LESSON 5

The primary sources that we will examine are Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricatures of the
American Era and Corazon C. Aquino’s Speech Before the United States Congress. Though the
Philippines was in a better condition under the Americans than the Spaniards, freedom was not
immediately accorded to the Filipinos. Some Americans and Filipinos used political cartoons to
illustrate the changing mores and times under American rule. The use of these cartoons was a
subtle way of expressing discontent with American rule. President Corazon C. Aquino was invited
to deliver a speech before the United States Congress on September 18, 1986, in recognition of the
peaceful EDSA revolution, which ousted Marcos and paved the way for Aquino to become the
President.

Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricatures of the American Era

(1900-1941)
The Spanish colonial period in the Philippines was characterized by strict
censorship resulting in a lack of political liberty and minimal avenues for expressing political
views. Political cartoons and caricatures are relatively recent art forms that veered away from
classical art by exaggerating human features and poking fun at their subjects. Such art genre and
technique became a part of the print media as a form of social and political commentary, which
usually targets power and authority. Cartoons became a useful tool for publicizing opinions
through heavy use of symbolism, which is different from verbose written editorial and opinion
pieces. The unique way that a caricature represents the 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 the book Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of the American Era
(1900), Alfred McCoy, together with Alfredo Roces, compiled political cartoons published in
newspaper dailies and periodicals above time.

Alfred McCoy Alfredo Roces

Depicts the first of Manila's periodic police scandals

during the American era

The cartoonist illustrates his usual

racist edge, e.g., Chinese men are usually caricatured, for
they are described as corruptors or opium smugglers.

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.

A commentary on the exceptional

cases of colored automobiles in the city streets. The
Philippine Free Press published this commentary when
fatal accidents involving colorum vehicles and taxis
occurred too often already.
 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 and boxing gloves. In
his caption to the said cartoon, McCoy was based on an
event in 1907 when William Howard Taft was brought to
the Manila pier riding a chariot pulled by Liceo de Manila
students. The nationalists condemned such at that time.

Other examples of Caricatures

Analysis of Political Caricatures during the American Period

The Spanish Colonial period's transition 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. During the American period, Filipinos were introduced to modern manifestations
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 U.S.,
but the majority of the poor Filipinos remained needy, desperate, and victims of state repression.
The cartoons illustrate the opinion of certain media outfits about Philippine society
and politics in the United States. The cartoons also illustrated the conditions of poor Filipinos
 in the Philippines now governed by the United States. From the looks of it, nothing much has
changed. 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

Maria Corazon “Cory” Sumulong Cojuangco-Aquino (January 25,

1933-August 1, 2009) became President of the Philippines because of
the 1986 EDSA Revolution-the nonviolent revolution that ousted
President Ferdinand Marcos. She was the Assassinated opposition
figurehead's wife during the martial law era, Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino,
Jr.

She served and is considered the 11th President of the Philippines and
was proclaimed "Woman of the Year" in 1986 by Time magazine. In
1999, she was chosen by Time magazine as one of the 20 Most
Influential Asians of the 20th century. Before becoming the President,
she had not held any elective office. She died on August 1, 2009, due
to colorectal cancer.
Historical Background of the Document

Corazon C. Aquino delivered her historic speech before the U.S. Congress on
September 18, 1986-barely seven months after being sworn into office under a revolutionary
government brought about by the EDSA Revolution. During that time, Cory's presidency was
unstable, for she inherited an economy in shambles. There was massive poverty and
unemployment in the country. The loyalty of the military to her administration was still in question.
Her administration was already besieged by a coup attempt backed by a multitude of offices.
Despite releasing political detainees, the communist insurgency was still gripping the countryside.
She needed foreign allies to recognize her newly established administration. The aforementioned
historic speech targeted two goals at the same time. It aimed to express gratitude towards the
United States for helping the Filipinos regain their freedom and seek more help from them in
restoring the government, considering Aquino's decision to honor the Philippines' foreign debts
during the Marcos administration.

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, convection, and resolve in
opposing 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 Ninoy 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.”

Cory continued that when Ninoy survived that first detention, he was charged with subversion,
murder, and other crimes. Aquino was tried by a military court, whose legitimacy Ninoy adamantly
questioned. To solidify his protest, 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 did not 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. Thus, with barely any life in his body, he called off the
fast on the fortieth day. “

Cory turned to the controversial topic of the Philippine

foreign debt amounting to $26 billion at the time of her
speech. This debt ballooned during the Marcos regime.
Cory expressed her intention to honor those debts
despite mentioning that the people did not benefit from
such debts. Thus, she mentioned her protestations about
how the Philippines was deprived of paying those debts
within the Filipino people's capacity. She lamented:

“Finally, may I turn to that other slavery: our $26 billion foreign debt. I have said that we
shall honor it. However, how shall we 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.”

Cory proceeded to enumerate the challenges of the Filipino people as they tried building the new
democracy. These were the persisting communist insurgency and 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. Moreover, here you have a people
who won 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 into a "shining testament of
our two nations' commitment.”

