READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Main Topic III: One Past but Many Histories: Controversies and Conflicting Views in Philippine History

Lesson 1: The First Mass Site in the Philippines

The popularity of knowing where the "firsts" happened in history has been an easy way to trivialize
history, but this case study will not focus on the significance (or lack thereof) of the site of the First Catholic Mass
in the Philippines, but rather, use it as a historiographical exercise in the utilization of evidence and interpretation
in reading historical events.

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

Toward the end of the nineteenth century and the start of the twentieth century, together with the increasing
scholarship on the history of the Philippines, a more nuanced reading of the available evidence was made, which
brought to light more considerations in gong against the more accepted interpretation of the first Mass in the
Philippines, made both by Spanish and Filipino scholars.

It must be noted that there are only two primary sources that historians refer to in identifying the site of
the first Mass. One is the log kept by Francisco Albo, a pilot of one of Magellan's ships, the Trinidad. He was one
of the 18 survivors who returned with Sebastian Elcano on the ship named Victoria after they circumnavigated
the world. The other, and the more complete, was the account by Antonio Pigafetta, the “Primo Uaggio intorno
al Mondo” (First Voyage Around the World). Pigafetta, like Albo, was a member of the Magellan expedition and
an eyewitness of the events, particularly, of the first Mass.

With the quincentennial celebration approaching (April 2021), the Catholic Bishops Conference of the
Philippines (CBCP) hopes the debates on the true location of the first Mass will finally be resolved. Fr. Marvin
Mejia, secretary-general of the CBCP, said the matter was still being looked into by the National Historical
Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) and the Association of Church Historians in the Philippines.
The first Mass and the first baptism are the two major historical ecclesiastical events that are given focus in the
quincentennial celebrations sanctioned by the CBCP and the Archdiocese of Cebu. Cebu is identified as the site
of the first baptism on April 14, 1521, with Rajah Humabon, Queen Juana and hundreds of their community
members being the first converts, according to the accounts of Antonio Pigafetta, the chronicler of the Magellan-
Elcano expedition.

Nearing 500 years since the first Mass, debates continue whether it was held on Limasawa Island, in
Agusan or somewhere else.

On 15 July 2020, the Board of Commissioners of the National Historical Commission of the Philippines
(NHCP) signed Resolution No. 2, adopting the report submitted by the panel that reviewed the issue surrounding
the site of the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass in the Philippines. In the report, the panel recommended Limasawa, in
today’s Southern Leyte, as the site of the said event.

NHCP’s Latest Ruling on the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass Controversy

As part of its mandate to resolve historical controversies, the National Historical Commission of the
Philippines (NHCP) revisited the controversy surrounding the site of the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass in the
Philippines which, according to Antonio Pigafetta, the chronicler of the Magellan-Elcano expedition, happened
on 31 March 1521 in a place he identified as Mazaua. The issue as to the exact location of the said mass was
resolved by the forerunner of the NHCP, the National Historical Institute (NHI), through two panels of experts:
the first headed by former Supreme Court Justice Emilio Gancayco (1995) and the second by historian Dr. Benito
J. Legarda (2008). Both panels ruled that the site of the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass was in Limasawa Island, now
a municipality in Southern Leyte.
 In 2018, NHCP received a number of requests from various institutions, including the Catholic Bishops’
Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), to reexamine the earlier decisions of the NHI. These requests were made
in the light of some claims that there were new primary sources and evidence that surfaced recently which were
not taken into consideration by the previous panels. NHCP also saw the necessity of reopening a new inquiry
because of the forthcoming commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the introduction of Christianity in the
Philippines in 2021.

