Readings in the Philippine History

Module 3

Content and Contextual Analysis of Selected Primary

Sources in Philippine History

Introduction

In this module we are going to look at a number of primary sources from different
historical periods and evaluate these documents‟s content in terms of historical value, and
examine the context of their production. The primary sources that we are going to
examine are Antonio Pigafetta‟s First Voyage around the World, Emilio Jacinto‟s “Kartilya
ng Katipunan,” the 1898 Declaration of Philippine Independence, Political Cartoon‟s
Alfred McCoy‟s Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of the American Era (1900-1941),
and Corazon Aquino‟s speech before the U.S. Congress. These primary sources range from
chronicles, official documents, speeches, and different kinds of analysis and contain
different levels of importance.

As you journey on this lesson, you are expected to:

Learning Outcome Learning Objectives

1. Identify the
period of the
Can analyse the primary source
context, content, and 2. Differentiate
perspective of different internal and
external criticism
kinds of primary sources
3. Compare the
primary source
with events in
world and/or
Philippine history
A Brief Summary of the First Voyage Around the World by Magellan
by Antonio Pigafetta
This book was taken from the chronicles of contemporary voyagers and navigators
of the sixteenth century. One of them was Italian nobleman Antonio Pigafetta, who
accompanied Ferdinand Magellan in his fateful circumnavigation of the world.
Pigafetta‟s work instantly became a classic that prominent literary men in the West like
William Shakespeare, Michael de Montaigne, and Giambattista Vico referred to the book
in their interpretation of the New World. The First Voyage around the World by Magellan
was published after Pigafetta returned to Italy. In Pigafetta‟s account, their fleet reached
what he called the Landrones Islands or the “Islands of the Thieves.”
He recounted:

“These people have no arms, but use sticks, which have a fish bone at the end.
They are poor, but ingenious, and great thieves, and for the sake of that we called these
three islands the Landrones Islands.”

The Landrones Islands is presently known as the Marianas Islands. These Islands are
located south- southeast of Japan, west-southwest of Hawaii, north of New Guinea, and
east of Philippines. Ten days after they reached the Landrones Islands, Pigafetta reported
that they reached what Pigafetta called the isle of Zambal, now Samar but Magellan
decided to land in another uninhibited island for greater security where they could rest for
a few days. Pigafetta recounted that after two days, March 18, nine men came to them
and showed joy and eagerness in seeing them. Magellan realized that the men were
reasonable and welcomed them with food, drinks, and gifts. In turn, the natives gave
them fish, palm wine (uraca), figs, and two cochos. The native also gave them rice (umai),
cocos and other food supplies. Pigafetta detailed in amazement and fascination the
palm tree which bore fruits called cocho, and wine. He also described what seemed like
a coconut.
His description reads:

“This palm produces a fruit named cocho, which is as large as the head, or
thereabouts: its first husk is green, and two fingers in thickness, in it they find certain
threads, with which they make the cords for fastening their boats. Under this husk there is
another very hard, and thicker than that of a walnut. They burn this second rind, and make
with it a powder which is useful to them. Under this rind there is a white marrow of a finger’s
thickness, which they eat fresh with meat and fish, as we do bread, and it has the taste of
an almond, and if anyone dried it he might make bread of it.

Pigafetta characterized the people as “very familiar and friendly” and willingly showed
them different islands and the names of these Islands. The fleet went to Humunu Island
(Homonhon) and there they found what Pigafetta referred to as the “Watering Place of
Good Signs.” It is in this place where Pigafetta wrote that they found the first sign of gold in
the island.
They named the island with the nearby islands as the Archipelago of St. Lazarus. They left
the island, then on March 25th, Pigafetta recounted that they saw two ballanghai
(balangay), a long boat full of people in Mazzava/Mazaua. The leader, who Pigafetta
referred to as the king of Ballanghai, sent his men to the ship of Magellan. The Europeans
entertained these men and gave then gifts. When the king of Ballanghai offered to give
Magellan a bar of gold and a chest of ginger, Magellan declined. Magellan sent the
interpreter to the king and asked for money for the needs of his ship and expressed that he
came into the islands as a friend and not as an enemy. The king responded by giving
Magellan the needed provisions of food in chinaware. Magellan exchanged gifts of robes
in Turkish fashion, red cap, and gave the people knives and mirrors. The two then
expressed their desire to become brothers. Magellan also boasted his men in armor who
could not be struck with swords and daggers. The king was fascinated and remarked that
men in such armor can be worth one hundred of his men. Magellan showed the king his
other weapons, helmets, and artilleries. Magellan also shared the king his maps and charts
and shared how they found the islands.