Analysis of Cory Aquino’s Speech

Cory Aquino's speech was an actual event in its political and diplomatic history
because it arguably cemented the EDSA government's legitimacy in the international arena. The
speech talks about her family background, especially her relationship with her late husband,
Ninoy Aquino. In her speech, Cory talked at length about Ninoy's toil and suffering at the
dictatorship's hands that he resisted. She still went back to Nonoy's legacies and lessons. Her
attribution of the revolution to Ninoy's death demonstrates not only Cory’s perception of the
revolution, but since she was the President, it also represents what the dominant 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 drew a sharp contrast between her government and her predecessor
by expressing her commitment to a democratic constitution drafted by an independent
commission. She claimed that such a 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 polarizing authoritarian politics. Cory claimed that her primary approach to this
problem was through peace and not through the sword of war.
Despite Cory’s effort to hoist herself as the exact opposite of Marcos, her speech
still revealed certain parallelisms between her and Marcos's government. This is seen in
continuing the alliance between the Philippines and the United States, despite the known affinity
between the said world superpower and Marcos. As seen in Cory's acceptance of the invitation
to address the U.S. Congress and in the content of the speech, the Aquino regime decided to
 build and continue with the alliance between our country, the Philippines, and the United States
and effectively implemented an essentially similar foreign policy to that of the dictatorship. Cory
recognized that the Marcos regime's large sum of foreign debts never benefitted the Filipino
people. Cory expressed her intention to pay off those debts. Cory’s decision is an indicator of
her government’s intention to carry on a debt-driven economy.

LESSON 6

One controversy is the actual site of the first Catholic mass held in the Philippines. Many
Philippine history books suggest that it was held at Limasawa, Leyte by Fray Pedro de Valderama
after the Spanish conquistador, Ferdinand Magellan, arrived on the island and established a cordial
relationship with the locals on March 31, 1521. However, in 1995, an Agusan del Norte-Butuan
City Representative filed a bill in Congress contesting the accepted fact that Limasawa was the
first mass site. The bill asserted that the first mass was held in Masao in Butuan, according to the
historian Sonia Zaide. However, a marker in front of the Saint James the Great Parish Church in
Bolinao, Pangasinan claims that in 1324, Fray Odorico Pordenone from Friuli, Italy officiated the
first Catholic mass in the Philippines

Making Sense of the Past: Historical Interpretation

History is the past study, but a more contemporary definition is centered on how it
impacts the present through its consequences. Historians utilize facts collected from primary
sources of history and then draw their reading so that their intended audience may understand the
historical event, a process that, in essence, "makes sense of the past." Therefore, interpretations of
the past vary according to who reads the primary source, when it was read, and how it was read.
We must be well equipped to recognize different types of interpretations, why these may differ
from each other, and critically sift these interpretations through historical evaluation.
Interpretations of historical events change over time: thus, it is an important skill to track these
changes to understand the past.
There are things we accept as "true" about the past that might not be the case anymore; just
because these were taught to us as "facts" when we were younger does not mean that it is set in
stone-history is, after all, a construct. Moreover, as a construct, it is open for interpretation. There
might be conflicting and competing accounts of the past that need one's attention and can impact
the way we view our country's history and identity. Therefore, it is essential to subject to evaluation
not only the primary source but also the historical interpretation of the same, to ensure that the
current interpretation is reliable to support our acceptance of the past events.

Multiperspectivity
Multiperspectivity can be defined as looking at historical events, personalities,
developments, cultures, and societies from different perspectives. This means that there are
many 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. The historian decides what sources to use and what interpretation to make
more apparent, depending on his end. With multiperspective as an approach in history, we must
understand that historical interpretations contain discrepancies, contradictions, and
ambiguities, and are often the focus of dissent. Exploring multiple perspectives in history
requires incorporating source materials that reflect different views of an event in history because
singular historical narratives do not provide space to inquire and investigate. Different sources
that counter each other may create space for more investigation and research while
providing more evidence for those truths that these sources agree on.
Different sources also provide different historical truths Documents may note different aspects
of the past than, say a memoir of an ordinary person on the same event. Different historical agents
create different historical truths, and while this may be a burdensome work for the historian, it also
renders more validity. Taking these in close regard in reading historical interpretations provides
the audience with a more complex and more complete and richer understanding of the past.
 The First Mass in the Philippines

Butuan has long been believed as the site of the

first Mass. This has been the case for three centuries,
culminating in the erection of a monument in 1872 near
Agusan River, which commemorates the expedition’s
arrival and celebration of Mass on 8 April 1521. The
Butuan claim has been based on a rather elementary
reading of primary sources from the event.

