Vicente Alvarez, the hero of Zamboanga City during the
Spanish-American War. She earned her first degree at Western Mindanao State University
(WMSU) of Bachelor of Science in History Education; then continued finishing other degrees at
Pilar College, Zamboanga City; University of the Philippines Diliman College of Fine Arts, major
in Art History; and Ateneo de Zamboanga City

 She is a collector of art and is a member of the National Commission on Museums of the
National Commission for Culture and the Arts of the Philippines, President of the Mindanao
Association of Museums and for many years, was a curator of Art Museum Exhibits in the
Philippines and abroad.
 Dr. Samuel Kong Tan is a Samal-Taosug-Chinese Filipino born in Siasi, Sulu. He earned his
Masters Degree in History at University of the Philippines Diliman and his Doctoral in
Philosophy in Interdisciplinary Studies at Syracuse University, New York, USA.
 He is a published Author and served as the Chairperson of UP Diliman’s Department of History
and was also the Chairman and Executive Director of the National Historical Institute in 1998.
 He is well-known for his famous book “A History of the Philippines”, briefly describes the human
history and culture of the Philippines, focusing on three Filipino cultural communities--the
Moros, the Indios, and the Infieles--and examining how these groups reflect the country's
history and development.
 He shared his view about the colonial depictions of Moro “Slave raiding” in the Philippines
coastal towns where it demonstrated the open-armed resistance to the colonial rule of the
Muslims.

 Prof. Barbara Watson Andaya, born on June 7, 1943, is an Australian historian and author
who studies Indonesia and Maritime Southeast Asian History. She had done extensive
researches on women’s history in Southeast Asia, and of late, on the localization of Christianity
in the Region.
 She received her Bachelor of Arts and Diploma of Education in Asian Studies from the
University of Sydney. She also earned her Doctoral in Philosophy in Southeast Asian University
at Cornell University with a specialization in Southeast Asian History and got her Masters
Degree at the University of Hawaii. She teaches courses as a full-time professor in Asian
Studies and is the director of the University’s Center for Southeast Asian Studies. She was the
president of the American Association for Asian Studies from 2005 to 2006.

 Dr. Julius Bautista is currently appointed as Senior Lecturer at the Department of Southeast
Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore. He remains as an Associate of the
Religion and Globalization in Asian Contexts Cluster at Asia Research Institute.
 He is an anthropologist and cultural historian who earned a Doctorate degree in Philosophy in
Southeast Asian Studies from the Center for Asian Societies and Histories at the Australian
National University. He was a Visiting Fellow at ARI's Religion and Globalisation in Asian
Contexts Cluster from 2005 to 2011. His teaching and research interests include Catholicism in
the Philippines, Comparative World Religions, The material culture of Southeast Asia, Pain,
Nociception and religious ritual, Ethnographic practice and methodology, and Asian-Australian
heritage scholarship.

 Halman Abubakar is a Taosug and a town councilor of Jolo, Sulu, and is a member of the
educated Abubakar Clan of Jolo. He asserts that the attacks on the Spanish forces were the
Moro reaction to Spanish and American imposition on the Moro People.
 He promotes indigenous martial arts "Silat" –historic and significant on Taosug bladed
weapons; as a form of selfdefense and glorifies the historic and symbolic significance of these
weapons. He also shares the sentiments of his people by resenting the characterization of
Western Colony and Filipino historiography as "pirates".

 Dr. Margarita “Tingting” R. Cojuangco is a Filipino politician, philanthropist, and socialite.

She was the former Chairman of the Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino (Kampi) party, was
governor of Tarlac, and was an Undersecretary of the Department of Interior and Local
Government and a member of the Council of Philippine Affairs (COPA). She is a columnist in
The Philippine Star and was a candidate for a seat in the Senate in the 2013 Philippine Senate
Election.
 She studied at the University of Santo Tomas with a doctorate degree in Philosophy of Public
Safety, finished her Masters in National Security Administration (MNSA) at the National
Defense College, and holds doctorate degrees in Criminology and Philippine History.
 She is known for her humanitarian projects and works among Muslim communities and her
participation in the peace talks with the Moro National Liberation Front.
CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS
 It is the 18th Century, and life from some of the coastal inhabitants of the Philippines was
anything but idyllic. For without warning, they could be attacked by the merciless Illanuns –the
raiders of the Sulu Sea. These raiders were fearless and fiercer in battle even against better
armed, technologically superior colonial forces.

 To the western colonists, these raiders are nothing but barbaric pirates; and they were hunted
down and such. But there is speculation that these raiders are not the savages they were made
out to be, but nearly indigenous people defending their way of life against the foreign oppressor.
There is little doubt that these raiders were skilled fighters and deadly swordsmen, but they are
also expert sailors and builders of formidable vessels of war. These raiders are not just bandits
but a wellorganized force that could attack with the precision of strategy, giving these western
colonial forces a run for their lives.

 On December 8th, 1720, the Southern regions of Mindanao were occupied by Spanish soldiers
that were then identified as Zamboanga City. It sits at the tip of the Southwest peninsula of the
Philippines that is protected by the city’s Fort Pilar –a ten-meter-high wall that acted as a
defense fortress. The Fort served as the base of operations to check on slave-raiding going on
the north and back.

 King Dalasi was the King of Bulig in Maguindanao who led in attacking the Fort Pillar together
with the forces of the Sulu Sultanate; burned the town around the Fort, cut down the line of
provisions for the Spaniards, and began a war against the soldiers inside the Fort. Dalasi’s
raiders fight with a vengeance and desire to rip Zamboanga City off the Spanish Forces. They
really had to suppress the Spanish presence here in the peninsula because the Fort was their
base of operations.

 According to some historians, slave raiding happened in the Philippines long before the
Western Powers arrived but it was never widespread productivity. The arrival of the Spanish
and the desire to dominate trade in the region trigger slavery. The Spanish refer to the slave
raiders as Moros. If they weren’t from different tribes, they would challenge the Spanish
authority for occupancy.

 The pirates that were described by the Colonial Powers involved activities of different tribes in
the Mindanao Area as well as the Sulu Archipelago. These 3 Muslim Groups were the
BalangingiSamal Tribe, the Illanuns, and the Taosugs. The Illanuns and Balangingi-Samal
group were both long-standing seafaring communities and would often join forces with the
Taosugs that is known for its fierce warriors. All of the piratical attacks and retaliatory attacks
conducted from Sulu and Maguindanao always carried these contingents.

 History also questioned, should these raiders from the south be called “Pirates”? Do these
raiders fight for personal gain or just serving their local, political masters? The documentary
informants stated that “pirates” is misleading because it doesn’t cover raiders and people who
acted on behalf of the state. It was then concluded that the Moro act was an act of retaliation
against the foreign occupier and was sanctioned by the sultanates in the name of a higher
course: Islam.

 There was also a certainly great deal of pressure from the South for populations in the Visayas
to become Islamized. But, the presence of the Spanish in the Visayas and Northern Luzon
disrupted the spread of Islam. The Spanish Colonial Administration thought it was their
responsibility to prevent the spread of Islam from the south to the Christianized populations in
the North. They have an impressive empire that their conquest is not only motivated by these
colonies but also by the opportunity to propagate Christianity. Therefore, Christianity deploys
quickly displacing Islam and Indigenous Tribal beliefs.
 The Spaniards weren’t concern about what the people in the South were after but rather, was
really more than that they really undermined the commercial interests of the region. Through
this, they gained new power in the region which was exerting its own agendas and its own
influences. However, the Sultanates in the South just wanted to do was to maintain their power,
if not, increase it a little bit more. Both sides use religious ideologies to further influence and
feed their objectives.

 Behind the clash of religious doctrines was a more compelling reason for the Spanish to bring
the slave raiders to the hill –the spoils of trade with the orient. Something the Spanish wanted a
fullcontrol of. In many respects, the Spanish wanted to be a part of this exchange in trade but
also wanted to do so in conjunction with the conversion of religious perspective and mindset
and colonization of our Islands.

