Ge 2 Final Module Ernie Anime

Republic of the Philippines
Commission on Higher Education

Region X
Valencia Colleges (Buk.) Inc.
P7A Hagkol Valencia City Bukidnon
READINGS IN PHILIPPINE
HISTORY
Finals Introduction
Readings in Philippine History is a course critically analyzes Philippine History from multiple perspective
through the lens of selected primary sources. Priority will be given to primary sources that describes the
important turning points in the Philippine history from prehistoric times up to the contemporary period
and articulate various perspective.
College/Department: ___________________________
Course Code: GE 2
Semester of A.Y: 2020-2021
Class Section: _________________________________
Name of Student: ______________________________
ERNIE M. FACINABAO
INSTRUCTOR
Facebook account: www.ernieanime
Email accnt: erniefacinabao2@gmail.com
MODULE CONTENT:
ernieanime
Region X
Chapter Overview
I. “One past but many histories”
Conflicting views and controversies in the Philippine History
a. Site of the First Mass
b. Cavity Mutiny
c. Retraction of Rizal
d. Cry of Balintawak or Pugadlawin
EXPECTED LEARNING OUTCOMES
At the end of the quarter students would be able to:
Knowledge- Analyze the context, content, and perspective of different kinds of primary sources.
Determine the contribution of different kinds of primary sources in understanding Philippine History
Skills- Effectively communicate and articulate, various techniques and genres, historical analysis of a
particular event or issue that could help other people understand and manage present day issues and
concern.
Abilities- Describe, analyze, and appreciate the rich history of the Filipino people, from pre-colonial
times to the present, through the lens of selected primary sources. Use basic concepts across the
domain of knowledge.
Values- Takes responsibility for knowing and being Filipino. Reflect critically on shared concern manage
one’s knowledge, skills and values for responsible and productive living.
ernieanime
Region X
Lesson 1:
Conflicting views and controversies in Philippine
Introduction
History deals with the study of past events. Individuals who write about history are called historians.
They seek to understand the present by examining what went before. They undertake arduous
historical research to come up with a meaningful and organized reconstruction of the past. But whose
past are we talking about? This is a basic question that a historian needs to answer because this sets the
purpose and framework of a historical account. Hence, a salient feature of historical writing is the facility
to give meaning and impart value to a particular group of people about their past. The practice of
historical writing is called historiography. Traditional method in doing historical research focuses on
gathering of documents from different libraries and archives to form a pool of evidence needed in
making a descriptive or analytical narrative. However, modern historical writing does not only include
examination of documents but also the use of research methods from related areas study such as
archaeology and geography.
This module analyzes the different controversies and conflicting views in Philippine history through the
use of primary and secondary sources. It synthesizes four historical events in Philippine history namely:
(1) the first mass in the Philippines; (2) the Cavite mutiny; (3) the retraction of Rizal; (4) the cry of
Balintawak. These historical events need to be understood carefully to better contextualizepresent-day
Philippine society in terms of culture, economy and qualities Sources of History Basic to historical
research is utilization of sources. There are diverse sources of history including documentary
sources or documents, archaeological records, and oral and video accounts. To date, most of our
historical sources are documents. These refer to handwritten, printed, drawn, designed, and other
composed materials. These include books, newspapers, magazines, journals, maps, architectural
perspectives, paintings, advertisements, and photographs. Colonial records such as government
reports and legal documents form a significant part of our collection of documents here and abroad,
particularly in Spain and the United States. In the 20th century and up to now, memoirs or personal
accounts written by important historical personages constitute another type of documents.
Primary and Secondary Sources

There are two general kinds of historical sources: primary and secondary.
Primary Sources: refer to documents, physical objects, and oral/video accounts made by an individual
or a group present at the time and place being described. These materials provide facts from people
who actually witnessed the event.
Secondary sources: on the other hand, are materials made by people long after the events being
described had taken place. Most historical narratives today are so reliant on documentary sources due
to the plethora of written records and the lack of archaeological records and oral/video memoirs.
Although having several documents about an event allows for easier counterchecking of facts
history researchers are confronted with one basic challenge with regard primary sources- their ability to
read and understand texts in foreign languages.
ernieanime
Region X
LESSON 1: Controversy The Site of the First Mass
On March 31, 1521, an Easter Sunday, Magellan ordered a Mass to be celebrated which was officiated
by Father Pedro Valderrama, the Andalusion chaplain of the fleet, the only priest then. Conducted near
the shores of the island, the First Holy Mass marked the birth of Roman Catholicism in the
Philippines. Colambu and Siaiu were the first natives of the archipelago, which was not yet named
"Philippines" until the expedition of Ruy Lopez de Villalobos in 1543, to attend the Mass among other
native inhabitants.
In the account of Pigafetta, Gomez noticed that he failed to mention some points of the journey where
the masses were held, one example is when they were at the port of San Julian. Pigafetta mentioned
about a mass held on Palm Sunday which was held on April 1, 1520 during their voyage to the west
but never mentioned about Easter Sunday. Same situation happened when the fleet arrived in the
Philippines, Pigafetta only mentioned about the Easter Sunday Mass while he is silent on the Palm
Sunday.
For further investigation, some points at Pigafetta's account was translated as follows:
''“At dawn on Saturday, March 16, 1521, (feast of St. Lazarus, Gomez inserted) we came upon a
highland at a distance… an island named Zamal (Samar)… the following day (March 17, Sunday) the
captain general desired to land on another island (Humunu) …uninhabited… in order to be more secure
and to get water and have some rest. He had two tents set up on shore for the sick.”'' ''“On Monday,
March 18, we saw a boat coming towards us with nine men in it.”'' ''This marks our first human contact
with Europeans... giving signs of joy because of our arrival.” “At noon on Friday, March 22, those men
came as they had promised.” “And we lay eight days in that place, where the captain every day visited
the sick men who he had put ashore on the island to recover.”''
As observed by Gomez, the instance wherein Pigafetta had written about the mass said it had two
things in common;
1. they are both held in the shores
2. there are Filipino natives present
ernieanime
Region X
Planting of the Cross