Towards the beginning of the twentieth century,

and the end of the nineteenth century, together with the increasing scholarship on the history of
the Philippines, more nuanced reading of the available evidence was made, which brought to light
more considerations in going against the more accepted interpretation of the first Mass in the
Philippines, made both by Spanish and Filipino scholars.
There are only two primary sources that historians refer to in identifying the site of first
Mass. the first one is the log kept by a pilot of one of Magellan's ships, Trinidad, in the name
of Francisco Albo, . Francisco Abo was one of the 18 survivors who returned with Sebastian
Elcano on the ship Victoria after they circumnavigated the world. The other, and the more
complete, was the account by Antonio Pigafetta, Primo Viaggio Intorno al Mondo (First
Voyage Around the World). Pigafetta, a member of the Magellan expedition and an eyewitness
of the events, particularly of the first Mass.

Primary Sources: Albo’s Log

Source: “Diario o derotero del viage de Magallanes Desde
el Cabo se S. Agustin en el Brazil hasta el regreso an
Espana de la nao Victoria, Escrito por Frandsco Albo,”
As cited in Miguel A. Bernard “Butuan or Limasawa?”
The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A
Reexamination of Evidence” 1981, Kinaadman: A
Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. 111, 1-35.
 On March 16, 1521, as they sailed in a westerly course from Ladrones or known
as Mariana Island at present, they saw land towards the northwest, but they did not land
there due to shallow places and later found its name as Dunagan. On that same day, they
went to a small island called Suluan, a part of Samar, and there they anchored. Leaving
those two islands, they sailed westward to Gada's island, where they took in a supply of
wood and water from that island; they sailed towards the west to a large island called
Seilani (now Leyte). Along the coast of Seilani, they sailed southwards and turned
southwest until they reached the island of Mazava. From there, they sailed northwards
again towards the Island of Seilani and followed the coast of Seilani towards the northwest,
and saw three small islands. They sailed westwards and saw three islets where they
anchored for the night. In the morning, they sailed southwest. They entered a canal between
two islands called Subu (now called Cebu), and the other was Matan (now called Mactan).
They sailed towards the southwest on that canal, then turned westward and anchored at the
town of Subu, wherein they stayed there for many days.

According to Albo's account, the location of

Mazava fits the location of the island of Limasawa, at
the southern tip of Leyte, 954'N. In addition, 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, which
also fits the southern end of Limasawa.
Primary Source: Pigafetta’s Testimony on the Route
of Magellan Expedition
Source: Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson,
The Philippine Islands, Vols. 33 and 34, as cited in
Miguel A. Bernard, “Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of
the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of
Evidence” 1981, Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern
Philippines, Vol. 111, 1-35.
On March 16, 1521, a "high land" named "Zamal" was sighted by Magellan's
expedition, which was some 300 leagues westward of the Ladrones Islands. On March 17,
1521, they landed on an "uninhabited island" known as "Humunu" (Homonhon), which
Pigafetta referred to as the "Watering place of good signs" because the place is abundant
in gold. Humunu lays right of Zamal at 10 degrees north latitude. They stayed there for
eight days from March 17 to March 25, 1521. On March 25, 1521, they left the island of
Homonhon and change the route towards west southwest, between four islands: namely,
Cenalo, Hiunanghan, Ibusson, and Albarien. They sail westward towards Leyte, followed
the Leyte coast southward, passing between the island of Ibusson on their port side and
Hiunangan bay on their starboard, and then continued southward, returning westward to
Mazaua. On March 28, 1521, an island lay on a latitude of 9 and 2/3 towards the arctic
pole and in a longitude 100 and 62 degrees from the line of demarcation. It is named
Mazaua, which is 25 leagues from the Acquada. On April 4, 1521, they left Mazaua bound
for Cebu and guided by their King, who sailed on his boat. It took them past five islands
throughout their route: Ceylon, Bohol, Canighan, Baibai, and Gatighan. 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 continue sailing northwards along the Leyte
coast, past Baibai to Gatighan (it was 20 leagues from Mazaua and 15 leagues from Subu
or Cebu. At Gatighan, they sailed westward to the three islands of the Camotes group,
namely: Poro, Pasihan, and Ponson. From Camotes Island, they sailed southwestward
towards "Zubu." On April 7, they entered the harbor of "Zubu" (Cebu). It takes them three
days to negotiate the journey from Mazaua northwards to the Camotes Islands and then
southwards to Cebu. That was the route of the Magellan expedition, as stated in the account
 of Pigafetta. The southernmost point reached before getting to Cebu was Mazaua, located
at nine and two-thirds degrees North latitude.

It must be pointed out that both Albo and Pigafetta’s

testimonies coincide and corroborate each other.
Pigafetta gave more details on what they did during
their weeklong stay in Mazaua.