CONTENT ANALYSIS
 The documentary film addressed the resistance of the People in the South, the Moros, from the
Spanish-American Colonial forces in the Southern region of the Philippines.
1. The Moro People are not really pirates or rebels but indigenous people who demonstrated
resistance from the Spanish forces.
2. The most celebrated attack was the December 8th, 1970 attack by King Dalasi.
3. The Moro act was an act of retaliation against the foreign occupier and was sanctioned by
the sultanates in the name of a higher course: Islam.
4. Spaniards were concerned about the commercial interests of the region and to propagate
Christianity.
5. Slave-raiding was part of the bigger regional trade in the Islands of Southeast Asia.
6. Artifacts originating from China that was found in Butuan City are proof of the great
distances travelled by the Sea farers of Sulu and the trading activities they were involved in
7. The Western Colonial Ruling sand open-armed conflicts in the Southern region of the
Philippines cause the impoverishment of Muslim Areas economically and religiously.

THE THREE MUSLIM TRIBES

1. Balangingi-Samal Tribe
 The Balangingi, also known Northern Sama or Northern Sinama, is an ethnolinguistic group
living on the Greater Sulu Archipelago and the southern and western coastal regions of the
Zamboanga peninsula in Mindanao. They are mostly found in Lutangan and Olutangga islands
in Zamboanga del Sur, Basilan Island of the Sulu Archipelago, coastal areas of Zamboanga
coast peninsula, and as far north as Luzon; particularly in White Beach near Subic Bay,
Zambales. Balangingis are considered to be part of the larger group of Sama-Badjao and
speak the Balangingi dialect

 In the early nineteenth century, an entire ethnic group, the Samal Balangingi of the
SuluMindanao region, specialized in state-sanctioned maritime raiding, attacking Southeast
Asian coastal settlements and trading vessels. This paper traces the process of the formation
of the Samal Balangingi as an ethnic group comprised of 'pirates' and their captives, and their
continued sense of belonging to the island stronghold of Balangingi, even after its inhabitants
were forcefully resettled between 1848 and 1858. The paper also stresses just how critical the
Spanish resettlement policy directed against the deported Samal Balangingi was for their future
cultural and social life. It highlights the inextricable relationship between maritime raiding,
slavery, forced migration, 'homeland', and cultural identity as being critical factors that led to
theemergence of new ethnicities and diasporas. By highlighting the problems of self-definition
and the reconstruction of identities and the meaning of homeland and lost places, as a
revealing social and psychological process in its own right, the case of the Samal Balangingi
challenges lineal notions of history and bounded static conceptions of 'culture' and ethnic
groups that were imposed, imagined and maintained by Europeans both prior to and after
colonization.
2. The Illanuns
 The Illanun, called Iranun and Ilianon as well, are closely related culturally and linguistically to
the Maranao and Maguindanaon. The Illanun language is part of the Austronesian family that is
most closely related to Maranao. When the Spaniards left, however, contact between the
Maranao and Illanun decreased.

 The majority of Illanun live along the coastline in the of the towns of Nulingi, Parang, Matanog,
and Barira in Maguindanao Province, Mindanao; along the Iliana Bay coast, north of the mouth
of the Pulangi River; and all the way to Sibugay Bay in Zamboanga del Sur and even the
western coastal plain of Borneo. Illanun, a Malay term meaning “pirate,” is appropriate for the
people of this ethnic group, who were once regarded as the fiercest pirates in the Malay area.

3. The Taosug Tribe

 The dominant ethnic group in the Sulu archipelago because of their political and religious
institutions, the Tausug occupy Jolo, Indanan, Siasi, and Patikul in Sulu (ARMM). There are
also scattered settlements in Zamboanga del Sur and Cotabato, and all the way to Malaysia,
which has an estimated Tausug population of more than 110,000.

 Tausug is a combination of tau (person) and suug (the old name of Jolo Island). The present
generation of Tausugs are believed to be descended from the different ethnic groups that had
migrated to the Sulu archipelago.
 Traditionally the Tausug are sailors, pearl divers and traders, their ancestral homelands in the
Sulu Archipelago have vigorous tidal currents that flow from the Sulu and China Seas to the
Celebes Sea. This translates literally into the name people of the current.

 This native tribe, the first group in the archipelago to be converted to Islam, possess a courage
that is beyond doubt, their bravery is supposed to be unquestionable, therefore the Tausug are
often named Tau Maisug or brave people.

 They are proud Muslims renowned for their fierce resistance in the face of Spanish Conquerors,
for 300 years the Tausug and the Spanish were engaged in almost continuous warfare, which
ended when the Spaniards left the Philippines. The Tausug regards themselves superior to
other Philippine Muslims and still live a combative way of life, running away from a fight is
considered shameful. One old Tausug proverb says: Hanggang maybuhay, may pag asa,
meaning; Never admit defeat as long as you live.

THE ANCIENT MARITIME VESSELS OF THE MORO PEOPLE

 The Moro People used compasses, browsed telescopes, and the stars to navigate the seas.
They are also knowledgeable about the monsoon of the region and use them to travel
extensively during the month of August and October in a period called “The Pirate Season.”

1. Lanong
 Lanong is a large outrigger warship used by the Iranun and the Banguingui people of the
Philippines. It could reach up to 30 m (98 ft) in length with 6 meters wide hounds, each at
cannons mounted at the bar and had two biped shear masts which doubled as boarding
ladders. It has 24 oars at each side rowed by captures slaves that served as their flagships.

 Each vessel carried a hundred to hundred-fifty men including a captain, soldiers, slaves to row
and captured local slaves to navigate unknown waters. The vessels were specialized for naval
battles. They were prominently used for piracy and slave raids from the mid-18th century to the
early 19th century in most of Southeast Asia. Large lanongs were also inaccurately known by
the Spanish as joangas or juangas. The name Lanong is derived from Lanun, an exonym of the
Iranun people.
2. Garay
 Garay is a traditional native warship of the Banguingui people in the Philippines. These are the
fast-attack boats of the Samalian Tribes. They were made of Bamboo wood and Nipa Palm and
could carry more than 100 sailors. The ship was 25 meters long and 6 meters across and
hounds the power magazine and cannon at the barrel. With 30 to 60 oars in each side, the
Garay was faster than any other sea-going vessel of its time.

 In the 18th and 19th centuries, they were commonly used for piracy by the Banguingui and
Iranun people against unarmed trading ships and raids on coastal settlements in the regions
surrounding the Sulu Sea. They are smaller, faster and more manoeuvrable speeding boats
replaced from the juangas. The name means "scattered" or "wanderer" in the Sama language
of the Banguingui.

3. Salisipan
 Kakap (also known as salisipan) is a canoe-shaped boat which sometimes have outriggers.
They are often used by the Iranun and Banguingui people of the Philippines for piracy and for
raids on coastal areas. They are usually part of fleets with larger motherships like pangajava,
garay, or lanong warships. Among Malays, this type of boat is used as a boat of war or
passenger boat. Raiding fleets are used as auxiliary vessels. These boats were used to collect
manpower and ships from friendly raiding bases along the way; eventually, building a fearsome,
organized sea force.

THE ANCIENT WEAPONS OF THE MORO PEOPLE

1. Kalis / Kris
 It is a type of double-edged Filipino sword, often with a "wavy" section The kalis's double-edged
blade can be used for both cutting and thrusting. The sword is more than 300 years old and it
was used during the time of the Spanish colonization. It is a weapon for warfare and servility. It
is 2 meters in length and was carried not only by slave raiders into battle but also nobles and
high-ranking officials of southern Sultanates. It’s double-edge blade is used for easier slashing
and penetration to the bone that would stick so it’s very hard to pull.

2. Barong
 Barong or Barung is the one Taosug warriors use to cut off an M-14 and a carabiner because
its blade is thick. It is a deadly weapon and a sword with a single-edge leafshape blade made of
thick type of steel. It is also a 1-meter long weapon that was used to enclose hand to hand
battle to cut Spanish firearms down to size. This weapon is used by Muslim Filipino
ethnolinguistic groups like the Tausug, Sinama or Yakan in the Southern Philippines.

