NAME: ROLEN L.

VICENTE YEAR/COURSE/SECTION: 3 BSABE-B

REFLECTION ON TOPIC 4

History is the study of the past, but a more modern definition emphasizes how the
repercussions of the past have an impact on the present. The youth of the Philippines, in general,
have "extremely little knowledge and appreciation" of the history and cultural heritage of their
nation. Only 37% of the 1,420 respondents (7–21 years old) in the NFO Trends Survey could
sing the National Anthem, and only 28% could recite the original "Panatang Makabayan," and
they could only name up to two Filipino heroes. Because these issues could have an impact on
how Filipinos and modern-day citizens conduct their lives, every student of Philippine history
should be able to know, understand, and critically assess numerous conflicts and competing
viewpoints.

The birth of Roman Catholicism in the country was signified by the

celebration of the first Catholic mass in the Philippines March 31, 1521, after Ferdinand
Magellan landed on the Philippines which he named then as the Archipelago of St. Lazarus.
However, the location of the mass is still shrouded with controversy. Originally it was
believed that the mass was celebrated in the in the island of Limasawa, in Leyte, but the
discovery of the Golden Tara in Butuan made some Philippine Historian question the veracity of
the Limasawa location. As recounted by Pigafetta the first Christian Mass celebrated was made
in an island which he called ''Mazaua.' In 1996, the Philippine Congress directed the National
Historical Institute to recommend ahistorical finding. The panel and the NHI reaffirmed in 1998
that the place is Limasawa, but the controversy is still alive until today
However, our law provides that it happened in Limasawa Island in the Province of Leyte.
Furthermore, this declaration by law was contradicted by a contradicting party which points
Butuan as the place where the first mass in the Philippines actually happened.
Pieces of evidence were presented by both parties regarding the issue. Finally, Limasawa was
then declared as the exact place where the first mass happened. It won over the claim of Butuan.
This was because the evidences presented in the side of Butuan were contradicted, defended
and explained accurately by the side of Limasawa. The opposition also lacks
consistency of facts. Take for example the inconsistency of Magellan’s route, the
date, and also the spellings of places and persons involved as presented by the various
historians supporting the Butuan tradition. On the other hand, the claim to Limasawa had
presented strong and firm evidences supporting their arguments. So right now, it was settled and
proven by all means that Limasawa was truly the place where the first mass in the Philippines
was held.
But according to our law, it took place on Limasawa Island in the Province of Leyte.
Furthermore, a group that disagrees with this legal declaration claims that Butuan was the true
site of the first mass to be celebrated in the Philippines. Both sides offered evidence in support of
their positions on the matter. Finally, Limasawa was identified as the precise location of the
initial mass. It prevailed against Butuan's suit. This was due to the fact that the evidences put up
by the side of Butuan were accurately refuted, upheld, and clarified by the side of Limasawa.
The opposition's use of facts is similarly inconsistent. Consider the errors in Magellan's path, the
year, as well as the names and spellings of the sites and people involved as reported by the many
historians who support the Butuan tradition. On the other hand, the allegation made by Limasawa
had strong, convincing facts backing it up. Therefore, it was already established and
unequivocally demonstrated that Limasawa was the actual site of the first mass celebrated in the
Philippines.
NAME: ROLEN L. VICENTE YEAR/COURSE/SECTION: 3 BSABE-B

REFLECTION ON TOPIC 5

Cavite Mutiny, (Jan. 20,

1872), brief uprising of
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. The
mutiny was quickly crushed,
but the Spanish regime
under the
reactionary governor Rafael de
Izquierdo magnified the
incident and used it as an
excuse to
clamp down on those Filipinos
who had been calling for
governmental reform. A number
of
Filipino intellectuals were
seized and accused of
complicity with the mutineers.
After a brief
trial, three priests José Burgos,
Jacinto Zamora, and Mariano
Gómez were publicly executed.
The three subsequently became
martyrs to the cause of
Philippine independence. The
Martyrdom
of the three priest which is
the collective name of the
three martyred priest, tagged
as the
masterminds of the Cavite
mutiny. The GOMBURZA
were prominent Filipino priest
charge with
treason and sedition. The
Spanish clergy connected
the priest to the mutiny as
part of a
conspiracy to stifle the
movement of secular priest who
desired to have their own
parishes
instead of being assistants to the
regular friars. 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. Fifth,
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. The
road to independence was rough
and tough, many patriots named
and unnamed shed their
bloods to attain independence.
Our forefathers suffered
enough we
should not forget that before we
came across to victory. As we
enjoy our freedom, may we be
more historically aware of our
past to have a better future
ahead of us.
Cavite Mutiny, a brief revolt of Filipino soldiers and employees at the Cavite arsenal on
January 20, 1872, served as a pretext for Spanish persecution of the fledgling Philippine
nationalist movement. Ironically, the aggressive response of the Spanish government ultimately
helped to advance the nationalist cause. Although the rebellion was swiftly put down, the
Spanish administration, led by the reactionary governor Rafael de Izquierdo, exaggerated the
episode and used it as justification to crack down on Filipinos who had been advocating for
political reform. A number of intellectuals from the Philippines were detained and charged with
working with the mutineers. Three priests, José Burgos, Jacinto Zamora, and Mariano Gómez,
were executed in front of the public after a brief trial. Following that, the three were martyred for
the cause of Philippine independence. The three priests collectively known as "The Martyrdom
of the Three Priests" are thought to be the brains behind the rebellion in Cavite. The
GOMBURZA were well-known priests from the Philippines accused of treason and sedition. In
an effort to quell the movement of secular priest who wanted to have their own parishes rather
than serve as assistants to the regular friars, the Spanish church linked the priest to the rebellion.
 First, after Gen. Izquierdo restored their rights, there was discontent among the arsenal
employees as well as the native army soldiers. Second, Gen. Izquierdo imposed tough and
inflexible rules that caused the Filipinos to flee the Spanish authority out of disdain. Third,
instead of conducting its own investigation into what actually happened, the central government
relied on reports from Izquierdo and the friars as well as public perception. Fourth, the Central
Government of Spain made the decision to deny the friars the authority to interfere in
governmental issues in 1872, signaling the end of their era of happiness. The execution of
GOMBURZA was a mistake on the part of the Spanish government because it ended the ill will
among the Filipino people and motivated Filipino patriots to demand reforms and eventually
independence. Fifth, Filipinos at the time were active participants and responded to what they
perceived as injustices. Finally,The road to independence was rough and tough, many patriots
named and unnamed shed their bloods to attain independence.