In the afternoon of the same day, Magellan instructed his comrades to plant a large wooden cross on
the top of the hill overlooking the Magellan's chronicler, Antonio Pigafetta, who recorded the event
said:
"After the cross was erected in position, each of us repeated a Pater Noster and an Ave Maria, and
adored the cross; and the kings [Colambu and Siaiu] did the same.
Magellan then took ownership of the islands where he had landed in the name of King Charles V
which he had named earlier on March 16 Archipelago of Saint Lazarus because it was the day of the
saint when the Armada reached the archipelago.
In the Account of Francisco Albo, he did not mention about the first mass in the Philippines but only
the planting of the cross upon a mountain top from which could be seen three islands to the west and
southwest, where they were told there was much gold. This also fits the southern end of Limasawa. It
does not suits the coast of Butuan from which no islands could be seen to the south or the southwest,
but only towards the north.
The commission concluded that the First Mass was held in Limasawa after it found that:
The most complete and reliable account of the Magellan expedition into Philippine shores in 1521 is that
of Antonio Pigafetta which is deemed as the only credible primary source of reports on the celebration
of the first Christian Mass on Philippine soil.
James Robertson's English translation of the original Italian manuscript of Pigaffeta's account is
most reliable for being ''faithful'' to the original text as duly certified by the University of the
Philippines' Department of European Language.
Pigafetta's Mazaua, the site of the first Christian Mass held on Philippine soil, is an island lying off the
southwestern tip of Leyte while Masao in Butuan is not an island but a barangay of Butuan City located
in a delta of the Agusan River along the coast of Northern Mindanao. The position of Mazaua, as plotted
by Pigafetta, matched that of Limasawa.
The measurement of distances between Homonhon and Limasawa between Limasawa and Cebu, as
computed by the pro-Limasawa group, matches or approximates the delineations made by Pigafetta
of the distances between Homonhon and Mazaua and between Mazaua and Cebu.
Magellan's fleet took a route from Homonhon to Mazaua and from Mazaua to Cebu that did not at any
time touch Butuan or any other part of Mindanao. The docking facilities at Limasawa did not pose any
problem for Magellan's fleet which anchored near or at some safe distance from the island of the
eastern shore.
To the Gancayco Commission, ''History is both a useful and fascinating subject. As one travels through
time, one is bound to find it rich in stories. Every kind of testimony is drawn upon from eyewitness
accounts to statistical tables. Personal records, such as diaries, can certainly tell more than the official
documents.
''One of the great delights of time travel is encountering the unfamiliar for that is what brings history
to life. We use history, not to tell us what happened or to explain the past, but make the past alive so
that it can explain us and make a future possible,'' the commission said, quoting from Allan Bloom's
The Closing of the American Mind.
ernieanime
Region X
In writing and end to the controversy, the commission said it proceeded with utmost care.
It said that the conclusion was made to enlighten the current generation and remove all confusion
about where the First Mass was held in the Philippines.
Paraphrasing Adlai Stevenson's, ''We can chart our future clearly and wisely when we know the path
that has led to the present,'' the panel said: ''The path is now conclusively established to have begun
at the island of Limasawa where the first ever Christian Mass on Philippine soil was offered on March
31, 1521 by Ferdinand Magellan and his men.''
Victory day
But on March 31, Limasawa Island saw the arrival not only of mainland Leyte residents but also of
foreign dignitaries, led by Enrique Michel, Mexican ambassador to the Philippines, to celebrate
Limasawa's''victory.''
The 478th anniversary was a feast as the province and Limasawa were celebrating not only the
decision of NHI but also the donation made by Rev. Vicente Dayagbil Sr., bishop of the Philippine
Independent Church, of the lot where the First Mass Shrine now sits.
Leyteños also celebrated the restoration of the shrine's chapel, courtesy of the Maasin Knight of
Columbus and the pledges made by the governments of Spain and Portugal to help finance the
construction of a 50-foot monument of the Risen Christ at the highest point of the island to
commemorate the First Mass and the first recorded meeting between Eastern and Western cultures.
ernieanime
Region X
DECLARATION OF THE NATIONAL SHRINE
An Act to Declare the Site in Magallanes, Limasawa Island in the Province of Leyte, Where the First Mass
in the Philippines was Held as a National Shrine, to Provide for the Preservation of Historical Monuments
and Landmarks Thereat, and for Other Purposes Republic Act No. 2733
Congress of the Philippines 19 June 1960
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
SECTION 1. The site in Magallanes, Limasawa Island in the Province of Leyte, where the first Mass in
the Philippines was held is hereby declared a national shrine to commemorate the birth of Christianity in
the Philippines.
SECTION 2. All historical monuments and landmarks in said site shall be preserved and/or reconstructed
whenever necessary as much as possible in their original form and are hereby declared national
historical monuments and landmarks.
SECTION 3. The National Planning Commission shall exercise supervision and control over the
reconstruction and/or preservation of the aforesaid site and monuments, and shall issue rules and
regulations to effectuate the preceding sections of this Act.
SECTION 4. Nesessary funds for the porpuses of this Act shall be provided in the annual appropriations
for public works and disbursements shall be made by the National Planning Commission under such
rules and regulations as the Auditor General may prescribe.
SECTION 5. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Limasawa celebrates the historic and religious coming of the Spaniards every March 31 with a cultural
presentation and anniversary program dubbed as Sinugdan, meaning "beginningYet this has no
reference at all to a Catholic mass being held on March 31, 1521.
ernieanime
Region X
ACTIVITY 1: SITE OF THE FIRST MASS
Instruction: answer the following questions ( 5 points each)
1. What was the site of the first Christian mass in the Philippines? Give the specific place, date
and day.
However, there is scholarly doubt that Odoric was ever at the Philippines. [22] Ultimately,
the National Historical Institute led by its chair Ambeth Ocampo recognized the historical
records of Limasawa in Southern Leyte as the venue of the first Mass, held on March 13
1521__________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________
2. What does it says in Republic Act No. 2733?
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippine Congress

Assembled:Section 1. The site in Magallanes, Limasawa Island in the Province of Leyte,
where the first Mass in the Philippines was held is hereby declared a national shrine to
commemorate the birth of Christianity in the Philippines.
3. Is Mazaua and Limasawa the same?

No because the mazaua is municipalityof the Limasawa or lima’y asawa
4. What is your stand about the site of the first mass?
_LIMASAWA Island in Southern City, not Butuan City in Agusan del Norte, is the site of the
“First Easter Sunday Mass” held in 1521 following the discovery of the Philippines by Ferdinnd
Magellan, according to the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP)
5 What is associated with Magellan’s Cross?
Rajah Humabon, his wife and hundreds of his native warriors agreed to accept Christianity and
were consequently baptized.Magellan planted a cross to signify this important event about the
propagation of the Roman Catholic faith in what is now Cebu, in central Philippines.
ernieanime
Region X
LESSON 2: CAVITE MUTINY

The Cavite mutiny (Spanish: El Mótin de Cavite) of 1872 was an uprising of Filipino military personnel of
Fort San Felipe, the Spanish arsenal in Cavite, Philippine Islands (then also known as part of the Spanish
East Indies) on 20 January 1872. Around 200 locally recruited colonial troops and laborers rose up in the
belief that it would elevate to a national uprising. The mutiny was unsuccessful, and government
soldiers executed many of the participants and began to crack down on a burgeoning Philippines
nationalist movement.
Many scholars believed that the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 was the beginning of Filipino nationalism that
would eventually lead to the Philippine Revolution of 1896.
Causes of the Cavite mutiny The causes of the Cavite Mutiny can be identified through examining the
different accounts in this historic event.
a. Spanish Accounts of the Mutiny[edit] Jose Montero y Vidal is a Spanish Historian, who interpreted
that the Mutiny was an attempt to remove and overthrow the Spanish Colonizers in the Philippines. His
account, corroborated with the account of Governor - General Rafael Izquidero y Gutierrez, the
governor-general of the Philippine Islands during the Mutiny. They mentioned that the mutiny was
powered by a group of native clergy.
b. Account of Jose Montero y Vidal[edit] 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 cruel
policies of the insensitive governor whom the 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.
c. Account of Governor-General Rafael Izquierdo y Gutiérrez. 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, pay tribute and rendering of
forced labor. It is not clearly identified if Indios planned to inaugurate a
monarchy or a republic because they don't have a word in their own
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.
ernieanime
Region X
Other Accounts of the Mutiny
Account of Trinidad Pardo de Tavera 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,
the mutiny was used at a powerful level. Also, in 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 afraid
that their leverage in the Philippines would be a thing in 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.
Account of Edmund Plauchut 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
in lieu 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. Apparently, 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 infantry men 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 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.
ernieanime
Region X
The Execution of Gomburza On 17 February 1872 in an attempt of the