3. Kampilan
 Kampilan is the longest sword that was used by the Illanuns. It is a heavy, single-edge sword
that has two horns projecting from the blunt side of the tip which was used to pick up the head
of the decapitated body. The Kampilan has a distinct profile, with the tapered blade being much
broader and thinner at the point than at its base, sometimes with a protruding spikelet along the
flat side of the tip and a bifurcated hilt which is believed to represent a mythical creature's open
mouth. At about 36 to 40 inches (90 to 100 cm) long, it is much larger than other Filipino
swords.

4. Armor
 The armor was made from carabao horn. Its steel plate was molded to fit the body and held
together by chain mail. It could also deflect the blows from a sword but useless against
firearms.

THE ANCIENT WEAPONS OF THE SPANISH FORCES

1. Musket
 The musket could fire 90 meters. It was inaccurate and took several stages steps to reload.
2. Cannons
 It is a type of gun classified as artillery that launches a projectile using propellant. In the past,
gunpowder was the primary propellant before the invention of smokeless powder in the 19th
century. Cannons vary in caliber, range, mobility, rate of fire, angle of fire, and firepower.
Different forms of cannon combine and balance these attributes in varying degrees, depending
on their intended use on the battlefield.

THE FORT PILAR OF ZAMBOANGA CITY

 Zamboanga City sits at the tip of the Southwest peninsula of the Philippines that is protected by
the city’s Fort Pilar –a ten-meter-high wall that acted as a defense fortress. The Fort served as
the base of operations to check on slave-raiding going on the north and back.

HISTORICAL RELEVANCE
 The historiography documentary film “Raiders of the Sulu Sea” is a presentation of the study of
the history that happened in the mid-17th century and the years after that was still in the line
with the Moro-Spanish past. It vindicated the Moro Wars in the Mindanao Region, as to the
influence of Religious Ideologies and economic forces that drove the clash resistance –to what
was the aftermath of it; that will serve as an insight to what happened on the Southern tip of
Zamboanga City and the Western Power sufficing it with artillery and force.

 The history of the Moro people is part of the backbone of the historical development of the
Philippines. It was asserted in the film that no Philippine history can be complete without the
study of Muslim development and the Colonization that occurred.

 The historical relevance in the Southern Philippines and the Spanish Colonization is concerned
with the line of conflicts in the historical development:
 Political: The Moro People frayed for their political power hold that was gradually
assimilated into the jurisdiction of the Philippine Government.
 Social: The resistance of the Moro People against the religious influence of the Christianity
that was widely spread by the Spaniards
 Economic: Commercial ventures of natural resources fuelled the growing demands of
slaves from the south that intensify the frequency of the Moro people of their raiding
expeditions.
 Cultural: The artistic indigenous crafts making of the Slave raiders through the boats and
weapons made and used; and also, the pattern of trade that has begun years ago between
China and India long before the entry of Western Powers.

CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE
 In the modern context and setting of the Philippines today, we live in a pluralistic world and a
conflict-torn world. Sad to say that some of these conflicts have been abetted, if not aggravated
by religions, flaring up in open armed conflicts and bloody resistance between Muslims and
Christians. The Philippine context of which we have to share open armed conflicts was in
Mindanao, and have been portrayed as Christian-Muslim Conflict.

 The “Raiders of the Sulu Sea” presents the study of the history that happened in the
MoroSpanish past. It vindicated that the different standpoints of the two parties was brought
forth by the influence of Religious Ideologies and economic forces that drove the clash
resistance. MuslimChristianity Rivalry is until today, sufficing in our era.

 The history of the Moro people and the Colonization that happened in Zamboanga City will
always be a part of the backbone of the historical development of the Philippines. It abridges us
to the perspective of knowing, understanding, and commemorating the importance of the
history of the Southern Region of the Philippines. The contemporary relevance in the Southern
Philippines and the Spanish Colonization is concerned with the line of causations in the
Philippine setting and context today:
  Political: The Moro People constructs an autonomous political entity in the South,
supported by the Bangsamoro Organic Law (Republic Act No. 11054)
 Social: The acceptance and acknowledgment for the Moro People with regards to religious
differences and ideologies in our modern time.
 Economic: To combat the freedom to attain and acclaim natural resources against the
oppression of big companies and international trading system; and also the tax system
supported by TRAIN LAW that would only threaten continuing poor areas in the South.
 Cultural: The preservation of the indigenous crafts and products in the South and the
continuity of performing indigenous arts and beliefs is a way of keeping the culture alive.

Lesson 11: The Site of the First Mass

LEARNING CONTENT:
Introduction:
In this module, we will analyze the historiographical problems in Philippine history in an attempt to
apply what we have learned thus far in the work of a historian and the process of historical inquiry.
There are two key concepts that we need to define before proceeding to the historical analysis of
problems in history. These are interpretation and multiperspectivity.
“Making sense of the past” is a process wherein historians utilize facts collected from primary
sources and then draw their own reading so that their intended audience may understand the
historical event. The premise is that not all primary sources are accessible to a general audience,
and without the proper training and background may do more harm than good. Interpretation of the
past, therefore, vary according to who reads the primary source, when it was read, and how it was
read. As students of history, we must be well-equipped to recognize different types of interpretation,
why these may differ from each other, and how to critically sift these interpretations through
historical evaluation. Interpretations of historical events change over time; thus, it is an important
skill for a student of history to trac these changes in an attempt to understand the past.
With several possibilities to interpreting the past, another important concept that we must note is
multiperspectivity. This can be defined as a way of looking at historical events, personalities,
developments, cultures, and societies from different perspectives. This means that there is
multitude of ways by which we can view the world, and each could be equally valid, and at the
same time, equally partial as well. Historical writing is, by definition, biased, partial, and contains
preconceptions. With multiperspectivity as an approach in history, we must understand that
historical interpretations contain discrepancies, contradictions, ambiguities, and are often the focus
of dissent.
LESSON PROPER:

SITE OF THE FIRST MASS

People debating on the first mass story find it as a religious and geographical matter. Religiously, it
marks the birthplace of Christianity in the Philippines. Geographically, it challenges the "accuracy"
of Spanish narratives about the Philippine spaces and places, and their movements between these
places. Numerous debates have been made on this controversy and it was even elevated and
fought over to the Congress. Both camps persist with their claims and they continuously challenge
each other’s evidences and assertions. In March 1998, however, the disputed issue was officially
settled when the National Historical Institute (NHI) declared Limasawa to be the site of the first
catholic mass. Despite the foregoing verdict, the pro-Masao group has not stopped from asserting
its claim until today.
But as a Filipino, what is the significance of this first Eucharistic celebration issue? The value of this
controversy rests on the fact that the conduct of the first Holy Mass is associated with the
introduction of Christianity on Philippine soil. Historically, it corrects geographical distortion
contained in Philippine historiography.
 THE BUTUAN TRADITION
The Butuan claim rests upon a tradition that was almost unanimous and unbroken for three
centuries, namely the 17th, the 18th and the 19th. On the strength of that tradition and embodying it,
a monument was erected in 1872 near the mouth of the Agusan River at a spot that was then within
the municipal boundaries of Butuan, but which today belongs to the separate municipality of
Magallanes, named after Ferdinand Magellan. The monument was a brick pillar on which was a
marble slab that contained an inscription which might be translated as follows:
To the Immortal Magellan: the People of Butuan with their Parish Priest and the Spaniards resident
therein, to commemorate his arrival and the celebration of the First Mass on this site on the 8th of
April 1521. Erected in 1872, under the District Governor Jose Ma. Carvallo.
The monument was erected apparently at the instigation of the parish priest of Butuan, who at the
time was a Spanish friar of the Order of Augustinian Recollects. The date given for the first Mass (8
April 1521) may be an obvious error, or it may be a clumsy and anachronistic attempt to translate
the original date in terms of the Gregorian calendar. In any use, that monument is a testimonial to
the tradition that remained vigorous until the end of the 19th century, namely, that Magellan and his
expedition landed at Butuan and celebrated there the first Mass ever offered on Philippine soil.
The Butuan tradition was already in possession by the middle of the 17th century: so much so that
it was accepted without question by two Jesuit historians who otherwise were quite careful of their
facts.
One of these historians was Father Francisco Colin S.J. (1592-1660) whose Labor evangelica was
first published in Madrid in 1663, three years after his death. The work was reissued 240 years later
in a magnificent three-volume edition annotated by Father Pablo Pastelis S.J. (Madrid, 1903).
Colin had obviously read some authentic accounts of Magellan's voyage for his narration is
accurate up to the landing in Homonhon, (He spells it Humunu, as does Pigafetta.) After that,
Colin's account becomes vague, He abruptly brings Magellan to Butuan without explaining how he
got there. Then he brings him to Limasawa (which he misspells Dimasaua), and from there the
account becomes again accurate and detailed. The important thing in Colin's account as far as our
present purpose is concerned, is the fact that he represents the first Mass, as well as the solemn
planting of the cross and the formal taking possession of the Islands in the name of the Crown of
Castile, as having taken place at Butuan on Easter Sunday of 1521.
The other Jesuit writer of the mid-17th century was Father Francisco Combes S.J. (1620-1665)
who, like Colin, had lived and worked as a missionary in the Philipines, and whose Historia de
Mindanao y Jolo was printed in Madrid in 1667, two years after the author's death and five years
after Colin's work was published. Combes’ History of Mindanao was also reissued 230 years
afterwards in a handsome edition edited by Wenceslao Retana assisted by Father Pastells, In his
account of Magellan's voyage, Combes gives a somewhat different version of the route taken by
the Discoverer.
For our present purpose, the main point in that account is that Magellan landed at Butuan and there
planted the cross in a solemn ceremony. Combes does not mention the first Mass. What he
mentions are the other two events which, from Pigafetta's account, had occurred on the same day
as the first Mass, namely the planting of the cross and the formal claiming of the Archipelago on
behalf of the Castilian Crown. These events, says Combes, took place at Butuan.