The Cavite Mutiny is recognized as the revolt and revolution of Cavite's soldiers and
laborers, where Filipino laborers battled against Spanish troops as a result of Spanish brutality.
As a current resident of the Philippines, I do think that Cavite's importance today is tied to our
own feeling of nationalism. Even though they knew that Spain would have more forces, these
uprisings and movements served as one of the earliest uprisings of Filipinos against Spanish
repression. Despite this, they battled to the bitter end, which led to the deaths of three priests:
Burgos, Gomez, and Zamora. Since I too think that the Spanish version of the events is untrue, I
do think that their killing was unjustified. For us Filipinos who want to voice our own opinions
against the Government and other groups that are mistreating our nation and its citizens, these
events serve as a source of inspiration and caution. We need to know when and how to express
our thoughts in a safe and effective manner since we risk being unfairly accused, just like the
Three priests were back then. In conclusion, I do think that the Cavite Mutiny is significant in
today's culture because of how it affected our morals, beliefs, and rights.
NAME: ROLEN L. VICENTE YEAR/COURSE/SECTION: 3 BSABE-B

COMMENT ON TOPIC 6

The tearing of cedulas (community tax certificates) by Katipunan members under the
leadership of Andres Bonifacio is referred to as the Cry of Balintawak (or whatever other
historians refer to it as). However, it would be unfair to reduce this momentous occasion to one
in which Bonifacio and his supporters tore apart their cedulas and shouted for a revolution
outside someone's yard. In fact, during those critical days when the Spanish authorities learned
of their presence, Bonifacio and other senior Katipunan figures would frequently gather and
debate behind closed doors. Additionally, not all of the Katipunan's leaders supported the
rebellion (three of them being Teodoro Plata, Briccio Pantas and Pio Valenzuela). It was only
after Bonifacio managed to implead the majority that the revolution finally got underway; the
tearing of the cedulas was a mere afterthought (which could be the reason why there are so many
differing accounts of the “Cry”)

The "Cry of Pugad Lawin," a significant event in Filipino history known as the catalyst
for the Philippine Revolution, is generally acknowledged to have occurred on August 23, 1896.
This is true since 1963, when President Diosdado Macapagal issued Proclamation Number 149.
However, controversy and ambiguity continue to surround the Cry of Pugad Lawin. Even the
idea that it never happened is possible. The cry was memorialized shortly after the Philippine
Revolution in Balintawak on August 26, which was thought to be the actual date at the time. This
happened just before a clash between Katipuneros and the Civil Guard of Spain, which is also
noted to have occurred on August 26, 1896. It is said that the cry, which mostly involves
shredding ofcedulas (tax certificates), was a symbol of freedom from the tyranny of Spain. I
learnt that the Cry of Pugad Lawin occurred in Balintawak from the studies we did when we
were younger, and I have continued to strongly trust the information provided in the books.