Primary Source: Pigafetta and Seven Days in Mazaua

Source: Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson,
The Philippine Islands, Vols. 33 and 34, as cited in
Miguel A. Bernard, “Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of
the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of
Evidence” 1981, Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern
Philippines, Vol. 111, 1-35.
1. March 28 (Thursday) – In the morning, they
anchored near an island where they had seen the light the night before a small boat (boloto)
came with eight natives, to whom Magellan threw some trinkets as presents.
2. March 29 (Friday) – 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 say that they had
come as friends and not as enemies.
3. March 30 (Saturday) – Pigafetta and his companion had spent the previous evening feasting
and drinking with the native king and his son.
4. March 31 (Sunday) – Magellan sent the priest ashore with some men to prepare for the
Mass early in the morning of Sunday, the last of March and Easter day,". Later in the
morning, Magellan landed with some fifty men, and Mass was celebrated, after which a
cross was venerated.
5. April 1 (Monday) - 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 the night before.
 6. April 2 (Tuesday) and April 3 (Wednesday) – Work on the harvest during the “next to
days,”
7. April 4 (Thursday) – They leave Mazaua, bound for Cebu

Using the Primary sources available, Jesuit priest Miguel A. Bernard in his work Butuan
or Limasawa: The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of Evidence (1981)
lays down the argument that in the Pigafetta account, a crucial aspect of Butuan was not mentioned
– the river. Butuan is a riverine settlement, situated on the Agusan River. The beach of Masao is
in the delta of said river. It is a curious omission in the account of the river, which makes part of a
distinct characteristic of Butuan’s geography that seemed to be too important to be missed.
It must also be pointed out that later on, after Magellan’s death, the survivors of his
expedition went to Mindanao, and seemingly went to Butuan. In this instance, Pigafetta vividly
describes a trip to a river. However, note that this account already happened after Magellan's death.

LESSON 7

Another controversy in Philippine history is the real story behind the 1872 Cavite Mutiny. The
mutiny was considered to be unsuccessful and ended with the execution of the three Filipino
martyrs – Fr. Mariano Gomez, Fr. Jose Burgos, and Fr. Jacinto Zamora to which Dr. Jose P. Rizal
dedicated El Filibusterismo. The execution of the three priests is considered one of the catalysts of
the 1896 Philippine Revolution.
Furthermore, Rizal’s retraction of his writings against the Catholic Church remains very
controversial since there is still no solid proof that he retracted his writings despite the pressure
of the alleged letter of his retraction.
 The Cavite Mutiny

The year 1872 is a historic year of two

events: the Cavity Mutiny and the martyrdom of
the three priests: Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos,
and Jacinto Zamora, later on, immortalized as
GOMBURZA. These events are significant
milestones in Philippine history and have caused
ripples throughout time, directly influencing the
Philippine Revolution's decisive events toward the
end of the century. While the significance is unquestioned, what made this year controversial are
the different sides to the story, a battle of perspectives supported by primary sources. We zoom
in on the Cavite Mutiny events, a significant factor in the awakening of nationalism among the
Filipinos of that time.

Spanish Accounts of the Cavite Mutiny

Jose Montero y Vidal is a Spanish Historian who interpreted that the Mutiny
attempted to remove and overthrow the Spanish Colonizers in the Philippines. His account
corroborated with Governor-General Rafael Izquierdo y Gutierrez, the governor-general of the
Philippine Islands during the Mutiny. They mentioned that a group of native clergy powered the
mutiny.

Primary Source: Excerpts from the Account of Jose Montero y Vidal

Source: Jose Montero y Vidal, “Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872,” in Gregorio Zaide
and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippines History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book
Store, 1990), 269-273.
 The Cavite Mutiny is an aim of natives to get rid of the
Spanish government in the Philippines due to the removal of
privileges enjoyed by the laborers of the Cavite arsenal, such
as exemption from the tribute and forced labor. The democratic
and republican books and pamphlets, the speeches and
preaching of the apostles of these new ideas in Spain, and the
outburst of the American publicists and the insensitive
governor's cruel policies reigning government sent to govern the country. Filipinos put into
action these ideas where the occurring conditions which gave rise to the idea of achieving
their independence.

Jose Montero y Vidal

Primary Source: Excerpts from the Official Report of Governor Izquierdo on the Cavite
Mutiny of 1872

Source: Rafael Izquierdo, “Official Report on the Cavite Mutiny,” in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia
Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippines History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store,
1990), 281-286.

He insisted that the mutiny is stimulated and prepared

by the native clergy, mestizos, and lawyers as a signal of
objection against the injustices of the government such as not
paying provinces for tobacco crops, paying tribute, and
rendering forced labor. It is not identified if Indios planned to
inaugurate a monarchy or a republic because they don't have
a word in their language to describe this different form of
government, whose leader in Filipino would be called "hari". However, it turned out that
they would set at the supreme of the government a priest, that the leader selected would be
Jose Burgos or Jacinto Zamora which is the plan of the rebels whose who guided them, and
the means they counted upon its realization.

Rafael Izquierdo
Other Accounts of the Mutiny
Two other primary accounts exist that seem to counter the accounts of Izquierdo and Montero.
First, is the account of Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar, and
researcher, who wrote a Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite. Another account, by
French writer Edmund Plauchut, complemented Tavera’s account and analyzed the motivations of
the 1872 Cavite Mutiny.

Primary Source: Excerpts from Trinidad Pardo de Tavera’s Account of the Cavite Mutiny

Source: Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, “Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny,” in Gregorio Zaide and
Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippines History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book
Store, 1990), 274-280.