After a few days, Magellan was introduced to the king‟s brother who was also a
king to another island. They went to this island and Pigafetta reported that they saw mines
of gold. The gold was abundant that parts of the ship and the house of second king were
made of gold. Pigafetta described this king as the most handsome of all the men that he
saw in this place. He was also adorned with silk and gold accessories like a golden dagger,
which he carried with him in a wooden polished sheath. The king was named Raia
Calambu, king of Zuluan and Calagan(Butuan and Caragua), and the first king was Raia
Siagu. On March 31st, which happened to be Easter Sunday, Magellan ordered the
chaplain to preside a mass by the shore. The king heard of this plan and sent two dead
pigs and attended the mass with the other king. Pigafetta reported that both kings
participated in the mass. He wrote:

“…when the offertory of the mass came, the two kings, went to kiss the cross like us,
but they offered nothing, and at the elevation of the body of our Lord they were kneeling
like us, and adored our Lord with joined hands.”

After the mass, Magellan ordered that the cross be brought with nails and crown in
place. Magellan explained that the cross, the nails, and the crown were signs of his
emperor and that he was ordered to plant it in the places that he would reach. Magellan
further explained that the cross would be beneficial for their people because once other
Spaniards saw this cross, then they would know that they had been in this land and would
not cause them troubles, and any person who might be held captives by them would be
released. The king concurred and allowed for the cross to be planted. This mass would go
down in history as the first mass in the Philippines, and the cross would be the famed
Magellan‟s Cross still preserved at present day.

After seven days, Magellan and his men decided to move and look for islands where
they could acquire more supplies and provisions. They learned of the island of Ceylon
(Leyte), Bohol, and Zzubu(Cebu) and intended to go there.
Raia Calambu offered to pilot them in going to Cebu, the largest and the richest of the
islands. By April 7th of the same year, Magellan and his men reached the port of Cebu. The
king of Cebu, through Magellan‟s interpreter, demanded that they pay tribute as it was
customary, but Magellan refused. Magellan said that he was a captain of a king himself
and thus would not pay tribute to other kings. Magellan‟s enterpreter explained to the king
of Cebu that Magellan‟s king was the emperor of a great empire and that it would do
them better to make friends with them than to forge enmity. The king of Cebu consulted his
council. By the next day, Magellan‟s men and the king of Cebu, together with other
principal men in Cebu, met in an open space. There, the king offered a bit of his blood and
demanded that Magellan do the same. Pigafetta recounts:

“Then the king said that he was content, and as a greater sign of affection he sent
him a little of his blood from his right arm, and wished he should do the like. Our people
answered that he would do it. Besides that, he said that all the captains who came to his
country had been accustomed to make a present to him, and he to them, and therefore
they should ask their captain if he would observe the custom. Our people answered that he
would; but as the king wished to keep up the custom, let him begin and make a present,
and then the captain would do his duty.”

On the 14th of April, the people gathered with the king and other principal men of the
islands. Magellan spoke to the king and encouraged him to be good Christian by burning
all of the idols and worship the cross instead. The king of Cebu was then baptized as a
Christian. Pigafetta wrote:

“To that the king and all his people answered that they would obey the commands of
the captain and do all that he told them. The captain took the king by the hand, and they
walked about on the scaffolding, and when he was baptized he said that he would named
him Don Charles( Carlos), as the emperor his sovereign was named; and he named the
prince Don Fernand(Fernando), after the brother of emperor, and the king of Mazzava,
Jehan: to the Moor he gave the name of Christopher, and to the others each a name of his
fancy.”

After eight days, Pigafetta counted that all of the island‟s inhabitant were already
baptized. He admitted that they burned a village down for obeying neither the king nor
Magellan. The mass was conducted by the shore every day. When the queen came to the
mass one day, Magellan gave her an image of the infant Jesus made by Pigafetta himself.
The king of Cebu swore that he would always be faithful to Magellan. When Magellan
reiterated that all of the newly baptized Christians need to burn their idols but the natives
gave excuses telling Magellan that they needed the idols to heal a sick man who was a
relative to the king. Magellan insisted that they should instead put their faith in Jesus Christ.
They went to the sick man and baptized him. After the baptismal Pigafetta recorded that
the man was able to speak again. He called this a miracle.

On the 26th of April, Zula, a principal man from the island of Matan(Mactan) went to
see Magellan and asked him for a boat full of men so that he would be able to fight the
chief named Silapulapu (Lapulapu). Such chief, according to Zula, refused to obey the
king and was also preventing him from doing so.
Magellan offered three boats instead and expressed his desire to go to Mactan himself
to fight the said chief. Magellan‟s forces arrived in Mactan in daylight. They numbered 49
in total and the islanders of Mactan were estimated to number 1,500. The battle began.
Pigafetta recounted:

“When we reached land we found the islanders fifteen hundred in number, drawn
up in three squadrons attacking us on the flanks, and the third in front. The captain then
divided his men in two bands. Our musketeers and cross-bow men fired for half an hour
for a distance, but did nothing, since the bullets and arrows, though they passed through
their shields made of thin wood, and perhaps wounded their arms, yet did not stop them.
The captain shouted not to fire, but he was not listened to. The islanders seeing that the
shots of our guns did them little or no harm would not retire, but shouted more loudly, and
springing from one side to the other to avoid our shots, they at the same time drew nearer
to us, throwing arrows, javelins, spears hardened in fire, stones and even mud, so that we
could hardly defend ourselves. Some of them cast lances pointed with iron at the
captain-general.”