One particular task that the panel members agreed was to visit the actual contested sites proposed by both
parties. They also agreed that all contending parties would be given equal opportunity and ample time to present
their evidence and argue their respective positions. Participants were asked to follow the basic rule of
historiography, meaning that every assertion made must be supported by credible, authentic, and verifiable
primary sources. On 9 November 2018, the panel went to Butuan City to listen to the pro-Butuan proponents. Dr.
Potenciano Malvar and Mr. Gabriel Atega were given one whole day to discuss their respective position papers.
The following day, Dr. Torres, on behalf of the panel, went to Barangay Baug, Magallanes, Agusan del Norte
where the 1872 monument commemorating the 1521 Easte Sunday mass was located. On 17 July 2019, Dr.
Madrid and Dr. Malvar visited Mount Mina-asog in Tubay, Agusan del Norte which, according to Dr. Malvar,
was where the expedition allegedly erected a cross after the mass. On January 19, 2019, Archbishop Antonio
Ledesma of Cagayan de Oro, who was then the acting Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese of Butuan,
forwarded to NHCP several published articles written by Mr. Gregorio Jose Hontiveros, one of which is entitled,
“A Fire on the Island: Reasserting the Pro-Masao Position.” As per recommendation of Dr. Escalante, the Panel
considered the article as part of the pro-Butuan position papers on 6 February 2019.

The panel went to Tacloban City on 25 April 2019 to listen to the presentation of Dr. Rolando Borrinaga,
the representative of the pro-Limasawa side. Aside from presenting evidence reasserting Limasawa as the site of
the 1521 Easter Sunday mass, Dr. Borrinaga explained that the mass took place in the western side of Limasawa
and not in the eastern side (now named Barangay Magallanes) where a shrine commemorating the event is located.
The following day, the panel went to Limasawa to conduct an ocular survey of the places mentioned by Dr.
Borrinaga. They went to the shrine at Barangay Magallanes and then proceeded to Barangay Triana to visit the
site proposed by Dr. Borrinaga. The members also climbed Totoy-Totoy Peak which according to Dr. Borrinaga
was the mountain where the cross was erected after the mass. While on the mountaintop, the members noted a
view of three islands that seems to be closely identified with the ones Pigafetta mentioned is his chronicle.

The members of the panel met thrice to discuss the position papers and to deliberate on the final ruling on
the controversy. The first meeting was held in Cebu, second in Tacloban, and third in Manila. On 9 January 2020,
Dr. Mojares officially submitted the terminal report of the panel to the NHCP. Dr. Escalante routed the report to
the History Departments of the University of the Philippines Diliman, Ateneo de Manila University, University
of Santo Tomas, and De La Salle University. He also shared the report to the presidents of the Philippine National
Historical Society (PNHS), Philippine Historical Association (PHA), and Asosasyon ng mga Dalubhasa may
Hilig at Interes sa Kasaysayan (ADHIKA) ng Pilipinas. These institutions were enjoined to react and comment
on the ruling of the panel. Except for UST and ADHIKA that did not send an official position on the report, all
other institutions favorably agreed with the ruling of the panel. The report was discussed by the NHCP Board of
Commissioners in their June and July 2020 meetings. Except for Commissioner Abraham Sakili, the eight other
NHCP Commissioners signed Resolution No. 2, s. 2020 on 15 July 2020, adopting the report of the Panel that the
1521 Easter Sunday Mass took place on Limasawa.

Among pro-Butuan set of evidence that the panel examined were the numerous accounts written by non-
eyewitnesses decades after the 1521 Easter Sunday mass. These include the 1581 Edict of Bishop Domingo
Salazar, the Anales ecclesiasticos de Filipinas 1574-1683, the 1886 Breve reseña de diocesis de Cebu, Fr.
Francisco Colin’s Labor evangélica: Ministerios apostolicos de los obreros de la Compaña de Jesus (1663), Fr.
Francisco Combés’ Historia de Mindanao y Jolo (1667), Fray Gaspar de San Agustin’s Conquistas de las Islas
Filipinas (1698), the 1872 monument in Magallanes, Agusan del Norte, and a few other accounts written by
American authors in the early part of the 20th century. They all claimed that the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass
happened in Butuan. The panel acknowledged that for almost three centuries, majority of the literature declared
that the first mass took place somewhere in Butuan. It was only after the original Pigafetta manuscripts were made
available to scholars in the 19th century that the shift to Limasawa started.