Spanish government and Frailocracia to instill fear among the Filipinos so
that they may never commit such daring act again, the GOMBURZA were
executed. This event was tragic but served as one of the moving forces
that shaped Filipino nationalism. The Spanish colonial authorities
sentenced three martyr Fathers Jose Burgos, Mariano Gómez and
Jacinto Zamora to death by garrote at Bagumbayan, Philippines and
charged with treason and sedition, and subversion. Two days after their
verdict, they were executed. The charges against Fathers Gomez, Burgos
and Zamora was their alleged complicity in the uprising of workers at the
Cavite Naval Yard. It was believed by Governor Rafael Izquierdo that the
Filipinos will create its own government and allegedly, the three priests
were nominated as the leader of the planned government in order to
break free of the Spanish government. The death of Gomburza
awakened strong spirits of anger and resentment among the Filipinos. They grilled Spanish authorities
and demanded reforms due to the prejudicial governance of the Spanish Authorities. The martyrdom of
the three priests, ironically, assisted in the creation of the Propaganda Movemen t which aimed to
seek reforms and inform the Spanish people on the abuses of its colonial authorities in the Philippine
Islands. Besides from Gomburza execution, on January 28, 1872 the military court sentenced 41
mutineers to death. However, on the next day Governor Rafael Izquierdo pardoned 28 mutineers and
the rest were confirmed to sentence. On February 6, 1872, 11 mutineers were sentenced to death but
Governor Izquierdo commuted their death sentences to life imprisonment. Together with execution of
garrotte to the three martyrs was Enrique Paraiso, Maximo Innocencio and Crisanto Delos Reyes were
imposed to ten years imprisonment. Furthermore, there were people being sentenced by the military
court of Spain to exile them to the Marianas (now Guam): Fr. Pedro Dandan, Fr. Mariano Sevilla, Toribio
H. del Pilar (brother of Marcelo H. del Pilar), Agustin Mendoza, Jose Guevara, Miguel Lasa, Justo Guazon,
Fr. Aniceto Desiderio, Fr. Vicente del Rosario, Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose Basa y
Enriquez, Mauricio de Leon, Pedro Carillo, Gervasio Sanchez, Jose Ma. Basa, Pio Basa, Balvino Mauricio,
Maximo Paterno (father of Pedro Paterno), and Valentin Tosca.
The Two Faces of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny

Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian documented the event and highlighted it as an attempt
of the Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines. Meanwhile, Gov. Gen. Rafael
Izquierdo’s official report magnified the event and made use of it to implicate the native clergy, which
was then active in the call for secularization. The two accounts complimented and corroborated with
one other, only that the general’s report was more spiteful. Initially, both Montero and Izquierdo scored
out that the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the workers of Cavite arsenal such as non-payment of
tributes and exemption from force labor were the main reasons of the “revolution” as how they called
it, however, other causes were enumerated by them including the Spanish Revolution which overthrew
the secular throne, dirty propagandas proliferated by unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and
republican books and pamphlets reaching the Philippines, and most importantly, the presence of the
native clergy who out of animosity against the Spanish friars, “conspired and supported” the rebels and
enemies of Spain. In particular, Izquierdo blamed the unruly Spanish Press for “stockpiling” malicious
propagandas grasped by the Filipinos. He reported to the King o Spain that the “rebels” wanted to
ernieanime
Region X
overthrow the Spanish government to install a new “hari” in the likes of Fathers Burgos and Zamora.
The general even added that the native clergy enticed other participants by giving them charismatic
assurance that their fight will not fail because God is with them coupled with handsome promises of
rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the army. Izquierdo, in his report lambasted the
Indios as gullible and possessed an innate propensity for stealing.
The two Spaniards deemed that the event of 1872 was planned
earlier and was thought of it as a big conspiracy among educated
leaders, mestizos, abogadillos or native lawyers, residents of Manila
and Cavite and the native clergy. They insinuated that the
conspirators of Manila and Cavite planned to liquidate high-ranking
Spanish officers to be followed by the massacre of the friars. The
alleged pre-concerted signal among the conspirators of Manila and
Cavite was the firing of rockets from the walls of Intramuros.
According to the accounts of the two, on 20 January 1872, the
district of Sampaloc celebrated the feast of the Virgin of Loreto,
unfortunately participants to the feast celebrated the occasion with
the usual fireworks displays. Allegedly, those in Cavite mistook the
fireworks as the sign for the attack, and just like what was agreed
upon, the 200-men contingent headed by Sergeant Lamadrid launched an attack targeting Spanish
officers at sight and seized the arsenal.
When the news reached the iron-fisted Gov. Izquierdo, he readily ordered the reinforcement of the
Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The “revolution” was easily crushed when the expected
reinforcement from Manila did not come ashore. Major instigators including Sergeant Lamadrid were
killed in the skirmish, while the GOMBURZA were tried by a court-martial and were sentenced to die by
strangulation. Patriots like Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa and other
abogadillos were suspended by the Audencia (High Court) from the practice of law, arrested and were
sentenced with life imprisonment at the Marianas Island. Furthermore, Gov. Izquierdo dissolved the
native regiments of artillery and ordered the creation of artillery force to be composed exclusively of the
Peninsulares
1872 Cavite Mutiny: A Response to Injustice: The Filipino Version of the Incident
Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher, wrote the Filipino version
of the bloody incident in Cavite. In his point of view, the incident was a mere mutiny by the native
Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal who turned out to be dissatisfied with the abolition of
their privileges. Indirectly, Tavera blamed Gov. Izquierdo’s coldblooded policies such as the abolition of
privileges of the workers and native army members of the arsenal and the prohibition of the founding of
school of arts and trades for the Filipinos, which the general believed as a cover-up for the organization
of a political club.
On 20 January 1872, about 200 men comprised of soldiers, laborers of the arsenal, and residents of
Cavite headed by Sergeant Lamadrid rose in arms and assassinated the commanding officer and Spanish
officers in sight. The insurgents were expecting support from the bulk of the army unfortunately, that
didn’t happen. The news about the mutiny reached authorities in Manila and Gen. Izquierdo
immediately ordered the reinforcement of Spanish troops in Cavite. After two days, the mutiny was
officially declared subdued.
Tavera believed that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a powerful lever by
magnifying it as a full-blown conspiracy involving not only the native army but also included residents of
Cavite and Manila, and more importantly the native clergy to overthrow the Spanish government in the
ernieanime
Region X
Philippines. It is noteworthy that during the time,

the Central Government in Madrid announced its
intention to deprive the friars of all the powers of
intervention in matters of civil government and the
direction and management of educational
institutions. This turnout of events was believed by
Tavera, prompted the friars to do something
drastic in their dire seedier to maintain power in
the Philippines. Meanwhile, in the intention of
installing reforms, the Central Government of Spain
welcomed an educational decree authored by
Segismundo Moret promoted the fusion of
sectarian schools run by the friars into a school
called Philippine Institute. The decree proposed to
improve the standard of education in the
Philippines by requiring teaching positions in such schools to be filled by competitive examinations. This
improvement was warmly received by most Filipinos in spite of the native clergy’s zest for secularization.
The friars, fearing that their influence in the Philippines would be a thing of the past, took advantage of
the incident and presented it to the Spanish Government as a vast conspiracy organized throughout the
archipelago with the object of destroying Spanish sovereignty. Tavera sadly confirmed that the Madrid
government came to believe that the scheme was true without any attempt to investigate the real facts
or extent of the alleged “revolution” reported by Izquierdo and the friars. Convicted educated men who
participated in the mutiny were sentenced life imprisonment while members of the native clergy
headed by the GOMBURZA were tried and executed by garrote. This episode leads to the awakening of
nationalism and eventually to the outbreak of Philippine Revolution of 1896. The French writer Edmund
Plauchut’s account complimented Tavera’s account by confirming that the event happened due to
discontentment of the arsenal workers and soldiers in Cavite fort. The Frenchman, however, dwelt
more on the execution of the three martyr priests which he actually witnessed.
Unraveling the Truth