The event is just a simple mutiny since up to that time

the Filipinos have no intention of separation from Spain but
only secure materials and education advancements in the
country. However, mutiny was used at a powerful level. Also,
at this time, the central government deprived friars of the
powers of involvement in civil government and in governing
and handling universities. This resulted in the friars being
afraid that their leverage in the Philippines would be a thing
of the past, took advantage of the mutiny, and reported it to the Spanish government as a
broad conspiracy organized throughout the archipelago with the object of abolishing
Spanish sovereignty. The Madrid government without any attempt to investigate the real
facts or extent of the alleged revolution reported by Izquierdo and the friars believed the
scheme was true. Trinidad Pardo de Tavera
Primary Source: Excerpts from Edmund Plauchut’s Account of the Cavite Mutiny

Source: Edmund Plauchut, “The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 and the Martyrdom of Gom-Bur-Za,” in
Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippines History, Volume 7 (Manila:
National Book Store, 1990), 251-268.

He traced the immediate cause to a peremptory order

from the governor, Izquierdo, exacting personal taxes from the
Filipino laborers in the engineering and artillery corps in the
Cavite arsenal, and requiring them to perform forced labor like
ordinary subjects. Until then, these workers in the arsenal had
been enjoying exemptions from both taxes and forced labor.
January 20, the day of the revolt, was payday and the laborers
found the amount of taxes as well as the corresponding fee
instead of the forced labor deducted from their pay envelopes. It was the last straw. That
night they mutinied. Forty infantry soldiers and twenty men from the artillery took over
command of the Fort of San Felipe and fired cannonades to announce to the world their
moment of triumph. It was a short-lived victory. The mutineers had expected to be joined
by their comrades in the 7th infantry company assigned to patrol the Cavite plaza. They
became terror-stricken, however, when they beckoned to the 7th infantrymen from the
ramparts of the fort and their comrades did not make any move to join them. Instead, the
company started attacking them. The rebels decided to bolt the gates and wait for the
morning when support from Manila was expected to come. He gave a dispassionate
account of it and its causes in an article published in the Revue des Deux Mondes in 1877.
He traced that the primary cause of the mutiny is believed to "be an order from Governor-
General Carlos to subject the soldiers of the Engineering and Artillery Corps to personal
taxes, from which they were previously exempt. The taxes required them to pay a monetary
sum as well as to perform forced labor called, polo y Servicio. The mutiny was sparked on
January 20, 1872, when the laborers received their pay and realized the taxes as well as
the falla, the fine one paid to be exempt from forced labor, had been deducted from their
salaries.
Different accounts in the Cavite mutiny also highlighted other probable causes of the "revolution"
which include the Spanish Revolution which overthrew the secular throne, dirty propaganda
proliferated by unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and republican books and pamphlets
reaching the Philippines, and most importantly, the presence of the native clergy who out of
animosity against the Spanish friars, "conspired and supported" the rebels and enemies of Spain.

In addition, accounts of the mutiny suggest that the Spanish Revolution in Spain during that time
added more determination to the natives to overthrow the current colonial Spanish government.

The GOMBURZA is the collective name of the three martyred priests Mariano Gomez,
Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, who were tagged as the masterminds of the Cavite Mutiny. They
were prominent Filipino priests charged with treason and sedition. It is believed that the Spanish
clergy connected the priests to the mutiny as part of a conspiracy to stifle the movement of secular
priests who desired to have their parishes instead of being merely assistants to the regular friars.
The GOMBURZA were executed by garrotte in public, a scene purportedly witnessed by a young
Jose Rizal.
Their martyrdom is widely accepted as the dawn of Philippine nationalism in the
nineteenth century, with Rizal dedicating his second novel, El Filibusterismo.

THE RETRACTION OF RIZAL

Jose Rizal is identified as a hero of the revolution for

his writings that centered on ending colonialism and liberating
Filipino minds to contribute to creating the Filipino nation. The
great volume of Rizal’s lifework was committed to this end,
particularly the more influential ones, Noli Me Tangere, and El
Filibusterismo. His essays vilify not the Catholic religion, but the
friars, the main agents of injustice in the Philippine society.
It is understandable, therefore, that any piece of
writing from Rizal that recants everything he wrote against the friars and the Catholic Church in
the Philippines could deal heavy damage to his image as a prominent Filipino revolutionary. The
such document purportedly exists, allegedly signed by Rizal a few hours before his execution. This
document, referred to as “The Retraction,” declares Rizal’s belief in the Catholic faith, and retracts
everything he wrote against the Church.