Magellan died in that battle. The natives, perceiving that the bodies of the enemies
were protected with armors, aimed for their legs instead. Magellan was pierced with a
poisoned arrow in his right leg. A few of their men charged at the natives and tried to
intimidate them by burning an entire village but this only enraged the natives further.
Magellan was specifically targeted because the natives knew that he was the captain
general. Magellan was hit with a lance in the face. Magellan retaliated and pierced the
same native with his lance in the breast and tried to draw his sword but could not lift it
because of his wounded arm. Seeing that the captain has already deteriorated, more
natives came to attack him. One native with a great sword delivered a blow in
Magellan‟s left leg, brought him face down and the natives ceaselessly attacked
Magellan‟s left leg, brought him face down and the natives ceaselessly attacked
Magellan with lances, swords and even with their bare hands. Pigafetta recounted the
last moment of Magellan:

“Whilst the Indians were thus overpowering him, several times he turned round to
see if we were all in safety, as though his obstinate fight had no other object than to give
an opportunity for the retreat of his men.”

Pigafetta also said that the king of Cebu who was baptized could have sent help
but Magellan instructed him not to join the battle and stay in the balangay so that he
would see how they fought. The king offered the people of Mactan gifts and any value
and amount in exchange of Magellan‟s body but the chief refused. They wanted to
keep Magellan‟s body as a memento of their victory.

Magellan‟s men elected Duarte Barbosa as the new captain. Pigafetta also told
how Magellan‟s slave and interpreter betrayed them and told the king of Cebu that they
intended to leave as quickly as possible. Pigafetta alleged that the slave told the king
that if he followed the slave‟s advice, then the king could acquire the ships and the
goods of Magellan‟s fleet.
The two conspired and betrayed what was left of Magellan‟s men. The king invited these
men to a gathering where he said he would present the jewels that he could send for the
king of Spain. Pigafetta was not able to join the twenty-four men who attended because
he was nursing his battle wounds. It was only a short time when they heard cries and
lamentations. The natives had slain all of the men except the interpreter and Juan Serrano
who was already wounded. Serrano was presented and shouted at the men in the ship
asking them to pay ransom so he would be spared. However, they refused and would not
allow anyone to go to the shore. The fleet departed and abandoned Serrano. They left
Cebu and continued their journey around the world.

Analysis of Pigafetta’s Chronicle

The chronicle of Pigafetta was one of the most cited documents by historians who
wished to study the pre-colonial Philippines. As one of the earliest written accounts.
Pigafetta was seen as a credible source for a period, which was prior unchronicled and
undocumented. Moreover, being the earliest detailed documentation, it was believed
that Pigafetta‟s writings account for the “purest” precolonial society. Indeed Pigafetta „s
work is of great importance in the study and writing of Philippine history. Nevertheless, there
needs to have a more nuanced reading of the source within a contextual backdrop. A
student of history should recognize certain biases accompanying the author and his
identity, loyalties, and the circumstances that he was in; and how it affected the text that
he produced. In the case of Pigafetta, the reader needs to understand that he was a
chronicler commissioned by the King of Spain to accompany and document a voyage
intended to expand the Spanish empire. He was also of noble descent that came from a
rich family in Italy. These attributes influenced his narrative, his selection of details to be
included in the text, his characterization of the people and of the species that he
encountered, and his interpretation and retelling of the events. Being a scholar of
cartography and geography, Pigafetta was able to give details on geography and
climate of the places that their voyage had reached.