Considering the four accounts of the 1872 Mutiny, there were some basic facts that remained to be
unvarying: First, there was dissatisfaction among the workers of the arsenal as well as the members of
the native army after their privileges were drawn back by Gen. Izquierdo; Second, Gen. Izquierdo
introduced rigid and strict policies that made the Filipinos move and turn away from Spanish
government out of disgust; Third, the Central Government failed to conduct an investigation on what
truly transpired but relied on reports of Izquierdo and the friars and the opinion of the public; Fourth,
the happy days of the friars were already numbered in 1872 when the Central Government in Spain
decided to deprive them of the power to intervene in government affairs as well as in the direction and
management of schools prompting them to commit frantic moves to extend their stay and power; Fifth,
the Filipino clergy members actively participated in the secularization movement in order to allow
Filipino priests to take hold of the parishes in the country making them prey to the rage of the friars;
Sixth, Filipinos during the time were active participants, and responded to what they deemed as
injustices; and Lastly, the execution of GOMBURZA was a blunder on the part of the Spanish
government, for the action severed the ill-feelings of the Filipinos and the event inspired Filipino patriots
to call for reforms and eventually independence. There may be different versions of the event, but one
thing is certain, the 1872 Cavite Mutiny paved way for a momentous 1898. The road to
independence was rough and tough to toddle, many patriots named and unnamed shed their bloods to
attain reforms and achieve independence. 12 June 1898 may be a glorious event for us, but we should
not forget that before we came across to victory, our forefathers suffered enough. As weenjoy our
ernieanime
Region X
freeedom, may we be more historically aware of our past to have a better future ahead of us. And just
like what Elias said in Noli me Tangere, may we “not forget those who fell during the night.”
ACTIVITY No 2 : Cavite Mutiny

Instruction: Answer the following questions.
1. What is the most credible version of Cavite mutiny? Justify your answer (10 points)
There are different sides of the story regarding the Cavite mutiny; there are
distinctversions and interpretations as well.But as a Filipino, I will believe the version of my
own race.I may be biased in my opinion but I will present and discuss things to elaborate it
and to defendwhy I think Tavera’s version is the most credible among them.First, I want to
introduce Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholarand researcher,
who wrote the Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite. The other versions
came from a Spanish historian, Jose Montero y Vidal and the Gobernador
Generalhimself, Rafael Izquierdo.Both the Filipino and Spanish versions presented that the
reason of the mutiny was due tothe unfair decision of the Gobernador General in the abolition
of the privileges in terms of taxesand force labor. However, Vidal and Izquierdo’s
accounts became biased and added some information.
2. What are the two version of Cavite Mutiny? Explain in your own understanding. (20points) Two
major events happened in 1872, first was the 1872 Cavite Mutiny and the other was the martyrdom of the
three martyr priests in the persons of Fathers Mariano Gomes, Jose Burgos and Jacinto Zamora
(GOMBURZA).
3What is the importance of the Cavite Mutiny? Explain in your own (10 points)
Cavite Mutiny, (January 20, 1872), brief uprising of 200 Filipino troops and workers at the Cavite
arsenal, which became the excuse for Spanish repression of the embryonic Philippine nationalist
movement. Ironically, the harsh reaction of the Spanish authorities served ultimately to promote the
nationalist cause.
LESSON 3: Retraction of Rizal

Since Rizal’s retraction letter was discovered by Father
Manuel Garcia, C.M. in 1935, its content has become a
favorite subject of dispute among academicians and
Catholics. The letter, dated December 29, 1896, was said to
have been signed by the National Hero himself. The
controversy whether the National Hero actually wrote a
retraction document only lies in the judgment of its reader,
ernieanime
Region X
as no amount of proof can probably make the two opposing groups— the Masonic Rizalists (who firmly
believe that Rizal did not withdraw) and the Catholic Rizalists (who were convinced Rizal retracted)—
agree with each other.
Jose Rizal’s Retraction:

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

Jose Rizal
RETRACTION is defined as formally taking back something which was said or done. The act of retracting
or the state of being retracted withdrawal of promise, statement, or opinion,
Jose Rizal’s Retraction Controversy
The Retraction of Rizal One of the most intriguing of all was the issues
of Jose Rizal was his alleged retraction which was all about his
reversion to the Catholic Faith and all other issues linked to it such as
his marriage to Josephine Bracken. That issue was claimed to be true
by the Roman Catholic defenders but asserted to be deceptive by
anti-retractonists. They claim that the retraction document is a
forgery, but handwriting experts concluded a long time ago that it is
genuine. Rafael Palma’s opus on Rizal, titled “Biografia de Rizal” is so
anti-Catholic that the Church successfully opposed its publication
using government funds. In an article authored by Romberto Poulo,
Rizal’s affiliation in Masonry was accounted to have caused drastic
change to his religious ideas. It was in the moment Rizal set foot on European soil when he was exposed
to a great deal of distinctions between what was happening to his country, the discriminations, abuses,
partialities, injustices, and some other things made to cause sufferings to his countrymen, and what
was the actual scene of the European nations. He observed that Europe was a lot more different
compared to the Philippines in terms of way of life, attitudes towards Roman Catholicism, and most
importantly, the freedom all the citizens enjoy. The exact copy had been received by Fr. Balaguer in the
evening immediately preceding Rizal's execution. Jose Rizal with the addition of the names of the
witnesses taken from the texts of the retraction in the Manila newspapers. Fr. Pi's copy of Rizal's
retraction has the same text as that of Fr. Balaguer's "exact" copy but follows the paragraphing of the
texts of Rizal's retraction in the Manila newspapers. In order to marry Josephine, Rizal wrote with the
help of a priest a form of retraction to be approved by the Bishop of Cebu. This incident was revealed by
Fr. Antonio Obach to his friend Prof. Austin Craig who wrote down in 1912 what the priest had told him;
"The document (the retraction), enclosed with the priest's letter, was ready for the mail when Rizal
came hurrying I to reclaim it." Rizal realized (perhaps, rather late) that he had written and given to a
priest what the friars had been trying by all means to get from him. Surely whether Rizal died a Catholic
or an apostate adds or detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino. It is because of what he did and
ernieanime
Region X
what he was that we revere Rizal. Catholic or Mason, Rizal is still Rizal: the hero who courted death “to
prove to those who deny our patriotism that we know how to die for our duty and our beliefs”
Retraction controversy
 Also there is an allegation that the retraction document was a forgery. After analyzing six major
documents of Rizal, Ricardo Pascual concluded that the retraction document, said to have been
discovered in 1935, was not in Rizal's handwriting.
 History books tell most people that the first draft of the retraction was sent by Archbishop
Bernardino Nozaleda to Rizal’s cell in Fort Santiago the night before his execution in
Bagumbayan. But Rizal was said to have rejected the draft because it was lengthy.
 The document of the retraction of Jose Rizal, too, is being hotly debated as to its authenticity. It
was supposed to have been signed by Jose Rizal moments before his death. There were many
witnesses, most of them Jesuits. The document only surfaced for public viewing on May 13,
1935. It was found by Fr. Manuel A. Gracia at the Catholic hierarchy’s archive in Manila. But the
original document was never shown to the public, only reproductions of it.
 Another evidence as to Rizal did not retract is that when Father Balaguer came to terms that he
married Jose and Josephine, after Jose had signed the retraction paper, however, there were no
marriage certificate or public record shown that could prove Father Balaguer's statement.
 The copy of the retraction paper that was allegedly signed by Rizal that was even kept secret
and was only published in newspapers. When Rizal’s family requested for the original copy, it
was said that it was lost. Could the Jesuits be this irresponsible to not know the value of the
paper? Or was it just hidden?
So which is which?
Why would Rizal retract when he knows for a fact that even if he signs the retraction paper he
would still be executed? Since the Archbishop and Jesuits cannot do anything to mitigate his penalty
because the judicial process involved was purely a military tribunal where civilian or church interference
was uncommon and not allowed. Rizal was accused of participating in filibusterous propaganda where
the penalty as provided by the Spanish Code is death. The same of what happened to the three priests
who were garroted years earlier, even though they were still a part of the church; they were still treated
as rebellious and were also not given a proper burial.
Furthermore, way back when Rizal was still exiled in Dapitan, Father
Sanchez- Rizal’s favorite teacher from Ateneo- was sent by the Jesuits
superiors to try to convince his former student’s allegation towards the
Catholic religion and Spanish religious in the Philippines. Father Sanchez
told him to retract in exchange of a professorship, a hundred thousand
pesos and an estate (Laubach, 1936) however Rizal rejected the offer.
It was argued that Rizal retracted in order to save his family from further
persecution, to give Josephine Bracken a legal status as his wife and to
assure reforms from the Spanish government. It is more likely to be of
Rizal’s mentality however, come to think of it, would Rizal just simply
ernieanime
Region X
neglect all the writing he conceived with his hard work? The same writings that brought him to the point
of being executed? Rizal’s behavior during his last hours in Fort Santiago does not point to a conversion-
the Mi Ultimo Adios and letters- or indicate even a religious instability. In the evening where his sister
and mother arrived, never had he mentioned about the retraction, contrary to what Father Balaguer
claimed that even in the afternoon, Rizal was oblivious and was asking for the formula of the retraction.
Rizal was fixated of the thought that he would die for the love of his country, he, himself had coveted
death a long time ago. His character speaks so loud that even all of Rizal’s friends do not believe that he
have written a retraction. Let us look at Rizal’s character as a man aged 33. He was mature enough to
realize the consequences of the choice he had made even before he opposed to the Jesuits; he had been
anticipating this to happen and would be unlikely if he had a behavior showing a threat from death.
Anyone who has been studying his biography and had been acquainted with him knows this is so, even
the priests had admitted that Rizal showed a behavior consistent of what he was throughout his mature
years.
Did Jose Rizal Die a Catholic? Revisiting Rizal’s Last 24 Hours Using Spy Reports.
There is one issue in Jose Rizal’s life that historians have debated on several occasions but remains
unsettled. That issue is whether Rizal, on the eve of his death, re-embraced the Catholic faith and
disassociated himself from Masonry. The matter is controversial because parties on both sides are
affiliated with an organization that promotes moral values and the pursuit of truth. The pro-retraction
camp is represented by the Jesuits, the archbishop of Manila, and a few other members of the Catholic
hierarchy. Since they are all ordained priests, they are assumed to be truthful in their pronouncements.
Their opponents are the members of Masonry, an organization that promotes brotherhood, integrity,
decency, and professionalism. This paper revisits the retraction controversy in the light of a new primary
source that gives an idea of Rizal’s activities 24 hours before he was executed.
ACTIVITY No 3 : Retraction of Rizal

Answer the following questions ( 5 points each)
1. What object symbolizes Jose Rizal?
Pen__________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
__
ernieanime
Region X
2. What is retraction means?
the action of drawing something back or back in.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
3.What is the retraction controversy of Rizal?

The document of the retraction of Jose Rizal, too, is being hotly debated as to its authenticity.
It was supposed to have been signed by Jose Rizal moments before his death. There were many
witnesses, most of them Jesuits. The document only surfaced for public viewing on May 13,
1935.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
4.What makes a controversial hero?
He did not use violence, and did not kill anyone. He just used his passion in writing to peacefully fight the
conquerors of our
country.______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_______
5. Did Rizal really made a retraction letter? Justify your answer
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
LESSON 3: Cry of Balintawak or Pugadlawin
ernieanime
Region X
Nineteenthcentury journalists used the phrase “el

grito de rebelion” or “the Cry of Rebellion” to
describe the momentous events sweeping the
Spanish colonies; in Mexico it was the “Cry of
Dolores” (16 September 1810), Brazil the “City of
Ypiraga” (7 September 1822), and in Cuba the “Cry
of Matanza” (24 February 1895). In August 1896,
northeast of Manila, Filipinos similarly declared
their rebellion against the Spanish colonial
government. It was Manuel Sastron, the Spanish
historian, who institutionalized the phrased for the Philippines in his 1897 book, La Insurreccion en
Filipinas. All these “Cries” were milestones in the several colonial-to-nationalist histories of the world.
Raging controversy
If the expression is taken literally –the Cry as the shouting of nationalistic slogans in mass assemblies –
then there were scores of such Cries. Some writers refer to a Cry of Montalban on April 1895, in the
Pamitinan Caves where a group of Katipunan members wrote on the cave walls, “Viva la indepencia
Filipina!” long before the Katipunan decided to launch a nationwide revolution.
The historian Teodoro Agoncillo chose to emphasize Bonifacio’s tearing of the cedula (tax receipt)
before a crowd of Katipuneros who then broke out in cheers. However, Guardia Civil Manuel Sityar
never mentioned in his memoirs (1896-1898) the tearing or inspection of the cedula, but did note the
pacto de sangre (blood pact) mark on every single Filipino he met in August 1896 on his reconnaissance
missions around Balintawak. Some writers consider the first military engagement with the enemy as the
defining moment of the Cry. To commemorate this martial event upon his return from exile in Hong
Kong, Emilio Aguinaldo commissioned a “Himno de Balintawak” to herald renewed fighting after the
failed peace of the pact of Biyak na Bato.
On 3 September 1911, a monument to the Heroes of 1896 was erected in what is now the intersection
of Epifanio de los Santos Avenue and Andres Bonifacio Drive –North Doversion Road. From that time on
until 1962, the Cry of Balintawak was officially celebrated every 26 August.
It is not clear why the 1911