Dr. Pio Valenzuela is one of the surviving witnesses of the Cry of Pugad Lawin, and this
is confirmed by the list drawn up by Guillermo Masangkay (who himself was present). If we are
to believe Masangkay, Dr. Valenzuela would be the only doctor participating in the cry.
However, it seems that his statements are not consistent. His first statement mentions a
"Katipunan meeting" happening between August23 and 25 at Balintawak. His second statement,
made some 15 years later, mentions the cry to happen at the house of Apolonio Samson
in Kangkong, south of Balintawak, on August 23. His third statement, made another six
years later, tells of the cry occurring at the house of Melchora Aquino (also known as Tandang
Sora) at Pacpac-Lawin (Pugad Lawin) near Pasong Tamo, also on August 23. Pugad Lawin is
further north of Balintawak. His fourth statement, made before Masangkay and other surviving
Katipunan membersrecalled the event, tells a meeting at Kangkong on August 22, but the cry
occurred at the house of Juan Ramos (Melchora Aquino's son) at Pugad Lawin near Bahay Toro
the day after, which is August 23. While Valenzuela seems to be firm on the date, August 23, he
is apparently uncertain on where the cry actually occurred. As it is, Valenzuela is not known for
having impeccable memory. This is demonstrated with his recollections of his meeting with
Rizal at Dapitan, months before the launch of the Revolution. His confusing statements threw
doubt to the cry itself.

When Masangkay offers August 24 and August 26 as two potential days for the cry, the
precise date also came under discussion. In light of this and Julio Nakpil's 1925 description of
the "initial cry," a new theory suggests that there may have been two Cries of Pugad Lawin. On
August 24, a cry was heard in Bahay Toro, a location between Pasong Tamo and Kangkong,
according to Santiago Alvarez, another veteran. Of course, to be fair, neither Santiago Alvarez
nor Nakpil were on Masangkay's list. Nakpil is the spouse of Gregoria de Jesus. However, they
appear to corroborate Masangkay's assertion that a cry occurred on August 24 and 26. Also, this
also throws "Pugad Lawin" into doubt, since neither Masangkay nor Francisco Carreon (Macario
Sakay's right hand man) remembers Pugad Lawin, but seems to recall Bahay Toro.

The fourth Monday in August, when we honor our nation's heroes, is inspired by the day
the Katipunan tore up their cedulas and proclaimed a war of independence. Even today, some
people argue that this must be the true "Independence Day" of the Philippines because the cry
came after the formation of a national government. However, other people don't care about the
precise date and see the cry as a widely observed occasion similar to Christmas (the day Jesus
was born) or Good Friday (the day Jesus died). What the event signifies for everyone is
important. Regarding the Cry of Pugad Lawin, it marks the end of the Revolution that founded
our country.

NAME: ROLEN L. VICENTE YEAR/COURSE/SECTION: 3 BSABE-B

COMMENT ON TOPIC 7

The land in the Philippines was previously owned by the private sector for a considerable
amount of time. This began during the Spanish colonial period, when large landowners and friars
held the majority of the land. At that time, the only legal basis for land ownership was ancestry.
Agrarian rights were established during the American occupation, but only few initiatives were
given and the rich families still continue to own the Philippine land.

In the nation, the first comprehensive agrarian reform order was attempted in 1972.
President Marcos signed Presidential Decree No. 27, establishing land reform in the Philippines,
a month after martial control was imposed. According to this reform decree, no one may own
more than seven hectares of land. The rest of the space will be distributed to each renter in
pieces. A maximum of 3 hectares of irrigated land or 5 hectares of undeveloped land may be
acquired by the renter in exchange for fees like royalties, taxes, etc. This reform initiative failed
miserably because it was unpopular.

President Corazon Aquino issued Presidential Proclamation 131 and Executive Order 229
outlining the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) on June 22, 1987. The law was
passed by the Philippines' 8th Congress and signed into effect on June 10 by former President
Aquino. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), the main initiative of President
Corazon Aquino's administration, is built on the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
According to rumors, the program had a hidden political agenda because one of its main
arguments against President Marcos during President Aquino's presidential campaign was the
program.

The administration did not pay attention to the other goals outlined in the statute and
instead concentrated primarily on allocating lands. as emphasized in the editorials I've read. For
one to succeed in agriculture, one needs more than just land. A farmer needs the right tools to
gather his crops, as well as marketing expertise to sell them. Even if given land ownership rights,
a poor farmer will not be able to improve his financial situation because what is handed to him is
insufficient. Regarding the flaws in the CARP, I'm hoping that the application of the CARP will
fix the issue with the avoidance of estate redistribution. The revised CARP should target the
weaknesses of the old program and make sure that the implementation would be better this time
than the previous program. The Philippines is still far from accomplishing agrarian reform even
after 50 years. If they keep it up in this rate, it’ll take a very long time to lift our Filipino farmers
from poverty.
VERNON M. ESCLETO 3 BASABE-B

AGRARIAN REFORM POLICIES

The Philippines has many periods of Spanish, American, and Japanese agrarian reform,
but agrarian refers either narrowly to government-initiated or government-backed
redistribution of agricultural land (see land reform) or broadly to an overall redirection of the
country's agrarian system, which often includes land reform measures. Credit measures,
training, extension, and land consolidation are all examples of agrarian reform.

This reform will benefit our small farmers and tenants greatly, but the government has
made it a lengthy process to implement and distribute to our farmers. My response is that
there is nothing to be concerned about here; only the government will offer assistance to their
citizens, but instead of giving it away, there are several steps to take before receiving it. Some
applicants may have died, but they did not receive the benefits for which they applied.

Furthermore, thanks to those who drafted this law, our farmers remain hopeful that
they will receive it one day.