THE EVIDENCE FOR LIMASAWA

I. The Evidence of Albo's Log-Book
Francisco Albo joined the Magellan expedition as a pilot ("contramaestre") in Magellan's flagship
"Trinidad". He was one of the eighteen survivors who returned with Sebastian Elcano on the
"Victoria" after having circumnavigated the world. Albo began keeping his own diary -- merely only
a log-book - on the voyage out, while they were sailing southward in the Atlantic along the coast of
South America, off Brazil. His account of their entry into Philippine waters (or, as it was then called,
the archipelago of San Lazaro) . . . may be reduced to the following points:
1. On the 16th of March (1521) as they sailed in a westerly course from the Ladrones, they saw
land towards the northwest; but owing to many shallow places they did not approach it.
They found later that its name was Yunagan.
2. They went instead that same day southwards to another small island named Suluan, and
there they anchored. There they saw some canoes but these tied at the Spaniards’
approach. This island was at 9 and two-thirds degrees North latitude.
3. Departing from those two islands, they sailed westward to an uninhabited island of "Gada"
where they took in a supply of wood and water. The sea around that island was free from
shallows. (Albo does not give the latitude of this island, but from Pigafetta's testimony, this
seems to be the "Acquada" or Homonhon, at 10 degrees North latitude,)
4. From that island they sailed westwards towards a large island named Seilani which was
inhabited and was known to have gold. (Seilani – or, as Pigaffeta calls it, "Ceylon" – was
the island of Leyte.)
5. Sailing southwards along the coast of that large island of Seilani, they turned southwest to a
small island called "Mazava". That island is also at a latitude of 9 and two-thirds degrees
North.
6. The people of that island of Mazava were very good. There the Spaniards planted a cross
upon a mountain-top, and from there they were shown three lands to the west and
southwest, where they were told there was much gold. "They showed us how the gold was
gathered, which came in small pieces like peas and lentils."
7. From Mazava they sailed northwards again towards Seilani. They followed the coast of
Seilani in a northwesterly direction, ascending up to 10 degrees of latitude where they saw
three small islands.
8. From there they sailed westwards some ten leagues, and there they saw three islets, where
they dropped anchor for the night. In the morning they sailed southwest some 12 leagues,
down to a latitude of 10 and one-third degree. There they entered a channel between two
islands, one of which was called "Matan" and the other "Subu”
9. They sailed down that channel and then turned westward and anchored at the town (la villa)
of Subu where they stayed many days and obtained provisions and entered into a
peace-pact with the local king.
10. The town of Subu was on an east-west direction with the islands of Suluan and Mazava.
But between Mazava and Subu, there were so many shallows that the boats could not go
westward directly but had to go (as they did) in a round-about way.
Such is Albo 's testimony. The island that he calls Gada seems to be the acquada of Pigafetta,
namely the island of Homonhon where they took in supplies of water and wood. The large island of
Seilani which they coasted is the island of Leyte. Coasting southwards along the eastern coast of
that island, then turning southwest they came upon small island named, Mazava, which lies at a
latitude of 9 and two-thirds degrees North.
That fits the location of the small island of Limasawa, south of Leyte. The island's southern tip is at
90°54' N.
It is to be noted that Albo does not mention the first Mass, but only the planting of the cross upon a
mountain-top from which could be seen three islands to the west and southwest. This also fits the
southern end of Limasawa. It does not fit the coast of Butuan from which no islands could be seen
to the south or the southwest, but only towards the north
II. The Evidence from Pigafetta
The most complete account of the Magellan expedition is that by Antonio Pigafetta entitled First
Voyage Around the World. Like Albo, he was a member of the expedition and was therefore an
eyewitness of the principal events which he describes, including the first Mass in what is now
known as the Philippine Archipelago, but which Magellan called the Islands of Saint Lazarus. Of
Pigafetta's work there are two excellent English translations, one by Robertson (from the Italian)
and another by Skelton (from the French).
The pertinent section in Pigafetta's account is that part in which he narrates the events from the
16th of March 1521 when they first sighted the islands of the Philippine Group, up to the 7th of April
when the expedition landed at Cebu. That was a period of approximately three weeks.
Pigafetta's Testimony Regarding the Route
The route taken by the Magellan expedition may be reconstructed if we follow Pigafetta's account
day by day. Here is a summary of his account.
1. Saturday, 16 March 1521. – Magellan's expedition sighted a "high land" named “Zama!"
Which was some 300 leagues westward of the Ladrones (now the Marianas) Islands.
2. Sunday, March 17. – "The following day" after sighting Zamal Island, they landed on
"another island which was uninhabited" and which lay "to the right" of the above-mentioned
island of “Zamal." (To the "right" here would mean on their starboard going south or southwest.)
There they set up two tents for the sick members of the crew and had a sow killed for them. The
name of this island was "Humunu” (Homonhon). This island was located at 10 degrees North
latitude.
3. On that same day (Sunday, 17 March). – Magellan named the entire archipelago the
"Islands or Saint Lazarus", the reason being that it was the Sunday in the Lenten season when
the Gospel assigned for the Mass and the liturgical Office was the eleventh chapter of St. John,
which tells of the raising of Lazarus from the dead.
4. Monday, 18 March. – In the afternoon of their second day on that island, they saw a boat
coming towards them with nine men in it. An exchange of gifts was in effected. Magellan asked
for food supplies, and the men went away, promising to bring rice and other supplies in "four
days.'
5. There were two springs of water on that island of Homonhon. Also, they saw there some
indications that there was gold in these islands. Consequently, Magellan renamed the island
and called it the " Watering Place of Good Omen" (Acquada la di bouni sr gnialli).
6. Friday, 22 March. – At noon the natives returned. This time they were in two boats. and
they brought food supplies.
7. Magellan' expedition stayed eight days at Homonhon: from Sunday, 17 March. to the
Monday of the following week, 25 March.
8. Monday, 25 March. – In the afternoon, the expedition weighed anchor and left the island of
Homonhon. In the ecclesiastical calendar, this day (25 March) was the feast-day (of the
Incarnation, also called the feast of the Annunciation and therefore "Our Lady’s Day." On this
day, as they were about to weigh anchor, an accident happened to Pigafetta: he fell into the
water but was rescued. He attributed his narrow escape from death as a grace obtained
through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary on her feast-day.
9. The route taken by the expedition after leaving Homonhon was "toward the west southwest,
between four islands: namely, Cenalo. Hiunanghan, lbusson and Albarien." Very probably
"Cenalo" is a misspelling in the Italian manuscript for what Pigaffeta in his map calls "Ceilon"
and Albo calls "Seilani": namely the island of Leyte. "Hiunanghan" (a misspelling of
Hinunangan) seemed to Pigafetta to be a separate island, but it is actually on the mainland of
Leyte (i.e. "Ceylon"). On the other hand, Hibuson (Pigafetta's lbusson) is an island east of
Leyte's southern tip.