monument was erected there. It could
not have been to mark the site of
Apolonio Samson’s house in barrio
Kangkong; Katipuneros marked that
site on Kaingin Road, between
Balintawak and San Francisco del
Monte Avenue. Neither could the
1911 monument have been erected to
mark the site of the first armed
encounter which, incidentally, the
Katipuneros fought and won. A contemporary map of 1896 shows that the August battle between the
Katipunan rebels and the Spanish forces led by Lt. Ros of the Civil Guards took place at sitio Banlat,
North of Pasong Tamo Road far from Balintawak. The site has its own marker. It is quite clear that first,
eyewitnesses cited Balintawak as the better-known reference point for a larger area. Second, while
Katipunan may have been massing in Kangkong, the revolution was formally launched elsewhere.
Moreover, eyewitnesses and therefore historians, disagreed on the site and date of the Cry. But the
issue did not rest there. In 1970, the historian Pedro A. Gagelonia pointed out: The controversy among
historians continues to the present day. The “Cry of Pugad Lawin” (August 23, 1896) cannot be accepted
ernieanime
Region X
as historically accurate. It lacks positive documentation and supporting evidence from the witness. The
testimony of only one eyewitness (Dr. Pio Valenzuela) is not enough to authenticate and verify a
controversial issue in history. Historians and their living participants, not politicians and their
sycophants, should settle this controversy.
Conflicting accounts:
Pio Valenzuela had several versions of the Cry. Only after they are compared and reconciled with the
other accounts will it be possible to determine what really happened. Was there a meeting at Pugad
Lawin on 23 August 1896, after the meeting at Apolonio Samson’s residence in Hong Kong? Where were
the cedulas torn, at Kangkong or Pugad Lawin?
In September 1896, Valenzuela stated before the Olive Court, which was charged with investigating
persons involved in the rebellion, only that Katipunan meetings took place from Sunday to Tuesday or
23 to 25 August at Balintawak.
In 1911, Valenzuela averred that the Katipunan began meeting on 22 August while the Cry took place on
23 August at Apolonio Samson’s house in Balintawak. From 1928 to 1940, Valenzuela maintained that
the Cry happened on 24 August at the house of Tandang Sora (Melchora Aquino) in Pugad Lawin, which
he now situated near Pasong Tamo Road. A photograph of Bonifacio’s widow Gregoria de Jesus and
Katipunan members Valenzuela, Briccio Brigido Pantas, Alfonso and Cipriano Pacheco, published in La
Opinion in 1928 and 1930, was captioned both times as having been taken at the site of the Cry on 24
August 1896 at the house of Tandang Sora at Pasong Tamo Road. From 1928 to 1940, Valenzuela
maintained that the Cry happened on 24 August at the house of Tandang Sora (Melchora Aquino) in
Pugad Lawin, which he now situated near Pasong Tamo Road. A photograph of Bonifacio’s widow
Gregoria de Jesus and Katipunan members Valenzuela, Briccio Brigido Pantas, Alfonso and Cipriano
Pacheco, published in La Opinion in 1928 and 1930, was captioned both times as having been taken at
the site of the Cry on 24 August 1896 at the house of Tandang Sora at Pasong Tamo Road. In 1935
Valenzuela, Pantas and Pacheco proclaimed “na hindi sa Balintawak nangyari ang unang sigaw ng
paghihimagsik na kinalalagian ngayon ng bantayog, kung di sa pook na kilala sa tawag na Pugad Lawin.”
(The first Cry of the revolution did not happen in Balintawak where the monument is, but in a place
called Pugad Lawin.) In 1940, a research team of the Philippines Historical Committee (a forerunner of
the National Historical Institute or NHI), which included Pio Valenzuela, identified the precise spot of
Pugad Lawin as part of sitio Gulod, Banlat, Kalookan City. In 1964, the NHI’s Minutes of the Katipunan
referred to the place of the Cry as Tandang Sora’s and not as Juan Ramos’ house, and the date as 23
August. Valenzuela memoirs (1964, 1978) averred that the Cry took place on 23 August at the house of
Juan Ramos at Pugad Lawin. The NHI was obviously influenced by Valenzuela’s memoirs. In 1963, upon
the NHI endorsement, President Diosdado Macapagal ordered that the Cry be celebrated on 23 August
and that Pugad Lawin be recognized as its site. The Pugad Lawin marker The prevalent account of the
Cry is that of Teodoro Agoncillo in Revolt of the masses (1956): It was in Pugad Lawin, where they
proceeded upon leaving Samson’s place in the afternoon of the 22nd, that the more than 1,000
members of the Katipunan met in the yard of Juan A. Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino,…in the morning
of August 23rd. Considerable discussion arose whether the revolt against the Spanish government
should be started on the 29th. Only one man protested… But he was overruled in his stand… Bonifacio
then announced the decision and shouted: “Brothers, it was agreed to continue with the plan of revolt.
My brothers, do you swear to repudiate the government that oppresses us?” And the rebels, shouting as
one man replied: “Yes, sir!” “That being the case,” Bonifacio added, “bring out your cedulas and tear
them to pieces to symbolize our determination to take arms!” .. . Amidst the ceremony, the rebels, tear-
stained eyes, shouted: “Long live the Philippines! Long live the Katipunan!
ernieanime
Region X
The Katipunan Finally Starts a Revolution
The Katipunan is born
Andres Bonifacio was also a member of La Liga Filipina, although he soon lost hope in gaining reforms
though peaceful means. This feeling was especially heightened when Jose Rizal was exiled to Dapitan.
Bonifacio became convinced that the only way the Philippines could gain independence was through a
revolution. Bonifacio then founded the “Katastaasang Kagalanggalangang Katipuanan ng mga Anak ng
Bayan” (KKK) on July 7, 1892 in a house on Azcarraga street (now Claro M. Recto), in Tondo Manila.
The Katipunan had colorful beginnings. As a symbol of the member’s loyalty, they performed the solemn
rite of sanduguan (blood compact), wherein each one signed his name with his own blood..
The members agreed to recruit more people using the “triangle system” of enlistment. Each original
member would recruit tow new members who were not related to each other. Each new member would
do the same thing, and so on down the line. Members were also asked to contribute one Real (about 25
centavos) each month in order to raise funds for the association.
The KKK members agreed on the following objectives:

The political goal was to completely separate the Philippines from Spain after declaring the
country’s independence.
The moral goal was to teach the Filipinos good manners, cleanliness, hygiene, fine morals, and
how to guard themselves against religious fanaticism..
The civic goal was to encourage Filipinos to help themselves and to defend the poor oppressed.
The “Kataastaasang Sanggunian” (supreme council) was the highest governing body of the
Katipunan. It was headed by a supremo, or president. Each province had a “Sangguaniang
Bayan” (Provincial Council) and each town had a “Sangguniang Balangay” (Popular Council).
The Leaders of the Katipunan:
▪ Deodato Arellano -Supremo