The historiography of the Butuan tradition was carefully analyzed by Miguel Bernad S.J. in his article in
Kinaadman entitled “Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of the
Evidence” and by William Henry Scott in an article in the same journal entitled “Why then the Butuan Tradition?”
They wrote that the tradition was the result of the reliance of early historians on Gian Battista Ramusio’s 3-volume
Delle navigationi et viaggi (1550) and Maximilianus Transylvanus’ De Moluccis Insulis. In their books, Ramusio
and Transylvanus recounted the voyage of the Magellan-Elcano expedition based on the accounts of the survivors.
It became the most dominant and authoritative source of information and were used as basis of recounting some
events connected to the first circumnavigation of the world like the first mass in the Philippines. Scott agreed with
historian Mauro Garcia that Ramusio’s work was a garbled and mutilated summary of Pigafetta’s original account.
It was Ramusio, according to Scott, who mentioned “Buthuan” as the site of the first mass which was picked up
by succeeding authors and became a long-standing tradition. We cannot blame the early writers and cartographers
of Philippine history if they relied heavily on Ramusio because Pigafetta’s original account was not available to
them. The same principle should be applied also to pro-Butuan advocates because they thought that the Spanish
sources they quoted are anchored on reliable and accurate eyewitness accounts.

Days after the Victoria (the only ship that survived the Magellan-Elcano expedition) arrived in Seville,
Pigafetta went to Valladolid where he presented to King Charles I his account of the journey. Thereafter, he went
to Portugal and did the same thing to King João III. Both accounts did not survive in history. Then he went to
France and gave a summary in Italian of his chronicle to Louise de Savoy, mother of King Francis I of France.
The queen ordered Jacques Antoine Fabre to translate it to French and it came out in printed form in 1525 with
the title Le voyage et nauigation. This version was used by most scholars like Ramusio in narrating the story of
the first circumnavigation of the world. Pigafetta later composed a more comprehensive version of the voyage,
but it remained unknown to many scholars until Carlo Amoretti published it in 1800.

Trinidad Pardo de Tavera and Pablo Pastells, SJ were the first two scholars who revisited the 1521 Easter
Sunday Mass using the latest and more comprehensive account of Pigafetta that became available only during
their time. This was the Andrea Da Mosta transcription which was published in 1894. In an article that Pardo de
Tavera wrote in El Comercio on 31 March 1895, he stated that the Butuan tradition was a mistake. Pastells on his
part made a similar remark questioning the veracity of the Butuan claim on the 1521 Easter Sunday mass. While
working on his edition of Colin’s Labor evangelica, he had the opportunity to study Pigafetta and Albo and on
his footnote on Colin’s account of the first mass, Pastells wrote: “Magellan did not go to Butuan. Rather, from
the island of Limasawa he proceeded to Cebu.” Robertson published a translation of the Pigafetta manuscript in
1906 using the original Ambrosiana Codex. He wrote that according to Pigafetta, the 1521 Easter Sunday mass
was held in an island called Mazaua. Robertson provided a footnote that the present name of the place is
Limasawa. In 1969, Skelton also came out with an English translation of the Nancy Codex and noted that the
mass took place in an island which Pigafetta called Mazzaua. He also identified Limasawa as its current name.
Pardo de Tavera’s correction from the Da Mosta transcription, Pastells’ footnote on Colin, Robertson’s translation
of the Ambrosiana Codex, and Skelton’s translation of the Nancy Codex may be considered the main reasons for
the shift in scholarly opinion regarding the site of the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass.

The panel methodically analyzed the evidence and arguments presented by the two protagonists. The paper
presented by Dr. Malvar argued that Pigafetta’s recorded latitude measurement (9°2/3’N) was part of a plan of
Magellan and King Charles I to conceal the site of the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass. This was supposedly to ensure
that the newly discovered route to the Moluccas would remain hidden from other explorers. The panel argued that
if indeed there was such a plan, the part of the route that should remain secret should be the coordinates of the
passage from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean via the southern tip of South America. (The present Strait
of Magellan) and not that of the Philippines. Many explorers who sailed before Magellan were in search of this
passage and all of them failed. Hence, anyone who would discover this would really keep it as a priceless secret.
The panel also noted that Dr. Malvar’s argument was derived from John Regan’s A Singular Captain: Magellan’s
Astounding Voyage (2016), a self-published book described by the author himself as a “fictional account” of the
Magellan voyage.