Thus, it is easy to see what Pigafetta meant by sailing "toward the west southwest” past those
islands. They left Homonhon sailing westward towards Leyte, then followed the Leyte coast
 south yard, passing between the island of Hibuson on their portside and Hiunangan Bay on
their starboard, and then continued southward, then turning westward to "Mazaua"
10. Thursday, 28 March. – In the morning of Holy Thursday, they anchored off an island
where the previous night they had
11. They remained seven days on Mazaua Island. What they did during those seven days, we
shall discuss in a separate section below, entitled "Seven Days at Mazaua.”
12. Thursday, 4 April. – They left Mazaua, bound for Cebu. They were guided thither by the
king of Mazaua who sailed in his own boat. Their route took them past five "islands": namely:
"Ceylon, Bohol, Canighan, Baibai, and Catighan. Pigafetta thought that Ceylon and Baibai were
separate islands. Actually, they were parts of the same island of Leyte. "Canighan" (Canigao in
our maps) is an island off the southwestem tip of Leyte. They sailed from Mazaua west by
northwest into the Canigao Channel, with Bohol Island to port and Leyte and Canigao Islands
to starboard. Then they sailed northwards along the Leyte coast, past Baibai to "Gatighan". The
identity of Gatighan is not certain. But we are told that it was twenty leagues from Mazaua and
fifteen leagues from "Subu" (Cebu).
13. At Gatighan, they sailed westward to the three islands of the Camotes Group, namely,
Poro, Pasihan and Ponson. (Pigafetta calls them "Polo, Ticobon, and Pozon.") Here the
Spanish ships stopped to allow the king of Mazaua to catch up with them, since the Spanish
ships were much faster than the native balanghai — a thing that excited the admiration of the
king of Mazaua
14. From the Camotes Islands they sailed [southwestward] towards "Zubu".
15. Sunday, 7 April. – At noon on Sunday, the 7th of April, they entered the harbor of "Zubu"
(Cebu). It had taken them three days to negotiate the journey from Mazaua northwards to the
Camotes Islands and then southwards to Cebu.
That is the route of the Magellan expedition as described by Pigafetta. It coincides substantially and
in most details with the route as described in Albo's, log. In that route, the southermost point
reached before getting to Cebu was Mazaua, situated at nine and two-thirds degrees North latitude.
The question may now be asked: Could this "Mazaua" have be Butuan? Or more precisely, could it
have been the "Masao" beach in the Agusan River delta, near Butuan?
Seven Days at Mazaua
In that island of “Mazaua" — which according to both Pigafetta and Albo was situated at a latitude
of nine and two-thirds degrees North - the Magellan expedition stayed a week. "We remained there
seven days," says Pigafetta. What did they do during those seven days?
Was it possible (as some writers have suggested) that the expedition left Mazaua, went south to
Butuan, offered Mass there, and then returned to Mazaua before proceeding to Cebu?
The answer must be sought in Pigafetta's day-by-day account of those seven days. Here is the
summary of his account:
1. Thursday, 28 March. – In the morning they anchored near an island where they had seen a
light the night before. A small boat (boloto) came with eight natives, to whom Magellan threw
some trinkets as presents. The natives paddled away, but two hours later two large boats
(balanghai) came, in one of which the native king sat under an awning of mats. At Magellan's
invitation some of the natives went up the Spanish ship, but the native king remained seated in
his boat. An exchange of gifts was effected. In the afternoon of that day, the Spanish ships
weighed anchor and came closer to shore, anchoring near the native king's village. This
Thursday, 28 March, was Thursday in Holy Week: i.e., Holy Thursday.
2. Friday, 29 March. – "Next day. Holy Friday, " Magellan sent his slave interpreter ashore in a
small boat to ask the king if he could provide the expedition with food supplies, and to say that
they had come as friends and not as enemies. In reply the king himself came in a boat with six
 or eight men, and this time went up to Magellan’s ship and the two men embraced. Another
exchange of gifts was made. The native king and his companions returned ashore, bringing
with them two members of Magellan’s expedition as guests for the night. One of the two was
Pigafetta.
3. Saturday, 30 March. – Pigafetta and his companion had spent the previous evening
feasting and drinking with the native king and his son. Pigafetta deplored the fact that, although
it was Good Friday, they had to eat meat. The following morning (Saturday) Pigafetta and his
companion took leave of their hosts and returned to the ships.
4. Sunday, 31 March. – “Early in the morning of Sunday, the last of March and Easter day,”
Magellan sent the priest ashore with some men to prepare for the Mass. Later in the morning,
Magellan landed with some fifty men and Mass was celebrated, after which a cross was
venerated. Magellan and the Spaniards returned to the ship for the noon-day meal, but in the
afternoon, they returned ashore to plant the cross on the summit of the highest hill. In
attendance both at the Mass and at the planting of the cross were the king of Mazaua and the
king of Butuan.
5. Sunday, 31 March. – On that same afternoon, while on the summit of the highest hill,
Magellan asked the two kings which ports he should go to in order to obtain more abundant
supplies of food than were available in that island. They replied that there were three ports to
choose from: Ceylon, Zubu and Calagan. Of the three, Zubu was the port with the most trade.
Magellan then said that he wished to go to Zubu and to depart the following morning. He asked
for someone to guide him thither. The kings replied that the pilots would be available "any time."
But later that evening the king of Mazaua changed his mind and said that he would himself
conduct Magellan to Zubu but that he would first have to bring the harvest in. He asked
Magellan to send him men to help with the harvest.
6. Monday, 1 April. – Magellan sent men ashore to help with the harvest, but no work was
done that day because the two kings were sleeping off their drinking bout of the night before.
7. Tuesday, 2 April, and Wednesday, 3 April. – Work on the harvest during the "next two
days", i.e. Tuesday and Wednesday, the 2nd and 3rd of April.
8. Thursday, 4 April. – They leave Mazaua, bound for Cebu. "We remained there seven
days," says Pigafetta. Every day is accounted for. The Mass on Easter Sunday was celebrated
on that island of Mazaua, and not in Butuan or elsewhere.
III. Summary of the Evidence of Albo and Pigafetta
Taking the evidence of Albo's log-book together with that from Pigafetta's account, we may take the
following points as established:
1. Magellan's expedition entered Philippine waters south of the island of Samar and towards
Leyte and then southwards parallel to the eastern coast of that island and that of the adjoining
island of Panaon. Rounding the southern tip of the latter, they anchored off the eastern shore of
a small island called Mazaua. There they stayed a week, during which on Easter Sunday they
celebrated Mass and planted the cross on the summit of the highest hill.
2. The island of Mazaua lies at a latitude of nine and two-thirds degrees North. Its position
(south of Leyte) and its latitude correspond to the position and latitude of the island of
Limasawa, whose southern tip lies at 9 degrees and 54 minutes North.
3. From Mazaua, the expedition sailed northwestwards through the Canigao channel between
Bohol and Leyte, then northwestwards parallel to the eastern coast of this latter island, then
they sailed westward to the Camotes Group and from there southwestwards to Cebu.
4. At no point in that itinerary did the Magellan expedition go to Butuan or other point on the
Mindanao coast. The survivors of the expedition did go to Mindanao later, but after MagelIan's
death.
IV. Confirmatory Evidence of Legazpi Expedition
There is confirmatory evidence from the documents of the Legazpi expedition, which sailed into
Philippine waters in 1565, forty-four years after Magellan. One of the places that Legazpi and his
pilots were anxious to visit was precisely Mazaua, and to this end they inquired about "Mazaua"
from Camotuan and his companions, natives of the village of Cabalian at the southeastern end of
the island of Leyte. Guided by these natives, the Legazpi ships rounded the island of "Panae"
(Panaon), which was separated from Leyte by a narrow strait, and anchored off "Mazaua” – but
they found the inhabitants to be hostile, apparently as a result of Portuguese depredations that had
occurred in the four-decade interval between the Legazpi and the Magellan expeditions.
From Mazaua, they went to Camiguing (which was visible from Mazaua), and from there they
intended to go to Butuan on the island of "Vindanao" but were driven instead by contrary winds to
Bohol. It was only later that a small contingent of Spaniards, in a small vessel, managed to go to
Butuan.
The point seems clear: As pilots of the Legazpi expedition understood it, Mazaua was an island
near Leyte and Panaon; Butuan was on the island of Mindanao. The two were entirely different
places and in no wise identical.