▪ Ladislao Diwa -Fiscal
▪ Teodora Plata -Secretary
▪ Valentine Diaz -treasurer
▪ Andres Bonifacio -controller
ernieanime
Region X
The Cry of Pugad Lawin, August 23, 1896, In the then hilly sitio in Balintawak, the katipuneros tore their
“cedulas,” officially launching the Philippine revolution against Spain.
The Supremo and his troops formally launched an armed revolution against Spain. They tore their
resident certificates or cedulas which symbolized their defiance against from the colonizers. This
became known in history as “The Cry of Pugadlawin.”
On August 23, 1896, in a then hilly and forested sitio of Pugad Lawin in Balintawak, now part of Quezon
City, the Katipuneros led by Andres Bonifacio tore their “cedulas” as an expression of their open
defiance against the Spanish rule in the country. This event, called the “Cry of Pugad Lawin”, officially
marked the beginning of the Philippine Revolution against Spain. Founded by Bonifacio, Ladislaw Diwa,
Deodato Arellano and others on July 7, 1892, the Katipunan was initially a secret society aiming for
independence from Spain through armed revolt.
Bonifacio was forced to bring the fight to the field upon the
discovery of the secret organization. He issued a manifesto inciting
people to take up arms against Spanish tyranny simultaneously in all
towns.
The revolt eventually grew in strength and spread to

eight provinces –Manila, Bulacan, Cavite, Pampanga,
Tarlac, Laguna, Batangas, and Nueva Ecija — which
were later represented by the eight rays of the sun in
the present Filipino flag.
The revolt eventually grew in strength and spread to eight provinces –Manila, Bulacan, Cavite,
Pampanga, Tarlac, Laguna, Batangas, and Nueva Ecija — which were later represented by the eight rays
of the sun in the present Filipino flag. After the death of Bonifacio on May 10, 1897, in Maragondom,
Cavite, General Emilio Aguinaldo continued the revolution and declared Philippine independence from
Spain on June 12, 1898, at Kawit, Cavite.
Filipino historians offer differing accounts on the date and place of the Cry of Pugad Lawin. From 1908
until 1963, this event was officially recognized to have occurred on August 26 in Balintawak. In 1963 the
Philippine government declared a shift to August 23 in Pugad Lawin, Quezon City (kahimyang) The place
name “Pugad Lawin “, however, is problematic. In History of the Katipunan (1939), Zaide records
Valenzuela’s mention of the site in a footnote and not in the body of text, suggesting that the Historian
regarded the matter as unresolved.
ernieanime
Region X
Cartographic changes
Was there a Pugad Lawin in maps or literature of the period? A rough sketch or croquis de las
operaciones practicadas in El Español showed the movements of Lt. Ros against the Katipunan on 25, 26,
and 27 August 1896. The map defined each place name as sitio “Baclac” (sic: Banlat). In 1897, the
Spanish historian Sastron mentioned Kalookan, Balintawak, Banlat and Pasong Tamo. The names
mentioned in some revolutionary sources and interpretations- Daang Malalim, Kangkong and Pugad
Lawin- were not identified as barrios. Even detailed Spanish and American maps mark only Kalookan and
Balintawak. In 1943 map of Manila marks Balintawak separately from Kalookan and Diliman. The sites
where revolutionary events took place are within the ambit of Balintawak. Government maps issued in
1956, 1987, and 1990, confirm the existence of barangays Bahay Toro, but do not define their
boundaries. Pugad Lawin is not on any of these maps. According to the government, Balintawak is no
longer on the of Quezon City but has been replaced by several barangays. Barrio Banlat is now divided
into barangays Tandang Sora and Pasong Tamo. Only bahay Toro remains intact.
Writer and linguist Sofronio Calderon, conducting research in the late 1920s on the toponym “Pugad
Lawin,” went through the municipal records and the Census of 1903 and 1918, could not find the name,
and concluded that “Isang…pagkakamali… ang sabihing mayroong Pugad Lawin sa Kalookan.” (It would
be a mistake to say that there is such as Pugad Lawin in Kalookan.)
What can we conclude from all these?
First, that “Pugad Lawin” was never officially recognized as a place name on any Philippine map before
Second World War. Second, “Pugad Lawin “appeared in historiography only from 1928, or some 32
years after the events took place. And third, the revolution was always traditionally held to have
occurred in the area of Balintawak, which was distinct from Kalookan and Diliman.
Therefore, while the toponym “Pugad Lawin” is more romantic, it is more accurate to stick to the
original “Cry of Balintawak.”
The turning point

What occurred during those last days of August 1896? Eyewitness accounts mention captures, escapes,
recaptures, killings of Katipunan members; the interrogation of Chinese spies; the arrival of arms in
Meycauyan, Bulacan; the debate with Teodoro Plata and others; the decision to go war; the shouting of
slogan; tearing of cedulas; the sending of letters presidents of Sanggunian and balangay councils; the
arrival of civil guard; the loss of Katipunan funds during the skirmish. All these events, and many others,
constitute the beginning of nationwide revolution. The Cry, however, must be defined as that turning
point when the Filipinos finally rejected Spanish colonial dominion over the Philippine Islands, by
formally constituting their own national government, and by investing a set of leaders with authority to
initiate and guide the revolution towards the establishment of sovereign nation. The first monument to
mark the Cry was erected in 1903 on Ylaya Street in Tondo, in front of the house were Liga Filipina was
founded. The tablet cites Andre Bonifacio as a founding member, and as “ Supreme Head of the
Katipunan, which gave the first battle Cry against tyranny on August 24, 1896.” The above facts render
unacceptable the official stand that the turning point of the revolution was the tearing of cedulas in the
ernieanime
Region X
“Cry of Pugad Lawin” on 23 August 1896, in the Juan Ramos’s house in “Pugad Lawin” Bahay Toro,
Kalookan. The events of 17-26 August 1896 occurred closer to Balintawak than to Kalookan.
Traditionally, people referred to the “Cry of Balintawak” since that barrio was a better known reference
point than Banlat.
In any case, “Pugad Lawin” is not historiographically verifiable outside of the statements of Pio
Valenzuela in the 1930s and after. In Philippine Historical Association round-table discussion in February
this year, a great granddaughter of Tandang Sora protested the use of toponym “Pugad Lawin” which,
she said, referred to a hawks nest on top of a tall sampaloc tree at Gulod, the highest elevated area near
Balintawak. This certainly negates the NHI’s premise that “Pugad Lawin” is on Seminary Road in Project
8. What we should celebrate is the establishment of a revolutionary or the facto government that was
republican in aspiration, the designation of Bonifacio as the Kataastaasang Pangulo (Supreme
Presiddent), the election of the members of his cabinet ministers and Sanggunian and Balangay heads
which authorized these moves met in Tandang Sora’s barn near Pasong Tamo Road, in sitio Gulod, barrio
Banlat then under the jurisdiction of the municipality of Kalookan. This took place at around noon of
Monday, 24 August 1896. It is clear that the so-called Cry of Pugad Lawin of 23 August is an imposition
and erroneous interpretation, contrary to indisputable and numerous historical facts. The centennial of
the Cry of Balintawak should be celebrated on 24 August 1996 at the site of the barn and house of
Tandang Sora in Gulod, now barangay Banlat, Quezon City.
Cry of Balintawak/ Pugadlawin