Primary Source: Rizal’s Retraction

Source: Translated from the document found by Fr. Manuel Garcia,
C.M. on 18 May 1935
I declare myself a catholic and in this Religion in which
I was born and educated I wish to live and die.
I retract with all my heart whatever in my words,
writings, publications, and conduct has been contrary
to my character as the son of the Catholic Church. I
believe and I confess whatever she teaches and I submit
to whatever she demands. I abominate Masonry, as the
enemy which is of the Church, and as a Society
prohibited by the Church. The Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior Ecclesiastical
Authority, make public this spontaneous manifestation of mine to repair the scandal which
my acts may have caused and so that God and people may pardon me.
Manila 29 of December 1896
Jose Rizal

There are four iterations of the texts of this retraction: the first was published in La Voz Espanola
and Diario de Manila on the day of the execution, 30 December 1896. The second text appeared
in Barcelona, Spain, in the magazine La Juventud, a few months after the execution, 14 February
1897, from an anonymous writer who was later on revealed to be Fr. Vicente Balaguer. However,
the “original” text was only found in the archdiocesan archives on 18 May 1935, after almost four
decades of disappearance.
The Balaguer testimony
Doubts on the retraction document abound, especially because only
one eyewitness account of the writing of the document exists- that
of the Jesuit friar Fr. Vicente Balaguer. According to his testimony,
Rizal woke up several times, confessed four times attended Mass,
received communion, and prayed the rosary, all of which seemed out
of character. But since it is the only testimony of allegedly a
“primary” account that Rizal ever wrote a retraction a document, it
has been used to argue the authenticity of the document.
Fr. Vicente Balaguer

The Testimony of Cuerpo de Vigilancia

Another eyewitness account surfaced in 2016, through the research of Professor Rene R. Escalante.
In his research, documents of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia included a report on the last hours of Rizal,
written by Federico Moreno. The report details the statement of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia to
Moreno.

Primary Source: Eyewitness Account of the Last Hours of Rizal.

Source: Michael Charleston Chua, “Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga Bagong Dokumento at
Pananaw.” GMA News Online, published 29 December 2016.
Most Illustrious Sir, the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia stationed in Fort Santiago to report on
the events during the [illegible] day in the prison of the accused Jose Rizal, informs me on this
date of the following:
• At 7:50 yesterday morning, Jose Rizal entered death row accompanied by his counsel,
Señor Taviel de Andrade, and the Jesuit priest [Jose] Vilaclara. At the urgings of the
former and moments after entering, he was served a light breakfast. At approximately 9,
the Adjutant of the Garrison, Señor [Eloy] Maure, asked Rizal if he wanted anything. He
replied that at the moment he only wanted a prayer book which was brought to him
shortly by Father [Estanislao] March.
• Señor Andrade left death row at 10 and Rizal spoke for a long while with the Jesuit
fathers, March and Vilaclara, regarding religious matters, it seems. It appears that these
 two presented him with a prepared retraction of his life and deeds that he refused to sign.
They argued about the matter until 12:30 when Rizal ate some poached egg and a little
chicken. Afterward, he asked to leave to write and wrote for a long time by himself.
• At 3 in the afternoon, Father March entered the chapel and Rizal handed him what he had
written. Immediately the chief of the firing squad, Señor [Juan] del Fresno, and the
Assistant of the Plaza, Señor Maure, were informed. They entered death row and together
with Rizal signed the document that the accused had written. It seems this was the
retraction.
• At 5 this morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal arrived at the prison accompanied by his
sister Pilar, both dressed in mourning. Only the former entered the chapel, followed by a
military chaplain whose name I cannot ascertain. Donning his formal clothes and aided
by a soldier of the artillery, the nuptials of Rizal and the woman who had been his lover
were performed at the point of death (in articulo mortis). After embracing him she left,
flooded with tears.
• Rizal heard mass and confessed to Father March. Afterward, he heard another mass where
he received communion. At 7:30, a European artilleryman handcuffed him and he left for
the place of execution accompanied by various Jesuits, his counsel, and the Assistant of
the Plaza. Father March gave him a holy picture of the Virgin that Rizal kissed repeatedly.
• When the accused left, I noticed he was very pale but I am very certain that all the time
he was imprisoned he demonstrated great strength of character and composure.
God grant Your Excellency.
Manila 30 December 1896.

This account corroborates the existence of the retraction document, giving it credence.
However, nowhere in the account was Fr. Balaguer mentioned, which makes the friar a mere
secondary source to the writing of the document.
The retraction of Rizal remains to this day, a controversy; many scholars, however, agree
that the document does not tarnish their heroism of Rizal. His relevance remained solidified to
Filipinos and pushed them to continue the revolution, which eventually resulted in independence
in 1898.
Rizal’s Connection to the Katipunan
Jose Rizal never became involved in the organization and activities of the Katipunan, but
the Katipuneros still looked up to him as a leader. Rizal’s name was used as a password among
the society’s highest-ranking members, who were called Bayani. Andres Bonifacio had already
known Rizal during his La Liga Filipina days, although Rizal did not know Bonifacio personally
Nevertheless, Bonifacio so respected Rizal’s intelligence and talent that in June 1896, he sent Dr.
Pio Valenzuela to Dapitan to seek Rizal’s advice on the planned revolution.
Rizal told Valenzuela that the timing was not right for a revolution. The people were not
yet ready and they did not have enough weapons. He suggested that the Katipunan obtain the
support of wealthy and influential Filipinos first, to gain financial assistance. He also
recommended Antonio Luna as commander of its armed forces, since Luna had much knowledge
and expertise in military tactics.