In reading Pigafetta‟s description of the people, one has to keep in mind that he
was coming from a sixteenth century European perspective. Hence, the reader might
notice how Pigafetta, whether implicitly or explicitly, regarded the indigenous belief
systems and way of life as inferior to that of Christianity and of the Europeans. He would
always remark on the nakedness of the natives or how he was fascinated by their exotic
culture. Pigafetta also noticeably emphasized the natives‟ amazement and illiteracy to the
European artillery, merchandise, and other goods, in the same way that Pigafetta
repeatedly mentioned the abundance of spices like ginger, and of precious metals like
gold. His observations and assessments of the indigenous cultures employed the European
standards. Hence, when they saw the indigenous attires of the natives, Pigafetta saw them
as being naked because from the European standpoint, they were wearing fewer clothes
indeed. Pigafetta‟s perspective was too narrow to realize that such attire was only
appropriate to the tropical climate of the islands. The same was true for materials that the
natives used for their houses like palm and bamboo. These materials would let more air
come through the house and compensate for the hot climate in the islands.
It should be understood that such observations were rooted from the context of Pigafetta
and of his era. Europe, for example, was dominated by the Holy Roman Empire, whose
loyalty and purpose was the domination of the Catholic Church all over the world. Hence,
the other belief systems different from that of Christianity were perceived to be
blasphemous and barbaric, even demonic. Aside from this, the sixteenth century European
economy was mercantilist. Such system measures the wealth of kingdoms based on their
accumulation of bullions or precious metals like gold and silver. It was not surprising
therefore that Pigafetta would always mention the abundance of gold in the islands as
shown in his description of leaders wearing gold rings and golden daggers, and of the rich
gold mines. An empire like that of the Spain would indeed search for new lands where they
could acquire more gold and wealth to be on top of all the European nations. The
obsession with spices might be odd for Filipinos because of its ordinariness in the Philippines,
but understanding the context would reveal that spices were scarce in Europe and hence
were seen as prestige goods. In that era, Spain and Portugal coveted the control of Spice
Island because it would have led to a certain increase in wealth, influence and power.
These contexts should be used and understood in order to have a more qualified reading
of Pigafetta‟s account.

The KKK and the “Kartilya ng Katipunan”

The Kataastaasan, Kagalanggalangan Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan (KKK) or
Katipunan is arguably the most important organization formed in the Philippine history.
While anti-colonial movements, efforts, and organizations had already been established
centuries prior to the foundation of the Katipunan, it was only this organization that
envisioned (1) a united Filipino nation that would revolt against the Spaniards for (2) the
total independence of the country from Spain. Previous armed revolts had already
occurred before the foundation of the Katipunan, but none of them become envisioned a
unified Filipino nation revolting against the colonizers. For example, Diego Silang was
known as an Ilocano who took up his arms and led one of the longest running revolts in the
country. Silang, however, was mainly concerned about his locality and referred to himself
as El Rey de Ilocos (The King of Ilocos). The imagination of the nation was largely absent in
the aspirations of the local revolts before Katipunan. On the other hand, the propaganda
movements led by the ilustrados like Marcelo H. del Pilar, Graciano Lopez Jaena, and Jose
Rizal did not envision a total separation of the Philippines from Spain, but only demanded
equal rights, representation, and protection from the abuses of the friars.

In the conduct of their struggle, Katipunan created a complex structure and defined
a value system that would give the organization as a collective aspiring for a single goal.
One of the most important Katipunan documents was the Kartilya ng Katipunan. The
original title of the documents was “Manga (sic) Aral Nang (sic) Katipunan ng mga A.N.B.”
or “Lessons of the Organization of the Sons of Country.” The document was written by
Emilio Jacinto in the 1896. Jacinto was only 18 years old when he joined the movement. He
was a law student at the Unibersidad de Santo Tomas.
Despite his youth, Bonifacio recognized the value and intellect of Jacinto that upon seeing
that Jacinto‟s Kartilya was much better than the Decalogue he wrote, he willingly favored
that the Kartilya be distributed to their fellow Katipuneros, Jacinto became the secretary of
the organization and took charge of short-lived printing press of the Katipunan. On 15 April
1897, Bonifacio appointed Jacinto as a Commander of Katipunan in Northern Luzon.
Jacinto was 22 years old. He died of malaria at a young age of 24 in the town of
Magdalena, Laguna.

The Kartilya can be treated as the Katipunan’s code of conduct. It contains fourteen
rules that instruct the way a katipunero should behave, and which specific values should
be upheld. Generally, the rules stated in the kartilya can be classified into two. The first
group contains the rules that will make the member an upright individual and the second
group contains the rules that will guide the way he treats his fellow men.

Below is the translated version of the rules in Kartilya:

I. The life that is not consecrated to a lofty and reasonable purpose is a tree
without a shade, if not a poisonous weed.
II. To do good for personal gain and not for its own sake is not virtue.
III. It is rational to be charitable and love one‟s fellow creature, and to adjust
one‟s conduct, acts and words to what is in itself reasonable.
IV. Whether our skin be black or white, we are all born equal: superiority in
knowledge, wealth and beauty are to be understood, but not superiority by
nature.
V. The honourable man prefers honor to personal gain; the scoundrel, gain to
honor.
VI. To the honourable man, his word is sacred.
VII. Do not waste thy time: wealth can be recovered but not time lost.
VIII. Defend the oppressed and fight the oppressor before the law or in the field.
IX. The prudent man is sparing in words and faithful in keeping secrets.
X. On the thorny path of life, man is the guide of woman and the children, and
if the guide leads to the precipice, those whom he guides will also go there.
XI. Thou must not look upon woman as a mere plaything, but as a faithful
companion who will share with thee the penalties of life; her (physical)
weakness will increase thy interest in her and she will remind thee of the
mother who bore thee and reared thee.
XII. What thou dost not desire done unto thy wife, children, brothers and sisters,
that do not unto the wife, children, brothers and sisters of thy neighbour.
XIII. Man is not worth more because he is a king, because his nose is aquiline, and
his color white, not because he is a priest, a servant of God, nor because of
the high prerogative that he enjoys upon earth, but he is worth most who is a
man of proven the real value, who does good, keeps his words, is worthy and
honest; he who does not oppress nor consent to being oppressed, he who
loves and cherishes his fatherland, though he be born in the wilderness and
know no tongue but his own.
 XIV. When these rules of conduct shall be known to all, the longed- for sun of
Liberty shall rise brilliant over this most unhappy portion of the globe and its rays shall
diffuse everlasting joy among the confederated brethren of the same rays, the lives
of those who have gone before, the fatigues and the well- paid sufferings will
remain. If he who desires to enter has informed himself of all this and believes he will
be able to perform what will be his duties, he may fill out the application for
admission.

As a primary governing document, which determines the conduct in the Katipunan,

properly understanding the Kartilya will thus help in understanding the values, ideals,
aspirations, and even the ideology of the organization.

Analysis of the “Kartilya ng Katipunan”

Similar to what we have done to the accounts of Pigafetta, this primary source also
needs to be analyzed in terms of content and context. As a document written for a
fraternity whose main purpose is to overthrow a colonial regime, we can explain the
content and provisions of the Kartilya as a reaction and response to certain value systems
that they found despicable in the present state of things that they struggled against with.
For example, the fourth and the thirteenth rules in the Kartilya are an invocation of the
inherent equality between and among men regardless of race, occupation, or status. In
the context of the Spanish colonial era where the indios were treated as the inferior of the
white Europeans, the Katipunan saw to it that the alternative order that they wished to
promulgate through their revolution necessarily destroyed this kind of unjust hierarchy.

Moreover, one can analyze the values upheld in the document as consistent with the
burgeoning rational and liberal ideals in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Equality,
tolerance, freedom, and liberty where values that first emerged in the eighteenth century
French Revolution, which spread throughout Europe and reached the educated class of
the colonies. Jacinto an illustrado himself certainly got an understanding of these values.
Aside from the liberal values that can be dissected in the document, we can also
decipher certain Victorian and chivalrous values in text. For example, various provisions in
the Kartilya repeatedly emphasize the importance of honor in words and in action. The
teaching of the katipunan on how women should be treated with honor and respect,
while positive in many respects and certainly a significant stride from the practice of raping
and physically abusing women, can still be telling of the Katipunan‟s secondary regard for
women in relation to men. For example in the tenth rule, the document specifically stated
that men should be the guide of the women and children, and that he should set a good
example, otherwise the women and the children would be guided in the path of evil.
Nevertheless, the same document stated that women should be treated as companions
by men and not as playthings that can be exploited for their pleasure.

In the contemporary eyes, the Katipunan can be criticized because of these

provisions. However, one must not forget the context where the organization was born. Not
even in Europe or in the whole of the West at that juncture recognized the problem of
gender inequality. Indeed, it can be argued that Katipunan‟s recognition of women as
important partners in the struggle, as reflected not just in Kartilya but also in the
organizational structure of the fraternity where a woman‟s unit was established, is an
endeavour advanced for its time.
Reading the “Proclamation of the Philippine Independence”
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 signalled 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 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 the 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 of 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
Archbishops 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 the 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 says:

“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 and 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 he 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
Philippines flag that was first waved on the same day. The document explained:

“And finally, it was unanimously resolved that this nation, independent from this day,
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 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
gratitude towards that great nation for the did interested 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.

Analysis of the “Proclamation of the Philippine Independence”

As mentioned earlier, a re-examination of the document on the declaration of the
Philippine Independence can reveal some often overlooked historical truths about this
important event in Philippine history. Aside from this, the documents reflect the general
revolutionary sentiment of that period. For example, the abuse specifically mentioned in
the proclamation like friar abuse, racial discrimination, and inequality before the law
reflect the most compelling sentiments represented by the revolutionary leadership.
However, no mention was made about the more serious problem that affected the
masses more profoundly (i.e., the land and agrarian crisis felt by the numerous Filipino
peasants in the nineteenth century). This is ironic especially when renowned Philippine
Revolution historian, Teodoro Agoncillo, stated that the Philippine Revolution was an
Agrarian Revolution. The common revolutionary soldiers fought in the revolution for the
hope of owning the lands that they were tilling once the friars estates in different provinces
like Batangas and Laguna dissolve, if and when the revolution succeeded. Such aspects
and realities of the revolutionary struggle were either unfamiliar to the middle class
revolutionary leaders like Emilio Aguinaldo, Ambrosio Rianzares- Bautista, and Felipe
Buencamino, or were intentionally left out because they were landholders themselves.