Lesson 12: Cavite Mutiny

LEARNING CONTENT:
Introduction:
The Cavity Mutiny was one of the incidents in the annals of Philippine history that had several
conflicts. In comparison to this incident, various sources indicate that each account has different
sides of the narrative. Significantly, those who lived at the time of the incident (first-hand accounts)
and those who obtained their data from contemporaries of the events or who, because of their
connection with those men (second-hand accounts), composed the accounts.
The re-examination of whose "story" is more factual and accurate about Cavite Mutiny is very
important and critical, as this incident led to the martyrdom of the three priests (GOMBURZA) and
led to the Philippine Revolution of 1898. However, of all the accounts, John Schumacher (1972),
who carried out a comprehensive re-examination of the main and secondary records of the case,
points to two credible and accurate records. One is that of Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera,
a Filipino scholar and writer, and the other is that of José Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish
historian.
According to Schumacher, "the account of Pardo de Tavera, prescinding from the emotional
anti-friar tone that pervades it, gives evidence of being the most reliable, even though fairly general,
account except for its failure to recognize that De la Torre had also been suspicious of the Filipino
reformists. That of Montero, apart from its anti-Filipino tone and its supposition of a revolutionary
conspiracy, contains the most details and, to all appearances, most reliable account of the actual
course of the revolt itself, as well as of the execution of the three priests.”
In this sense, the following accounts of Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, Jose Montero y Vidal and the
Official Record of Governor Izquierdo on the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 were considered for this reading.
These people vary because they viewed the mutiny for various reasons. In evaluating this case,
each of them used his or her own benchmark and each reader is asked to closely discriminate
against their statements and fact
LESSON PROPER:

Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872

By Jose Montero y Vidal
The Spaniard Montero y Vidal wrote a version of the Cavite Mutiny which appeared in his book
Historia General de Filipinas (Madrid, 1895, Vol. III, pp. 566-595.). Understandably the narration of
the event showed a pro-Spanish bias that one of his critics Dr. T. H. Pardo de Tavera commented
that he, "in narrating the Cavite episode, does not speak as a historian; he speaks as a Spaniard
bent on perverting the facts at his pleasure; he is mischievously partial." He further said that the
narration was unsupported by documentary evidence and Montero y Vidal exaggerated the mutiny
of a few disgruntled native soldiers and laborers into a revolt to overthrow Spanish rule - a seditious
movement - and involved the innocent Filipino patriotic leaders including Fathers Gomez, Burgos,
and Zamora, Jose Ma. Basa, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, and others. This
shows the difference of perspectives of a colonist and a colonizer. Montero y Vidal's version of the
Cavite episode of 1872 in English translation follows:
With the establishment in Spain of a government less radical than the one that appointed La Torre,
the latter was relieved from his post. His successor D. Rafael de Izquierdo, assumed control of the
government of these islands April 4, 1871. The most eventful episode in his rule was the Cavite
revolt of 1872.
The abolition of the privileges enjoyed by the laborers of the Cavite arsenal of exemption from the
tribute was, according to some, the cause of the insurrection. There were, however, other causes.
The spanish revolution which overthrew a secular throne; the propaganda carried on by an
unbridled press against monarchical principles, attentatory of the most sacred respects towards the
dethroned majesty; the democratic and republican books and pamphlets; the speeches and
preachings of the apostles of these new ideas in Spain; the outbursts of the American publicists
and the criminal policy of the senseless Governor whom the Revolutionary government sent to
govern the Philippines, and who put into practice these ideas were the determining circumstances
which gave rise, among certain Filipinos, to the idea of attaining their independence. It was towards
this goal that they started to work, with the powerful assistance of a certain section of the native
clergy, who0 out of spite toward the friars, made common cause with the enemies of the mother
country.
At various time but especially in the beginning of the year 1872, the authorities received
anonymous communications with the information that a great uprising would break out against the
Spaniards, the minute the fleet at Cavite left for the South, and that all would be assassinated,
including the friars. But nobody gave importance to these notices. The conspiracy had been going
on since the days of La Torre with utmost secrecy. At times, the principal leaders met either in the
house of the Filipino Spaniard, D. Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, or in that of the native priest, Jacinto
Zamora, and these meetings were usually attended by the curate of Bacoor (Cavite), the soul of the
movement, whose energetic character and immense wealth enabled him to exercise a strong
influence.
The garrison of Manila, composed mostly of native soldiers, were involved in this conspiracy, as
well as a multitude of civilians. The plan was for the soldiers to assassinate their officers, the
servants, their masters, and the escort of the Captain-General at Malacañang, to dispose of the
governor himself. The friars and other Spaniards were later to have their turn. The pre-concerted
signal among the conspirators of Cavite and Manila was the firing of rockets from the walls of the
city. The details having been arranged; it was agreed that the uprising was to break out in the
evening of the 20th of January, 1872. Vari1Ous circumstances, however, which might well be
considered as providential, upset the plans, and made the conspiracy a dismal failure.
In the district of Sampaloc, the fiesta of the patron saint, the Virgin of Loreto, was being celebrated
with pomp and splendor. On the night of the 20th, fireworks were displayed and rockets fired into
the air. Those in Cavite mistook these for the signal to revolt, and at nine-thirty in the evening of that
day two hundred native soldiers under the leadership of Sergeant La Madrid rose up in arms,
assassinated the commander of the fort and wounded his wife.
The military governor of Cavite, D. Fernando Rojas, dispatched two Spaniards to inform the Manila
authorities of the uprising but they were met on the way by a group of natives, belonging to the
Guias established by LaTorre, who put them instantly to death. At about the same time, an
employee of the arsenal, D. Domingo Mijares, left Cavite in a war vessel for Manila, arriving there at
midnight. He informed the commandant of Marine of what had occurred, and this official
immediately relayed the news to Governor Izquierdo.
Early the next morning two regiments, under the command of D. Felipe Ginoves, segundo cabo, left
for Cavite on board the merchant vessels Filipino, Manila, Isabela I and Isabela II. Ginoves
demanded rendition and waited the whole day of the 21st for the rebels to surrender, without
ordering the assault of their positionin order to avoid unnecessary shedding of blood. After waiting
the whole day in vain for the rendition of the rebels, Ginoves launched an assault against the
latter's position, early in the morning of the 22nd, putting to the sword the majority of
the rebels and making prisoners of the rest. On the same day an official proclamation announced
the suppression of the revolt.
As a result of the declarations made by some of the prisoners in which several individuals were
pointed out as instigators, Don Jose Burgos and D. Jacinto Zamora, curates of the Cathedral, D.
Mariano Gomez, curate of Bacoor (Cavite), several other Filipino priests, D. Antonio Maria Regidor,
lawyer and Regidor of the Ayuntamiento, D. Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Consejero de
Administracion, Pedro Carillo, Gervasio Sanchez and Jose Mauricio de Leon, lawyer Enrique
Paraiso and Jose and Pio Basa, employees, and Crisanto Reyes, Maximo Paterno and several
other Filipinos, were arrested.
The council of war, which from the beginning took charge of the causes in connection with the
Cavite uprising, passed the sentence of death on forty-one of the rebels. On the 27th of January
the Captain-General fixed his "cumplase" on the sentence. On the 6th of the following month,
eleven more were sentenced to death, but the Governor General, by decree of the day following,
commuted this sentence to life imprisonment. On the 8th, the sentence of death was pronounced
on Camerino and ten years imprisonment of eleven individuals of the famous "Guias de la Torre,"
for the assassination of the Spaniards who, on the night of January 20th, were sent to Manila to
carry news of the uprising.
The same council on the 15th of February, sentenced to die by strangulation the Filipino priests, D.
Jose Burgos, D. Jacinto Zamora and D. Mariano Gomez, and Francisco Saldua; and Maximo
Inocencio, Enrique Paraiso and Crisanto de los Reyes to ten years imprisonment. Early in the
morning of the seventeenth of February, an immense multitude appeared on the field of
Bagumbayan to witness the execution of the sentence. The attending force was composed of
Filipino troops, and the batteries of the fort were aimed the place of execution, ready to fire upon
the least sign of uprising. Gomez was executed first, then Zamora, then Burgos, and lastly, Saldua.
On the 3rd of April, 1872, the Audiencia suspended from the practice of law the following men: D.
Jose Basa y Enriquez, D. Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, D. Antonio Ma. Regidor, D. Pedro Carillo, D.
Gervasio Sanchez and D. Jose Mauricio de Leon.
Izquierdo had requested the sending to Manila of Spanish troops for the defense of the fort as most
of those found here were natives. In pursuance of Izquierdo's request, the government, by decree
of April 4, 1872, dissolved the native regiment of artillery and ordered the creation of an artillery
force to be composed exclusively of Peninsulares. The latter arrived in Manila in July, 1872. On the
occasion of the arrival of the troops, the Sto. Domingo Church celebrated a special mass at which
high officials of the Government, the religious corporations, and the general public, attended, upon
invitation by the Governor and Captain-General of the Philippines.

Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872

By Dr. T.H. Pardo de Tavera
The Filipino version of the Cavite Mutiny was provided by Dr. Trinidad Hermnegildo Pardo de
Tavera, a contemporary of Jose Rizal. Pardo de Tavera was a scholar, scientist, and historical
researcher. He had written a work on the Mardicas of Cavite and like Rizal, he conducted a
research on the past of the Filipinos before the arrival of the Spanish colonizers. During the early
years of the American rule he served as a member of Taft's Philippine Commission and founded
the Federal Party. He died in Manila on March 26, 1925, aged 68. According to him the Cavite
Mutiny was merely a protest against the harsh polices of Governor General Rafael de Izquierdo.
This was used as a pretext by the conservative Spaniards to launch an all-out elimination of the
Filipino liberals and secular priests who were bent on replacing them from the center of Filipino
society. The following was his account of the Mutiny:
The arrival of General Izquierdo (1871-1873) was the signal for a complete change in the aspect of
affairs. The new governor soon made it clear that his views were different from those of La Torre -
that there would be no change in the established form of government - and he at once announced
that he intended to govern the people "with a crucifix in one hand and a sword in the other."
His first official act was to prohibit the founding of a school of arts and trades, which was being
organized by the efforts and funds raised by the natives of good standing in the community, but the
founding of which did not tally with the views of the religious orders. Governor Izquierdo believed
that the establishment of the new school was merely a pretext for the organization of a political club,
and he not only did not allow it to be opened but made a public statement accusing the Filipinos
who had charge of the movement. All of those who had offered their support to ex- Governor La
Torre were classed as personas sospechosas (suspects), a term that since that time has been
used in the Philippine Islands to designate any person who refused to servilely obey the wishes and
whims of the authorities. The conservative element in the islands now directed the governmental
policy, and the educated Filipinos fell more and more under the displeasure and suspicion of the
governor.
The peace of the colony was broken by a certain incident which, though unimportant in itself, was
probably the origin of the political agitation which, constantly growing for thirty years, culminated in
the overthrow of the Spanish sovereignty in the Philippine Islands. From time immemorial the
workmen in the arsenal at Cavite and in the barracks of the artillery and engineer corps had been
exempt from the payment of the tribute tax and from obligation to work certain days each year on
public improvements. General Izquierdo believed the time opportune for abolishing these privileges
and ordered that in the future all such workmen should pay tribute and labor on public
improvements. This produced great dissatisfaction among the workmen affected and the men
employed in the arsenal at Cavite went on a strike, but, yielding to pressure and threats made by
the authorities, they subsequently returned to their labors.
The workmen in the Cavite arsenal were all natives of that town and of the neighboring town of San
Roque. In a short while the dissatisfaction and discontent with the government spread all over that
section and even the entire troops became disaffected. On the night of January 20, 1872, there was
an uprising among the soldiers in the San Felipe fort, in Cavite, and the commanding officer and
other Spanish officers in charge of the fort were assassinated. Forty marines attached to the
arsenal and 22 artillerymen under Sergeant La Madrid took part in this uprising, and it was believed
that the entire garrison in Cavite was disaffected and probably implicated. But if the few soldiers
who precipitated the attack believed they would be supported by the bulk of the army and that a
general rebellion against Spain would be declared in the islands, they were deceived. When the
news of the uprising was received in Manila, General Izquierdo sent the commanding general to
Cavite, who reinforced the native troops, took possession of the fort, and put the rebels to the
sword. Sergeant La Madrid has been blinded and badly burned by the explosion of a sack of
powder and, being unable to escape, was also cut down. A few of the rebels were captured and
taken to Manila and there was no further disturbance of the peace or insubordination of any kind.
This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as a powerful lever by the Spanish residents
and by the friars. During the time that General La Torre was chief executive in the Philippine Islands
the influential Filipinos did not hesitate to announce their hostility to the religious orders, and the
Central Government in Madrid had announced its intention to deprive the friars in these islands of
all powers of intervention in matters of civil government and of the direction and management of the
management of the university. Moret, the colonial minister, had drawn up a scheme of reforms by
which he proposed to make a radical change in the colonial system of government which was to
harmonize with the principles for which the revolution in Spain had been fought. It was due to these
facts and promises that the Filipinos had great hopes of an improvement in the affairs of their
country, while the friars, on the other hand, feared that their power in the colony would soon be
completely a thing of the past.
The mutiny in Cavite gave the conservative element - that is, those who favored a continuation of
the colonial modus vivendi an opportunity to represent to the Spanish Government that a vast
conspiracy was afoot and organized throughout the archipelago with the object of destroying the
Spanish sovereignty. They stated that the Spanish Government in Madrid was to blame for the
propagation of pernicious doctrines and for the hopes that had been held out from Madrid to the
Filipino people, and also because of the leanings of ex-Governor La Tone and of other public
functionaries who had been sent to the Philippine Islands by the Government that succeeded
Queen Isabella. The fall of the new rulers in Spain within a few days, as well as other occurrences,
seemed to accentuate the claims made by the conservative element in the Philippine Islands
regarding the peril which threatened Spanish sovereignty in the islands; it appeared as though the
prophecies were about to be fulfilled. The Madrid authorities were not able to combat public opinion
in that country, no opportunity was given nor time taken to make a thorough investigation of the real
facts or extent of the alleged revolution; the conservative element in the Philippine Islands painted
the local condition of affairs in somber tints; and the Madrid Government came to believe, or at
least to suspect, that a scheme was being concocted throughout the islands to shake off Spanish
sovereignty. Consistent with the precedents of their colonial rule, the repressive measures adopted
to quell the supposed insurrection were strict and sudden. No attempt appears to have been made
to ascertain whether or not the innocent suffered with the guilty, and the only end sought appeared
to be to inspire terror in the minds of all by making examples of a certain number, so that none in
the future should attempt, nor even dream of any attempt at secession.
Many of the best known Filipinos were denounced to the military authorities, and they the sons of
Spaniards born in the islands and men of mixed blood (Spanish and Chinese), as well as the
Indians of pure blood, as the Philippine Malays were called, were persecuted and punished without
distinction by the military authorities.
Those who dared to oppose themselves to the friars were punished with special severity, among
others may be mentioned the priests Burgos, a half-blood Spaniard, Zamora, a half-blood
Chinaman, and Gomez, a pure-blood Tagalog, who had vigorously opposed the friars in the
litigation over the curacies in the various provinces. The three priests mentioned were condemned
to death by a military court-martial; and Antonio M. Regidor, a lawyer and councilman of Manila,
Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, lawyer and member of the administrative council, P. Mendoza, curate of
Santa Cruz, Guevarra, curate of Quiapo, the priests Mariano Sevilla, Feliciano Gomez, Ballesteros,
Jose Basa, the lawyers Carillo, Basa, Enriquez, Crisanto Reyes, Maximo Paterno, and many others
were sentenced to life imprisonment on the Marianas Islands. The Government thus secured its
object of terrorizing the Filipino people, but the punishments meted out were not only unjust but
were from every point of view unnecessary, as there had not been the remote intention on the part
of anyone to overthrow the Spanish sovereignty. On the contrary, the attitude of Moret, Labra,
Becerra, and other high officials in the Madrid Government had awakened in the breasts of the
Filipinos a lively friendship for the home government, and never had the ties which bound the
colony to Spain been as close as they were during the short interval between the arrival of General
La Torre and the time when General Izquierdo, in the name of the home government, was guilty of
the atrocities mentioned above, of which innocent men were made victims.
A careful study of the history and documents of that time brings to light the part which the religious
orders played in that sad'drama. One of the results of the so-called revolution of Cavite was to
strengthen the power of the friars in the Philippine Islands in such manner that the Madrid
Government, which up to that time had contemplated reducing the power of the religious orders in
these islands, was obliged not only to abandon its intention, but to place a yet greater measure of
official influences at the service of the friars, and from that time they were considered as an
important factor in the preservation of the Spanish sovereignty in the colony.
This influnce was felt throughout the islands, and not only were the friars taken into the confidence
of the Government, but the Filipino people looked upon the religious orders as their real masters
and as the representatives, powerful and unsparing, of the Spanish Kingdom.
But there were other results following upon the unfortunate policy adopted by Governor Izquierdo.
Up to that time there had been no intention of secession from Spain, and the only aspiration of the
people was to secure the material and educational advancement of the country. The Filipino people
had never blamed the Spanish nation for the backward condition in which the Islands existed, nor
for the injustices committed in the islands by the Spanish officials; but on the contrary it was the
custom to lay all the blame for these things on the individual officers guilty of maladministration, and
no attempt had been made to investigate whether or not the evils under which the islands suffered
were due to fundamental causes. The persecutions which began under Governor Izquierdo were
based on the false assumption that the Filipino people were desirous of independence, and
although this was an unfounded accusation, there were many martyrs to the cause, among whom
were found many of the most intelligent and well-to-do people, without distinction of color or race or
nationality, who were sentenced to death, to imprisonment, or were expatriated because they were
believed to aspire to the independence of these islands. The fear which the people felt of the friars
and of the punishments meted out by the Government was exceeded only by the admiration which
the Filipino people had for those who did not hesitate to stand up for the rights of the country in this
manner the persecutions to which the people were subjected served as a stimulus and an
educative force, and from that time the rebellion was nursed in secret and the passive resistance to
the abuses of the official power became greater day by day.
No attempt was made to allay the ill-feeling which existed between the Filipinos and the Spaniards,
especially the friars, caused by the mutiny in Cavite and the cruel manner in which the punishment
was meted out. Many years would have been necessary to heal the wounds felt by the large
number of families whose members were made the victims of the unjust sentences of the military
courts-martial. Nothing was done by the Government to blot out the recollection of these actions; on
the contrary, it appeared to be its policy to continually bring up the memory of these occurrences as
a reminder to the malcontents of what they had to expect; but the only thing accomplished was to
increase the popular discontent. It was from that time that every disagreement between the
Spaniards and Filipinos, however trivial, was given a racial or political character; everytime a friar
was insulted or injured in any way, it was claimed to be an act of hostility to the Spanish nation.
Official Report of Governor Izquierdo on the Cavite Mutiny
Rafael Izquierdo
Governor General Rafael Izquierdo reported to the Spanish Minister of War, dated Manila, January
23, 1872, blaming the Cavite Mutiny on the native clergy, some local residents, intellectuals, and
even El Eco Filipino, a Madrid-based reformist newspaper. Significantly, he calls the military mutiny
as "insurrection", an "uprising", and a "revolution". The text of the report is as follows:
From the summary of information received - that is, from the declaration made before the fiscal - it
seems definite that the insurrection was motivated and prepared by the native clergy, by the
mestizos and native lawyers, and by those known here as abogadillos. Some are residents of
Manila, others from Cavite, and some from the nearby provinces.
The instigators, to carry out their criminal project, protested against the injustice of the government
in not paying the provinces for their tobacco crop, and against the usury that some (officials)
practice in (handling) documents that the Finance department gives crop owners who have to sell
them at a loss. They encouraged the rebellion by protesting what they called the injustice of having
obliged the workers in the Cavite arsenal to pay tribute starting January 1 (1872) and to render
personal service, from which they were formerly exempted.
To seduce the native troops, they resorted to superstitions with which the indios are so prone to
believe; persuading them that the Chief of State (hari) would be an ecclesiastic and the rest or the
clergy who baked the uprising would celebrate daily for its success. Thus the rebellion could not fail
because God was with them; and those who would not revolt they would kill im nediately. Taking
advantage of the ignorance of those classes and the propensity of the Indio to steal, they offered to
those who revolted) the wealth of the Spaniards and of the regular clergy, employment and ranks in
the army, and to this effect they said that fifteen native batallions would be created, in which the
soldiers who revolted would have jobs as officers and chiefs. The lawyers and abogadillos would
direct the affairs of government of the administration and of justice.