LESSON 8

The actual place and date of the "Cry of Rebellion" in which Katipunero rebels denounced
Spanish colonization, marked by the cedula's historical tearing, remain in question. Different
accounts of eyewitnesses provide conflicting venues and dates for the historical Cry of rebellion.

The Cry of Rebellion.

The beginning of the Philippine Revolution against the Spanish Empire was during
the Cry of Balintawak (Filipino: Sigaw ng Balíntawak, Spanish: Grito de Balíntawak). At the close
of August 1896, members of the Katipunan secret society (Katipuneros) led by Andrés Bonifacio
rose in revolt somewhere in an area referred to as Caloocan comprehensive than the jurisdiction
of present-day Caloocan City, which may have overlapped into present-day Quezon City.
Originally the term Cry referred to the first clash between the Katipuneros and the Civil Guards
(Guardia Civil). The Cry could also refer to the tearing up of community tax certificates (cédulas
personales) in defiance of Spain's allegiance. The inscriptions of "Viva la Independencia Filipina"
can also be referred to as the Cry term. Patriotic shouts accompanied this. Because of competing
accounts and ambiguity of the place where this event took place, the Cry's exact date and place are
in contention. From 1908 until 1963, the official
stance was that the Cry occurred on August 26 in
Balintawak. In 1963 the Philippine government
declared a shift to August 23 in Pugad Lawin,
Quezon City. (Cry of Pugad Lawin - Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cry_of_Pugad_Lawin)

Different Dates and Places of the Cry

Various accounts of the Cry give different dates and places. An officer of the
Spanish Guardia Civil, Lt. Olegario Diaz, stated that the Cry took place in Balintawak on August
25, 1896. In his 1925 book The Filipino Revolution, historian Teodoro Kalaw wrote that the event
took place during the last week of August 1896 at Kangkong, Balintawak. Santiago Alvarez, a
Katipunero and son of Mariano Alvarez, the Magdiwang faction leader in Cavite, stated in 1927
that the Cry took place in Bahay Toro, now in Quezon City, on August 24, 1896. Pio Valenzuela,
a close associate of Andrés Bonifacio, declared in 1948 that it happened in Pugad Lawin on August
23, 1896. Historian Gregorio Zaide stated in his books in 1954 that the "Cry" happened in
Balintawak on August 26, 1896. Fellow historian Teodoro Agoncillo wrote in 1956 that it took
place in Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896, based on Pío Valenzuela's statement. Accounts by
historians Milagros Guerrero, Emmanuel Encarnacion, and Ramon Villegas claim the event to
have taken place in Tandang Sora's barn in Gulod, Barangay Banlat, Quezon City, on August 24,
1896.

Primary Source: Accounts of the Cry

Guillermo Masangkay
Source: Guillermo Masangkay, “Cry of Balintawak” in Gregorio Zaideand Sonia Zaide,
Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 8 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990),
307-309.
On August 26th, a big meeting was held in Balintawak, at the house of Apolonio
Samson, then cabeza of that barrio of Caloocan. Among those who attended, I remember,
 were Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Aguedo del
Rosario, Tomas Remigio, Briccio Pantas,
Teodoro Plata, Pio Valenzuela, Enrique Pacheco,
and Francisco Carreon. They were all leaders of
the Katipunan and composed the board of
directors of the organization. Delegates from
Bulacan, Cabanatuan, Cavite, and Morong were
also present.
At about nine o'clock on August 26, the meeting was opened with Andres Bonifacio
presiding and Emilio Jacinto acting as secretary. The purpose was to discuss when the
uprising was to take place. Teodoro Plata, Briccio Pantas, and Pio Valenzuela were all
opposed to starting the revolution too early...Andres Bonifacio, sensing that he would lose
the discussion then, left the session hall and talked to the people who were waiting outside
to meet the leaders. He told the people that the leaders were arguing against starting the
revolution early and appealed to them in a fiery speech in which he said: "You remember
the fate of our countrymen who were shot in Bagumbayan. Should we return now to the
towns, the Spaniards will only shoot us. Our organization has been discovered, and we are
all marked men. If we do not start the uprising, the Spaniards will get us anyway. What
then, do you say?"
"Revolt!" the people shouted as one.
Bonifacio then asked the people to give a pledge that they were to revolt. He told
them that the sign of the slavery of the Filipinos was (sic) the cedula tax charged each
citizen. "If it is true that you are ready to revolt... I want to see you destroy your cedulas. It
will be a sign that all of us have declared our severance from the Spaniards.