The Treaty of Paris was an agreement signed between Spain and the United States of
America regarding the ownership of the Philippine Islands and other Spanish colonies in
South America. The agreement ended the short-lived Spanish-American War. The Treaty
was signed on 10 December 1898, six months after the revolutionary government
declared the Philippine Independence. The Philippines was sold to the United States at
$20 million and effectively undermined the sovereignty of the Filipinos after their
revolutionary victory. The American occupied the Philippines immediately which
resulted in the Philippine-American War that lasted until the earliest years of the
twentieth century.

The proclamation also gives us the impression on how the victorious revolutionary
government of Aguinaldo historicized the struggle for independence. There were mentions
of past events that were seen as important turning points of the movement against Spain.
The execution of the GOMBURZA, for example, and the failed Cavite Mutiny of 1872 was
narrated in detail.
This shows that they saw this event as a significant awakening of the Filipinos in the real
conditions of the nation under Spain. Jose Rizal‟s legacy and martyrdom was also
mentioned in the document. However, the Katipunan as the pioneer of the revolutionary
movement was only mentioned once toward the end of the document. There was no
mention of the Katipunan‟s foundation. Bonifacio and his co-founders were also left out. It
can be argued, thus, that the way of historical narration found in the document also
reflects the politics of the victors. The enmity between Aguinaldo‟s Magdalo and
Bonfacio‟s Magdiwang in the Katipunan is no secret in the pages of our history. On the
contrary, the war led by Aguinaldo‟s men with the forces of the United States were
discovered in details.

The point is, even official records and documents like the proclamation of
independence, while truthful most of the time, still exude the politics and biases of whoever
is in power. This manifest in the selectiveness of information that can be found in these
records. It is the task of the historian, thus, to analyse the content of these documents in
relation to the dominant politics and the contexts of people and institutions surrounding it.
This tells us a lesson on taking primary sources like official government records within the
circumstance of this production. Studying one historical subject, thus, entails looking at
multiple primary sources and pieces of historical evidence in order to have a more
nuanced and contextual analysis of our past.

A Glance at Selected Philippine Political Caricature in Alfred McCoy’s

Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of the American Era (1900-
1941)
Political cartoons and caricature are a rather recent art from, which veered away
from the classical art by exaggerating human features and poking fun as its subjects. Such
art genre and technique became a part of the print media as a form of social and
political commentary, which usually targets persons of power and authority. Cartoons
became an effective tool of publicizing opinions through heavy use of symbolism, which is
different from a verbose written editorial and opinion pieces. 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.

In his book Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of the American Era (1900-1941),
Alfred McCoy, together with Alfredo Roces, compiled political cartoons published in
newspaper dailies and periodicals in the aforementioned time period.
 The first example shown above 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 (as 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, labelled 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 warehouse containing bulks of rice, milk, and
grocery products.

The Third cartoon was 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.
 This fourth cartoon depicts a cinema. A blown-up police officer was at the screen
saying that couples are not to neck and 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 thus 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
Nationalista Party look on and wait for their turn. This cartoon depicts the patronage of
the United States being coveted by the politicians from either of the party.

Analysis of the Political Caricatures during the American Period

The transition from the Spanish Colonial period to the American Occupation period
demonstrated different strands of changes and shifts in culture, society, and politics. The
Americans drastically introduced democracy to the nascent nation and the
consequences were far from ideal. Aside from this, it was also during the American period
that Filipino was introduced to different manifestations of modernity like healthcare,
modern transportation and media. This ushered in a more open and freer press. The post-
independence and the post- Filipino-American period in the Philippines were experienced
differently by Filipinos coming from different classes. The upper principalia class
experienced economic prosperity with the opening up of the Philippine economy to the
United States but the majority of the poor Filipino remained poor, desperate, and victims
of state repression.

The selected cartoons illustrate not only the opinion of certain media outfits about
the Philippine society during the American period but also paint a broad image of society
and politics under the United States. In the Arena of politics, for example, we see the price
that Filipinos paid for the democracy modeled after the Americans. First, it seemed that
the Filipino politicians at that time did not understand well enough the essence of
democracy and the accompanying democratic institutions and processes. This can be
seen in the rising dynastic politics in Tondo as depicted in the cartoon published by The
Independent. Patronage also became influential and powerful, not only between clients
and patrons but also between the newly formed political parties composed of the elite
and the United states. This was depicted in the cartoon where the United States,
represented by Uncle Sam, provided dole outs for members of the Federalista while the
Nationalista politicians looked on and waited for their turn.