Majority of the pages of the panel report dealt with the position paper of Mr. Atega and Mr. Hontiveros
because the historiographical and scientific claims they presented appear to be backed up by passages from
Pigafetta’s account and Albo’s derrotero (logbook). Mr. Atega argued that the shift from Butuan to Limasawa as
the site of the mass happened after the publication of the Robertson translation and claimed that Robertson’s
translation was based on the “garbled” Italian text of the Ambrosiana Codex that Carlo Amoretti, the prefect and
conservator of the Biblioteca Ambrosiana, transcribed and published in 1800. Mr. Atega said that the Ambrosiana
Codex was “heavily-edited and full of inaccuracies.” Therefore, for Mr. Atega, the Ambrosiana Codex vis-à-vis
Robertson’s translation should not be used as the basis of determining the nautical coordinates of the Magellan-
Elcano expedition. Instead, he encouraged the panel to use the Nancy Codex (from the Beinecke collection) of
which a translation by English scholar Raleigh Ashlin Skelton was published in 1969.
 The panel took the translation issue seriously and found out that Mr. Atega’s claim was baseless. In his
introduction to his translation of Pigafetta’s account, Robertson accused Amoretti of committing “the sin of
editing the precious document, almost beyond recognition in places.” Robertson also analyzed the Ambrosiana
Codex and compared it with the transcription of the same codex published by Andrea da Mosto in 1894. He
concluded that the latter contained “few errors and some serious blemishes from the standpoint of historical
accuracy.” Moreover, the panel examined the bibliographical section in the last part of Robertson’s translation
where he mentioned the sources he used and where he had a long discussion on the history of the Nancy Codex
and even described its physical appearance. The panel noted that to make these remarks, Robertson must be
familiar with the two Codices. The panel concluded that “Atega’s allegation that the Robertson relied only on the
Ambrosiana Codex is baseless.”

Upon the request of the panel, NHCP secured a copy of each extant Pigafetta manuscript abroad and hired
paleographers and translators who transcribed and translated the section that narrated the 1521 Easter Sunday
Mass. Dr. Navarro took care of the transcription of the two codices. Ms. Jillian Loise Melchor (University of the
Philippines Diliman) translated the Italian text and Mr. Robert John Yu (Ateneo de Manila University) worked
on the French version. The translation of Melchor and Yu were then compared with the Robertson and Skelton
translation.

The panel noted the observation of Robertson that the Ambrosiana Codex was “workmanlike rather than
elegant” and agreed with Skelton that it might have been derived from the original Pigafetta journal, while the
Nancy Codex was a presentation copy where Pigafetta reworked some of his text to entice possible sponsors to
publish his manuscript to be used by future explorers. Two examples that the panel cited is the phrase “pieces of
gold” in the Ambrosiana Codex that was changed to “mines of gold” in the Nancy Codex creating an impression
that the island was rich in gold. The method of extracting this gold was also changed from “sifting” (which means
panning) to “digging,” giving the impression of a rich land. After noting that Robertson and Skelton agree that
the aforesaid codices complement each other and their translation had only minor differences, the panel dismissed
Mr. Atega’s claim that Skelton should be used as the standard text in determining the site of the 1521 Easter
Sunday Mass. The panel also disagreed with Mr. Atega’s assertion that historians who supported the Limasawa
position relied only on the Ambrosiana Codex and the Robertson translation.

While the panel acknowledged Mr. Atega’s painstaking analysis of the coordinates provided by Pigafetta,
Albo, and the Genoese pilot, the members exercised caution in using them as the principal basis of their decision.
Most experts agree that measurements of coordinates done in the 16th century were done using instruments that
yielded imprecise figures. This observation is not new in the discourse because Mr. Pedro Picornell, a member of
the Legarda panel, wrote already in 2009 that “navigators in the early 16th Century had no accurate way of
determining longitude and this would have to wait until late in the 18th Century with the development of the
marine chronometer” (invented in 1761). Picornell was a historian and avid yachtsman with a lot of experience
sailing in Philippine waters.