Pio Valenzuela
Source: Pio Valenzuela, “Cry of Pugad Lawin” in Gregorio Zaideand Sonia Zaide, Documentary
Sources of Philippine History, Volume 8 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 301-302.
In 1935, Pio Valenzuela, along with Briccio Pantas and Enrique Pacheco, said (in
English translation), "The First Cry of the revolution did not happen. Balintawak, where
 the monument is, but in a place called Pugad
Lawin." In 1940, a research team of a forerunner of
the National Historical Institute (NHI), which
included Valenzuela, identified the location as part
of sitio Gulod, Banlat, Kalookan City. IN 1964, the
NHI described this location as the house of Tandang
Sora.
The first place of refuge of Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Procopio, Bonifacio,
Teodoro Plata, Aguedo Del Rosario, and myself were Balintawak, the first five arriving
there on August 19, and I on August 20, 1896. The first place where some 500 members
of the Katipunan met on August 22, 1896, was the house and yard of Apolonio Samson at
Kangkong. Aside from the persons mentioned above, among those who were there were
Briccio Pantas, Alejandro Santiago, Ramon Bernardo, Apolonio Samson, and others. Here,
views were only exchanged, and no resolution was debated or adopted. It was at Pugad
Lawin, the house, storehouse, and yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino, where
over 1,000 members of the Katipunan met and carried out considerable debate and
discussion on August 23, 1896. The discussion was on whether or not the Spanish
government's revolution should be started on August 29, 1896... After the tumultuous
meeting, many of those present tore their cedula certificates and shouted, "Long live the
Philippines! Long live the Philippines!"

Santiago Alvarez
The account of Santiago Alvarez regarding the Cry of Balintawak flaunted specific endeavors, as
stated:
We started our trek to Kangkong at about eleven that night. We walked through the
rain over dark expanses of muddy meadows and fields. Our clothes drenched and our
bodies numbed by the cold wind, we plodded wordlessly. It was nearly two in the morning
when we reached the house of Brother Apolonio Samson in Kangkong. We crowded into
the house to rest and warm ourselves. We were so tired that, after hanging our clothes out
to dry, we soon fell asleep. The Supremo began assigning guards at five o'clock the
 following morning, Saturday, August 22, 1896. He
placed a detachment at the Balintawak boundary and
another at the backyard to the north of the house
where we were gathered. No less than three hundred
men assembled at the bidding of the Supremo Andres
Bonifacio. Altogether, they carried assorted
weapons, bolts, spears, daggers, a dozen small
revolvers, and a rifle used by its owner, one Lieutenant Manuel, for hunting birds. The
Supremo Bonifacio was restless because of fear of a sudden attack by the enemy. He was
worried over the thought that any of the couriers carrying the letter sent by Emilio Jacinto
could have been intercepted. In that eventuality, the enemy would surely know their
whereabouts and attack them on the sly. He decided that it was better to move to a site
called Bahay Toro. At ten o'clock that Sunday morning, August 23, 1896, we arrived at
Bahay Toro. Our members had grown to more than 500, and the house, yard, and
warehouse of Cabesang Melchora was getting crowded with us Katipuneros. The generous
hospitality of Cabesang Melchora was no less than that of Apolonio Samson. Like him, she
also opened her granary and had plenty of rice pounded and animals slaughtered to feed
us. On Monday, August 24, more Katipuneros came and increased our number to more
than a thousand. The Supremo called a meeting at ten o'clock that morning inside Cabesang
Melchora's barn. Flanking him on both sides at the head of the table were Dr. Pio
Valenzuela, Emilio Jacinto, Briccio Pantas, Enrique Pacheco, Ramon Bernardo, Pantaleon
Torres, Francisco Carreon, Vicente Fernandez, Teodoro Plata, and others. We were so
crowded that some stood outside the barn.

From the eyewitness accounts presented, there is indeed marked disagreement

among historical witnesses as to the place and time of the Cry occurrence. Using primary and
secondary sources, four places have been identified: Balintawak, Kangkong, Pugad Lawin, and
Bahay Toro, while the dates vary: 23, 24, 25, or 26 August 1896.
Valenzuela's account should be read with caution: he once told a Spanish
investigator that the "Cry" happened in Balintawak on Wednesday, August 26, 1896. Much later,
he wrote in his Memoirs of the Revolution that it happened at Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896.
Such inconsistencies in accounts should always be seen as a red flag when dealing with primary
sources.
According to Guerrero, Encarnacion, and Villegas, all these places are in
Balintawak, then Caloocan, and now Quezon City. As for the dates, Bonifacio and his troops may
have been moving from one place to another to avoid being located by the Spanish government,
which could explain why there are several Cry accounts.

SUMMARY:
The “Cry of Rebellion” was the beginning of the Philippine Revolution against the
Spanish Empire. The exact location and date of the Cry in which Katipunero rebels denounced
Spanish colonization, marked by the cedula's historical tearing, remain in question. Different
accounts of eyewitnesses provide conflicting venues and dates for the historical Cry of rebellion.
All the places mentioned are in Balintawak, then part of Caloocan, now in Quezon City. As for the
dates, Bonifacio and his troops may have been moving from one place to another to avoid being
located by the Spanish government, which could explain why there are several Cry accounts.
Despite such conflicting views and controversies, the significance of those events and the
Filipino heroes and martyrs crucial to the independence of the Philippines from Spain should not
be downgraded. Their vital role in the development of Filipino nationhood and nationalism
should always be recognized.