The transition from a catholic-centered, Spanish Filipino society to an imperial

American- assimilated one, and its complications, were also depicted in the cartoons.
One example is the unprecedented increase of motorized vehicles in the city.
Automobiles became a popular mode of transportation in the city and led to the
emergence of taxis. However, the laws and policy implementation was mediocre.

Lastly, the cartoons also illustrated the conditions of poor Filipinos in the Philippines
now governed by the United States. From the looks of it, nothing has changed. For
example a cartoon depicted how the police authorities oppress pretty Filipino criminals
while turning a blind eye on hoarders who monopolize goods in their huge warehouses
(presumably Chinese merchants). The other cartoon depicts how Americans controlled
Filipinos through seemingly harmless American objects. By controlling their consciousness
and mentality, Americans got to control and subjugate Filipinos.
Revisiting Corazon Aquino’s Speech Before the U.S. Congress
Corazon “Cory” Cojuangco Aquino functioned as the symbol of the restoration of
democracy and the overthrow of the Marcos Dictatorship in 1986. The EDSA People Power,
which installed Cory Aquino in the presidency, put the Philippines in the international
spotlight for overthrowing a dictator through peaceful means. Cory was easily a figure of
the said revolution, as the widow of the slain Marcos oppositionist and former senator
Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr. Cory was hoisted as the antithesis of the dictator. Her image as
a mourning, widowed housewife who had always been in the shadow of her husband and
relatives and had no experience in politics was juxtaposed against Marcos‟ statesmanship,
eloquence, charisma, and cunning political skills.

The People Power Revolution of 1986 was widely recognized around the world for its
peaceful character. When former Senator Ninoy Aquino was shot at the Tarmac of the
Manila International Airport on 21 August 1983, the Marcos regime greatly suffered a crisis
of legitimacy. Protests from different sectors frequented different areas in the country.
Marcos‟s credibility in the international community also suffered. Paired with the looming
economic crisis, Marcos had to do something to prove to his allies in the United states that
he remained to be the democratically anointed leader of the country. He called for a
snap Election in February 1986, where Corazon Cojuangco Aquino, the widow of the slain
Senator was convinced to run against Marcos. The canvassing was rigged to Marcos‟s
favor but the people expressed their protest against the corrupt and authoritarian
government. Leading military officials of the regime and martial Law orchestrators
themselves, Juan Ponce Enrile and Fidel V. Ramos, plotted to take over the presidency,
until civilians heeded the call of the Manila Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin and other
civilian leaders gathered in EDSA. The overwhelming presence of the civilian
demonstration. The thousands of people who gathered overthrew Ferdinand Marcos from
the Presidency after 21 years.
On September 1986, seven months since Cory became president; she went to the
United States and spoke before the joint session of the U.S. Congress. Cory was welcomed
with long applause as she took the podium and addressed the United States about her
presidency and the challenges faced by the New Republic. She began her speech with
the story of her leaving the United States three years prior as a newly widowed wife of Ninoy
Aquino.

She then told of Ninoy‟s character, conviction and resolve in opposing the
authoritarianism of Marcos. She talked of the three times that they lost Ninoy including his
demise on 23 August 1983. The first time was when the dictatorship detained Ninoy with
other dissenters. Cory related:

“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 a
threat of a sudden midnight execution over his head. Ninoy held up manfully under all of it.
I barely did as well. For forty three days, the authorities would not tell me what had
happened to him. This was the first time my children and I felt we have lost him.”
 Cory continued that when Ninoy survived that first detention, he was then charged of
subversion, murder, and other crimes. He was tried by a military court, whose legitimacy
Ninoy decided to do a hunger strike and fasted for 40 days. Cory treated this event as the
second time that their family lost Ninoy. She said:

„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 40th day.”

Ninoy‟s death was the Third and the last time that Cory and their children lost Ninoy.
She continued:

“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
and the courage and faith by which alone they could be free again.
The dictator had called him a nobody. Yet, two million people threw
aside their passivity and fear and escorted him to his grave.”

Cory attributed the peaceful EDSA Revolution to the martyrdom of Ninoy. She stated that
the death of Ninoy sparkled the revolution and the responsibility of “offering the
democratic alternative” had “fallen on (her) shoulders.” Cory‟s address introduced us to
her democratic philosophy, which she claimed she also acquired from Ninoy. She argued:

“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 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.”
Cory talk about her miraculous victory through the people‟s struggle and continued
talking about her earliest initiatives as the president of a restored democracy. She stated
that she intended to forge and draw reconciliation after a bloody and polarizing
dictatorship. Cory emphasized the importance of EDSA Revolution in terms of being a
“limited revolution that respected the life and freedom of every Filipino.” She also boasted
of the restoration of a fully constitutional government whose constitution gave utmost
respect to the Bill of rights. She reported to the U.S. Congress:

“Again as we restore democracy by the ways of democracy, so we are

completing the constitutional structures of our new democracy under a
constitution that already gives full respect to the Bill of Rights. A jealousy
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 elections for both national and local positions. So, within about a year
from a peaceful but national upheaval that overturned a dictatorship, we shall
have returned to full constitutional government.”