The panel scrutinized the coordinates of Mazaua given by the eyewitnesses and compared them with
contemporary measurements. Pigafetta recorded it at 9 2/3 or 9o40’N latitude, Albo placed it at 9 1/3 or 9o20’N
latitude, and the Genoese Pilot wrote 9 or 9o00’N latitude. The panel cited a study presented in the 16th
International Multidisciplinary Scientific Geoconference (Bulgaria, 2016) by a group of experts who compared
the coordinates given by Pigafetta with the present coordinates using a computer-based system and the result was
9056’ N latitude or only a 0016’ difference against Pigafetta’s. Interestingly, the members of the panel noted that
the researchers who made the computation have no personal interest in the first mass controversy and
they identified the coordinates purely for the sake of scholarship. Even a layman can confirm the coordinates of
Limasawa by simply Googling it and the result will be a 9°54’ N latitude. Taking all these evidence into account,
the panel noted that, although the navigational coordinates during this period were just estimates, Pigafetta’s
9o40’N latitude was still closer to Limasawa than to Butuan which, using the modern coordinates, was located at
8°56’ N latitude.

The panel also examined the studies and projects that retraced the Magellan-Elcano expedition route using
modern navigational instruments. One project that they analyzed was the 1971 expedition of naval historian
Samuel Eliot Morison and the Colombian historian Mauricio Obregon. Guided by Albo’s log and other documents
from the Archivo General de Indias in Seville, they retraced the Magellan-Elcano expedition route in a two-month
journey under sail. When they reached the Philippines, Morison and Obregon were assisted by Picornell. In 2006,
the Spanish Society for International Exhibitions (SEEI) organized a similar project using a replica of Victoria
constructed by Fundacion Nao Victoria. It was equipped with 16th-century navigational tools like an astrolabe
and a quadrant as well as state-of-the- art navigational instruments. The twenty-member crew was headed by
naval engineer Ignacio Fernandez Vial, the leading Spanish expert in reconstructing working replicas of historic
ships. Merchant marine captain Jose Luis Ugarte took charge of the navigation. He is considered Spain’s premier
transoceanic yachtsman and had twice sailed solo around the world. The Vial-Ugarte expedition stopped at
Limasawa and they logged its coordinates at between 9o 58’N and 9o 53’E. The Morrison-Obregon and Vial-
Ugarte expeditions found and identified Limasawa as the site of the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass.

Pro-Butuan proponents argued that the topography of Agusan del Norte changed decades after the
Magellan-Elcano expedition. This was caused by strong earthquakes that resulted to the alteration of the
topography of the province and the disappearance of some islands in the northern part of Butuan. Dr. Malvar
presented a map drawn by the Augustinian Recollects in 1683 mentioning an island called Masao. He presented
another map dated 1902 and the island is no longer there. He explained that earthquake and siltation resulted to
the fusion of Masao with the mainland. This Masao, he claims, is probably the Mazaua that Pigafetta cited as the
place where the mass took place.

The panel did not take this argument seriously because it needs scientific proof and details as to when the
earthquakes took place and documentation of their effects on the topography of Butuan. Assuming that there
indeed geological changes that happened between 1521 to the present, the location of Masao, Butuan City is too
far from the coordinates given by Pigafetta and Albo and the current reckoning of contemporary experts.

Pro-Butuan proponents argued that ever since, Limasawa was a remote island and cannot sustain the daily
needs of the members of the expedition. Butuan, on the other hand, is a highly- civilized settlement as proven by
a lot of archeological discoveries in this part of Mindanao. They wanted to point out that Limasawa did not have
the necessary provisions that could sustain the expedition for seven days. To answer this point, the Panel revisited
the documents of the Villalobos expedition particularly the saga of San Cristobal, one of the ships of Villalobos
that was separated from the fleet after experiencing turbulent weather. It stayed in Limasawa for two months and
there are no accounts that they had problems with provisions while waiting to be connected with the fleet. This
only suggests that 16th century Limasawa was prosperous enough to host foreign visitors. The panel also asked
“if Butuan was the place where the First Mass was celebrated and it was highly civilized during the 16th century,
how come it did not become the prime destination of the expeditions that followed Magellan?”

The panel unanimously agreed that the evidence and arguments presented by the pro-Butuan advocates
are not sufficient and convincing enough to warrant the repeal or reversal of the ruling on the case by the NHI.
Hence, the panel recommended that Limasawa Island, Southern Leyte, be sustained as the site of the 1521 Easter
Sunday Mass.