The two accounts complemented and corroborated with one other, only that the general's report was
more spiteful. Initially, both Montero and Izquierdo scored out that the abolition of privileges enjoyed
by the workers of Cavite arsenal such as nonpayment of tributes and exemption from forced labor were
the main reasons of the "revolution" as to how they called it, however, other causes were enumerated
by them including the Spanish Revolution which overthrew the secular throne, dirty propagandas
proliferated by unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and republican books and pamphlets
reaching the Philippines, and most importantly, the presence of the native clergy who out of animosity
against the Spanish friars, "conspired and supported" the rebels and enemies of Spain. In particular,
Izquierdo blamed the unruly Spanish Press for “stockpiling” malicious propagandas grasped by the
Filipinos. He reported to the King of Spain that the “rebels” wanted to overthrow the Spanish
government to install a new “hari" in the likes of Fathers Burgos and Zamora. The general even added
that the native clergy enticed other participants by giving them a charismatic assurance that their fight
will not fail because God is with them coupled with handsome promises of rewards such as
employment, wealth, and ranks in the army. Izquierdo, in his report, lambasted the Indios as gullible
and possessed an innate propensity for stealing. The two Spaniards deemed that the event of 1872
was planned earlier and was thought of it as a big conspiracy among educated leaders, mestizos,
abogadillos or native lawyers, residents of Manila and Cavite and the native clergy. They insinuated that
the conspirators of Manila and Cavite planned to liquidate highranking Spanish officers to be followed
by the massacre of the friars. The alleged preconcerted signal among the conspirators of Manila and
Cavite was the firing of rockets from the walls of Intramuros. According to the accounts of the
two, on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated the feast of the Virgin of Loreto,
unfortunately, participants to the feast celebrated the occasion with the usual fireworks displays.
Allegedly, those in Cavite mistook the fireworks as the sign for the attack, and just like what was agreed
upon, the 200-men contingent headed by Sergeant Lamadrid launched an attack targeting
Spanish officers at sight and seized the arsenal. When the news reached the iron-fisted Gov.
Izquierdo, he readily ordered the reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The
“revolution” was easily crushed when the expected reinforcement from Manila did not come ashore.
Major instigators including Sergeant Lamadrid were killed in the skirmish, while the GOMBURZA were
tried by a court-martial and were sentenced to die by strangulation. Patriots like Joaquin Pardo de
ernieanime
Region X
Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa and other abogadillos were suspended by the Audencia
(High Court) from the practice of law, arrested and were sentenced with life imprisonment at
the Marianas Island. Furthermore, Gov. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and
ordered the creation of artillery force to be composed exclusively of the Peninsulares and made use of it
to implicate the native clergy, which was then active in the call for secularization. The two accounts
complemented and corroborated with one other, only that the general's report was more spiteful.
Initially, both Montero and Izquierdo scored out that the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the workers
of Cavite arsenal such as nonpayment of tributes and exemption from forced labor were the main
reasons of the "revolution" as to how they called it, however, other causes were enumerated by them
including the Spanish Revolution which overthrew the secular throne, dirty propagandas proliferated
by unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and republican books and pamphlets reaching the
Philippines, and most importantly, the presence of the native clergy who out of animosity against the
Spanish friars, "conspired and supported" the rebels and enemies of Spain. In particular, Izquierdo
blamed the unruly Spanish Press for “stockpiling” malicious propagandas grasped by the Filipinos. He
reported to the King of Spain that the “rebels” wanted to overthrow the Spanish government to install a
new “hari" in the likes of Fathers Burgos and Zamora. The general even added that the native clergy
enticed other participants by giving them a charismatic assurance that their fight will not fail because
God is with them coupled with handsome promises of rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks
in the army. Izquierdo, in his report, lambasted the Indios as gullible and possessed an innate
propensity for stealing. The two Spaniards deemed that the event of 1872 was planned earlier and
was thought of it as a big conspiracy among educated leaders, mestizos, abogadillos or native lawyers,
residents of Manila and Cavite and the native clergy. They insinuated that the conspirators of Manila
and Cavite planned to liquidate highranking Spanish officers to be followed by the massacre of the friars.
The alleged preconcerted signal among the conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the firing of rockets
from the walls of Intramuros. According to the accounts of the two, on 20 January 1872,
the district of Sampaloc celebrated the feast of the Virgin of Loreto, unfortunately, participants to the
feast celebrated the occasion with the usual fireworks displays. Allegedly, those in Cavite mistook the
fireworks as the sign for the attack, and just like what was agreed upon, the 200-men contingent
headed by Sergeant Lamadrid launched an attack targeting Spanish officers at sight and seized the
arsenal. When the news reached the iron-fisted Gov. Izquierdo, he readily ordered the reinforcement
of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The “revolution” was easily crushed when the
expected reinforcement from Manila did not come ashore. Major instigators including Sergeant
Lamadrid were killed in the skirmish, while the GOMBURZA were tried by a court-martial and were
sentenced to die by strangulation. Patriots like Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and
Pio Basa and other abogadillos were suspended by the Audencia (High Court) from the practice of law,
arrested and were sentenced with life imprisonment at the Marianas Island. Furthermore,
Gov. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and ordered the creation of artillery force to be
composed exclusively of the Peninsulares.
That was when and where the Filipino nation state was born.
ernieanime
Region X
ACTIVITY 4: Cry of Balintawak/ Pugadlawin

Answer the following questions. (10 points each)
1. Who led the CRY OF BALINTAWAK and why?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Where is Pugadlawin located?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Where is the first CRY of the revolution?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
4. What happened in the Cry of Pugadlawin?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
5. Why is the Cry of Pugad Lawin significance in the Philippine History?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
ernieanime

Ge 2 Final Module Ernie Anime

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ge 2 Final Module Ernie Anime

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

Commission on Higher Education

I. “One past but many histories”

Conflicting views and controversies in the Philippine History

a. Site of the First Mass

d. Cry of Balintawak or Pugadlawin

EXPECTED LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the end of the quarter students would be able to:

Primary and Secondary Sources

LESSON 1: Controversy The Site of the First Mass

1. they are both held in the shores

2. there are Filipino natives present

Planting of the Cross

DECLARATION OF THE NATIONAL SHRINE

Congress of the Philippines 19 June 1960

SECTION 5. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

ACTIVITY 1: SITE OF THE FIRST MASS

Instruction: answer the following questions ( 5 points each)

2. What does it says in Republic Act No. 2733?

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippine Congress

3. Is Mazaua and Limasawa the same?

4. What is your stand about the site of the first mass?

5 What is associated with Magellan’s Cross?

LESSON 2: CAVITE MUTINY

b. Account of Jose Montero y Vidal[edit] The Cavite Mutiny is an aim of

c. Account of Governor-General Rafael Izquierdo y Gutiérrez. He insisted that

Other Accounts of the Mutiny

Account of Edmund Plauchut He traced the immediate cause to a

The Execution of Gomburza On 17 February 1872 in an attempt of the

The Two Faces of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny

Philippines. It is noteworthy that during the time,

Unraveling the Truth

ACTIVITY No 2 : Cavite Mutiny

LESSON 3: Retraction of Rizal

Jose Rizal’s Retraction:

Manila 29 of December of 1896

Jose Rizal’s Retraction Controversy

ACTIVITY No 3 : Retraction of Rizal

1. What object symbolizes Jose Rizal?

2. What is retraction means?

the action of drawing something back or back in.

3.What is the retraction controversy of Rizal?

4.What makes a controversial hero?

5. Did Rizal really made a retraction letter? Justify your answer

LESSON 3: Cry of Balintawak or Pugadlawin

Nineteenthcentury journalists used the phrase “el

It is not clear why the 1911

The Katipunan Finally Starts a Revolution

The Katipunan is born

The KKK members agreed on the following objectives:

The Leaders of the Katipunan:

▪ Deodato Arellano -Supremo

The revolt eventually grew in strength and spread to

What can we conclude from all these?

The turning point

Cry of Balintawak/ Pugadlawin

ACTIVITY 4: Cry of Balintawak/ Pugadlawin

1. Who led the CRY OF BALINTAWAK and why?

2. Where is Pugadlawin located?

3. Where is the first CRY of the revolution?

4. What happened in the Cry of Pugadlawin?

5. Why is the Cry of Pugad Lawin significance in the Philippine History?

You might also like