Cory then proceeded on her peace agenda with the existing communist, insurgency,
aggravated by the dictatorial and authoritarian measure of Ferdinand Marcos. She
asserted:

“My predecessor set aside democracy to save it from a communist

insurgency that numbered less than five hundred. Unhampered by respect
for human rights he went at it with hammer and tongs. By the time he fled,
that insurgency had grown to more than sixteen thousand. I think there is a
lesson here to be learned about trying to stifle a thing with a means by which
it grows.

Cory then turned to the controversial topic of the Philippine foreign debt amounting to $26
billion at the time of her speech. This debt has ballooned during the Marcos regime. Cory
expressed her intention to honor those debts despite mentioning that the people did not
benefit from such debts. She lamented:

“Finally may I turn to that other slavery, our twenty- six billion dollar foreign
debt. I have said that we shall honor it. Yet, the means by which we shall be
able to do so are kept from us. Many of the conditions imposed on the
previous government that stole this debt, continue to be imposed on us who
never benefited from it.”
 She continued that while the country had experienced the calamities brought by the
corrupt dictatorship of Marcos, no commensurate assistance was yet to be extended to the
Philippines. She even remarked that given the peaceful character of EDSA People Power
Revolution, “ours must have been the cheapest revolution ever.” She demonstrated that
Filipino fulfilled the most difficult of the debt negotiation, which was the restoration of
democracy and responsible government. She Stated:

“Wherever I went in the campaign, slum area or impoverished village.” They

came to me with one cry, democracy. Not food although they clearly need it but
democracy. Not money, for they gave what little they had for my campaign. They
didn‟t expect me to work in miracle that would instantly put food into their
mouths, clothes on their back, education in their children and give them work that
will put dignity in their lives. But I feel the pressing obligation to respond quickly as
the leader of the people so deserving of all these things.”

Cory proceeded in enumerating the challenges of the Filipino people as they tried
building the new democracy. These were the persisting communist insurgency and the
economic deterioration. Cory further lamented that these problems worsened by the
crippling debt because half of the country‟s export earnings amounting to $2 billion would
go to pay just the interest on a debt whose benefit the Filipino people never received. “Cory
then asked a rather compelling question to the U.S. Congress:

“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 want it by themselves and need only the help
to preserve it.”

Cory ended her speech by thanking America for serving as home to her family for what
she referred to as the “three happiest years of our lives together.” She enjoined America in
building the Philippines as a new home for democracy and in turning the country as a
“shining testament of our two nations” 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 to 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 at 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.
 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 of her predecessor by expressing their commitment to a democratic constitution
drafted by an independent commission. She claimed that such 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 popularizing 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 a dictator (i.e., initiating reintegration of communist rebels to the mainstream
Philippine society). Cory claimed that her main approach to this problem was through
peace and not through the sword of war. 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 with the alliance between the Philippine and the
United States and effectively implemented an essentially similar foreign policy to that of the
dictatorship. For example, Cory recognized that the large sum of foreign debts incurred by
the Marcos regime never benefitted the Filipino people. Nevertheless, Cory expressed her
intention to pay off those debts. Unknown to many Filipinos was the fact that there was a
choice of waving the said debt because those were the debt of the dictator and not of
the country. Cory‟s decision is an indicator of her government intention to carry on a debt-
driven economy.

Directions: Identify a primary source in Philippine history from the examples provided in this
module. Write an essay discussing (1) the importance of the text, (2) the background of the
text‟s author, (3) the context of the document, and (4) the text‟s contribution to
understanding Philippine history.
Directions:

Select one of the following primary sources; (1) The Laguna Copper Plate Inscription; (2)
The poem, “Ang Pag- ibig sa Tinubuang Lupa” by Andres Bonifacio; (3) The Declaration of
Martial Law in 1972 by Ferdinand Marcos; (4) The speech of KALIBAPI Acting Director
Camilo Osias on 7 December 1943; and (5) The 1935 Constitution.

Answer the following questions:

1. What does the document/ artifact say?

2. What was the provenance or source of the document/ artifact?

3. Who authored it (if applicable)?

4. What was the context of the primary source‟s production?

Criteria in Grading Critical Essay
Content 10
Organization 5
Cooperation 5
Grammar 5
Relevance to topic 5
Total 30 points

Candelaria, J.L.P. & Alporha, V.C. (2018). Readings in Philippine history. Manila: Rex Book
Store, Inc.