Before it ended its report, the panel recommended to the NHCP and to the Butuan-based scholars to
explore further the historical significance of Butuan as a precolonial trading center. Butuan has a lot of
archeological artifacts and cultural traditions that could be used to promote the city as a one of the country’s
premier historic sites.

Lesson 2: The Two Faces of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny

The 12th of June of every year since 1898 is a very important event for all the Filipinos. In this particular
day, the entire Filipino nation as well as Filipino communities all over the world gathers to celebrate the Philippine
Independence Day. 1898 came to be a very significant year for all of us— it is as equally important as 1896—
the year when the Philippine Revolution broke out owing to the Filipinos’ desire to be free from the abuses of the
Spanish colonial regime. But we should be reminded that another year is as historic as the two—1872.

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). However, not all of us knew that there were different accounts in reference to the said event. All
Filipinos must know the different sides of the story—since this event led to another tragic yet meaningful part of
our history—the execution of GOMBURZA which in effect a major factor in the awakening of nationalism among
the Filipinos.
1872 Cavite Mutiny: Spanish Perspective

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, Governor-General 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 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 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.

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.

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 cold-blooded 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 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 desire 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, the following 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 we enjoy our freedom, 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.”
Lesson 3: The 1896 First Cry of Rebellion

Nineteenth-century 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 “Cry 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 in 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 Biak 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 Diversion 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
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 determined 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, he 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.

In 1935 Valenzuela, Pantas and Pacheco proclaimed, “the first Cry of the revolution did not happen in
Balintawak where the monument is, but in a place called 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 Philippine 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.

John N. Schrumacher, S.J, of the Ateneo de Manila University was to comment on Pio Valenzuela’s
credibility: “I would certainly give much less credence to all accounts coming from Pio Valezuela, and to the
interpretations Agoncillo got from him verbally, since Valenzuela gave so many versions from the time he
surrendered to the Spanish authorities and made various statements not always compatible with one another up
to the time when as an old man he was interviewed by Agoncillo.”

Pio Valenzuela backtracked on yet another point. In 1896, Valenzuela testified that when the Katipunan
consulted Jose Rizal on whether the time had come to revolt, Rizal was vehemently against the revolution. Later,
in Agoncillo’s Revolt of the masses, Valenzuela retracted and claimed that Rizal was actually for the uprising, if
certain prerequisites were met. Agoncillo reasoned that Valenzuela had lied to save Rizal.

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!”

Agoncillo used his considerable influenced and campaigned for a change in the recognized site to Pugad
Lawin and the date 23 August 1896. In 1963, the National Heroes Commission (a forerunner of the NHI), without
formal consultations or recommendations to President Macapagal.
 Consequently, Macapagal ordered that the Cry of Balintawak be called the “Cry of Pugad Lawin,” and
that it be celebrated on 23 August instead of 26 August. The 1911 monument in Balintawak was later removed to
a highway. Student groups moved to save the discarded monument, and it was installed in front of Vinzons Hall
in the Diliman campus of the University of the Philippines on 29 November 1968.

In 1962, Teodoro Agoncillo, together with the UP-Student Council, placed a marker at the Pugad Lawin
site. According to Agoncillo, the house of Juan Ramos stood there in 1896, while the house of Tandang Sora was
located at Pasong Tamo.

On 30 June 1983, Quezon City Mayor Adelina S. Rodriguez created the Pugad Lawin Historical
Committee to determine the location of Juan Ramos’s 1896 residence at Pugad Lawin. The NHI files on the
committee’s findings show the following:

• In August 1983, Pugad Lawin in barangay Bahay Toro was inhabited by squatter colonies.
• The NHI believed that it was correct in looking for the house of Juan Ramos and not of Tandang Sora.
However, the former residence of Juan Ramos was clearly defined.
• There was an old dap-dap tree at the site when the NHI conducted its survey in 1983. Teodoro Agoncillo,
Gregorio Zaide and Pio Valenzuela do not mention a dap-dap tree in their books.
• Pio Valenzuela, the main proponent of the “Pugad Lawin” version, was dead by the time the committee
conducted its research.
• Teodoro Agoncillo tried to locate the marker installed in August 1962 by the UP-Student Council.
However, was no longer extant in 1983.