Up to now it has not been clearly determined if they planned to establish a monarchy or a republic,
because the indios have no word in their language to describe this different form of government,
whose head in Tagalog would be called hari; but it turns out that they would place at the head of the
government a priest; and there were great probabilities - nay, a certainty that the head selected
would be D. Jose Burgos, or D. Zacinto Zamora, parish priests of S. San Pedro of Manila.
All the Spaniards, including the friars, would be executed except for the women; and their
belongings confiscated. Foreigners would be respected.
This uprising has roots, and with them were affiliated to a great extent the regiments of infantry and
artillery, many civilians and a large number of mestizos, indios and some illustrados from the
provinces.
To start the revolution, they planned to set fire to the district of Tondo. Once the fire was set and
while the authorities were busy putting it out, the regiment of artillery with the help of the part of the
infantry would seize Fort Santiago of this Capital (they would then) fire cannons to inform the rebels
of Cavite (of their success). The rebels in Cavite counted on the artillery detachment that occupied
the fort and on the navy helped by 500 natives led by the pardoned leader Camerino. This person
and his men, located at the town of Bacoor and separated from the fort of San Felipe by a small
arm of the sea, would cross the water and reach the fort where they would find arms and
ammunition.
The rebels in Cavite) made the signals agreed upon by means of lanterns, but the native civilians
(in Bacoor) although they tried it, failed because if the vigilance of the (Spanish) navy that had
placed there a gunboat and armed vessels.
Loyalists who went to arrest the parish priests of Bacoor found an abandoned vessel loaded with
arms, including carbines and revolvers.
The uprising should have started in Manila at mignight abetted by those in Cavite, but the rebels of
this city went ahead of time. The civil-military governor of Cavite and the commanders of Regiment
7 took very timely precautions; they knew how to keep the soldiers loyal (although these hadd been
compromised) and behaved with valor and gallantry, obliging the rebels to take refuge in the fort of
San Felipe.
Such is your Excellency, the plan of the rebels, those who guided them, and the means they
counted upon for its realization. For a long time now, through confidential information and others of
a vaguer character, I have been told that since 1869 - taking advantage of a group that had left
behind plans for an uprising, but was carried out because of the earthquake of 1862 - there existed
in Manila a junta or center that sought and found followers; and that as a pretext they had
established a society for the teaching of arts and trades. Months ago I suspended it indirectly,
giving an account to Your Excellency in my confidential report No. 113 dated August 1, (1871) to
which Your Excellency has not yet replied.
It has also been said that this center or junta received inspiration from Madrid, where newspapers
of advanced ideas flourish; to sustain them subscriptions are (locally) solicited; in effect,
newspapers such as El Eco Filipino 'were sent here from Madrid, which were distribted by persons
now imprisoned, whose articles thundered against everything that be found here.
As in the case of my worthy predecessor, I have continously received anonymous letters,but
because I was confident that I could put down and punish any uprising, I gave no credit (to these
reports) in order not to cause alarm; and instead continued a vigilant watch whenever possible
within the limited means at my command. I had everything ready (for any untoward possibility),
taking into account the limited peninsular force which composes the army.