In spite of the above findings and in the absence of any clear evidence, the NHI disregarded its own 1964
report that the Philippine Historical Committee had determined in 1940 that the Pugad Lawin residence was
Tandang Sora’s and not Juan Ramos’s and that the specific site of Pugad Lawin was Gulod in Banlat.

The presence of the dap-dap tree in the Pugad Lawin site determined by Agoncillo and the NHI is
irrelevant, since none of the principals like Pio Valenzuela, Santiago Alvarez, and others, nor historians like
Zaide- and even Agoncillo himself before that instance- mentioned such a tree.

On the basis of the 1983 committee’s findings, the NHI placed a marker on 23 August 1984 on Seminary
Road in barangay Bahay Toro behind Toro Hills High School, the Quezon City General Hospital and the San
Jose Seminary. It reads:

Ang Sigaw ng Pugad Lawin (1896)

Sa paligid ng pook na ito, si Andres Bonifacio at mga isang libong Katipunero ay nagpulong noong umaga
ng ika-23 Agosto 1896, at ipinasyang maghimagsik laban sa Kastila sa Pilipinas. Bilang patunay ay pinag-
pupunit ang kanilang mga sedula na naging tanda ng pagkaalipin ng mga Pilpino. Ito ang kaunaunahang sigaw
ng Bayang Api laban sa bansang Espanya na pinatibayan sa pamamagitan ng paggamit ng sandata.

(On this site Andres Bonifacio and one thousand Katipuneros met in the morning of 23 August 1896 and
decided to revolt against the Spanish colonial government in the Philippines. As an affirmation of their resolve,
they tore up their tax receipts which were symbols of oppression of the Filipinos. This was very first Cry of the
Oppressed Nation against Spain which was enforced with use of arms.)

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.

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 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.”

What can we conclude from all this? 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.”

Determining the Date

The official stand of NHI is that the Cry took place on 23 August 1896. That date, however, is debatable.
The later accounts of Pio Valenzuela and Guillermo Masangkay on the tearing of cedulas on 23 August are
basically in agreement, but conflict with each other on the location. Valenzuela points to the house of Juan Ramos
in Pugad Lawin, while Masangkay refers to Apolonio Samson’s in Kangkong. Masangkay’s final statement has
more weight as it was corroborated by many eyewitnesses who were photographed in 1917, when the earliest 23
August marker was installed. Valenzuela’s date (23 August) in his memoirs conflict with 1928 and 1930
photographs of the surveys with several Katipunan officers, published in La Opinion, which claim that the Cry
took place on the 24th.

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 to 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. Where did this take place?

The introduction to the original Tagalog text of the Biak na Bato Constitution states:

Ang paghiwalay ng Filipinas sa kahariang España sa pagtatag ng isang bayang may sariling
pamamahala’t kapangyarihan na pangangalanang “Republika ng Filipinas” ay siyang layong inadhika niyaring
paghihimagsik na kasalukuyan, simula pa nang ika- 24 ng Agosto ng taong 1896…
 (The separation of the Philippines from the Spanish Monarchy, constituting an independent state and with
a proper sovereign government, named the Republic of the Philippines, was the end pursued by the revolution
through the present hostilities, initiated on 24 August 1896…)

These lines- in a legal document at that – are persuasive proof that in so far as the leaders of the revolution
are concerned, revolution began on 24 August 1896. The document was written only one and a half years after
the event and signed by over 50 Katipunan members, among them Emilio Aguinaldo, Artemio Ricarte and
Valentin Diaz.

Emilio Aguinaldo’s memoirs, Mga Gunita ng Himagsikan (1964), refer to two letters from Andres
Bonifacio dated 22 and 24 August. They pinpoint the date and place of the crucial Cry meeting when the decision
to attack Manila was made:

Noong ika-22 ng Agosto 1896, ang Sangguniang Magdalo ay tumanggap ng isang lihim na sulat mula sa
Supremo Andres Bonifacio, sa Balintawak, na nagsasaad na isang mahalagang pulong ang kanilang idinaos
sa ika-24 ng nasabing buwan, at lubhang kailangan na kame ay magpadala roon ng dalawang kinatawan o
delegado sa ngalan ng Sanggunian. Ang pulong aniya’y itataon sa kaarawan ng kapistahan ng San Bartolome sa
Malabon, Tambobong. Kapagkarakang matanggap ang nasabing paanyaya, ang aming Pangulo na si G.
Baldomero Aguinaldo, ay tumawag ng pulong sa tribunal ng Cavite el Viejo… Nagkaroon kami ng pag-
aalinlangan sa pagpapadala roon ng aming kinatawan dahil sa kaselanang pagdararanang mga pook at totoong
mahigpit at abot-abot ang panghuli ng mga Guardia Civil at Veterana sa mga naglalakad lalung-lalo na sa mga
pinaghihinalaang mga mason at Katipunan. Gayon pa man ay aming hinirang at pinagkaisahang ipadalang tanging
Sugo ang matapang na kapatid naming si G. Domingo Orcullo… Ang aming Sugo ay nakarating nang
maluwalhati sa kanyang paroonan at nagbalik din na wala namang sakuna, na taglay ang sulat ng Supremo na
may petsang 24 ng Agosto. Doon ay wala namang sinasabing kautusan, maliban sa patalastas na kagugulat-gulat
na kanilang lulusubin ang Maynila, sa Sabado ng gabi, ika-29 ng Agosto, at ang hudyat ay ang pagpatay ng ilaw
sa Luneta. Saka idinugtong pa na marami diumano ang nahuli at napatay ng Guardia Civil at Veterana sa kanyang
mga kasamahan sa lugar ng Gulod …

(On 22 August 1896, the Magdalo Council received a secret letter from Supremo Andres Bonifacio,
in Balintawak, which stated that the Katipunan will hold an important meeting on the 24th of the said month,
and that it was extremely necessary to send two representatives or delegates in the name of the said Council. The
meeting would be timed to coincide with the feast day of Saint Bartolomew in Malabon, Tambobong. Upon
receiving the said invitation, our President, Mr. Baldomero Aguinaldo, called a meeting at Tribunal of Cavite el
Viejo…We were apprehensive about sending representatives because the areas they would have pass through
were dangerous and was a fact that the Civil Guard and Veterans were arresting travelers, especially those
suspected of being freemasons and members of Katipunan. Nevertheless, we agreed and nominated to send a
single representative in the person of our brave brother, Mr. Domingo Orcullo… Our representative arrived safely
at his destination and also returned unharmed, bearing a letter from the Supremo dated 24 August. It contained
no orders but the shocking announcement that the Katipunan would attack Manila at night on Saturday, 29 August,
the signal for which would be the putting out of the lamps in Luneta. He added that many of his comrade had
been captured and killed by the Civil Guard and Veterans in Gulod…)

The first monument to mark the Cry was erected in 1903 on Ylaya Street in Tondo, in front of the house
where La Liga Filipina was founded. The tablet cites Andres 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 “Cry of Pugad Lawin” on 23 August 1896, in Juan Ramos’ 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 2003,
a great granddaughter of Tandang Sora protested the use of toponym “Pugad Lawin” which, she said, referred to
a hawk’s 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 President), 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 1896 at the site of the barn
and house of Tandang Sora in Gulod, now barangay Banlat, Quezon City. That was when and where the Filipino
nation state was born.

References:

Abatayo, R. (2019, November 13). Limasawa or Butuan? Debates continue on where first Mass was held.
https://cebudailynews.inquirer.net/270037/limasawa-or-butuan-debates-continue-on-where-first-mass-was-held

National Historical Commission of the Philippines (2020, August 21). Official Position of the National Historical
Commission of the Philippines on the Site of the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass. https://nhcp.gov.ph/official-position-
of-the-national-historical-commission-of-the-philippines-on-the-site-of-the-1521-easter-sunday-mass-2/

Escalante, R. (n.d.) NHCP’s Latest Ruling on the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass Controversy.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mExTClwb_z7AMjS3Hvpds75WLoKLNnYh/view

Piedad-Pugay, C. (2012, September 5). The Two Faces of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny. https://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-
faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/

Guerrero, M. et. al (2003, June 6). In Focus: Balintawak: The Cry for a Nationwide Revolution.
https://ncca.gov.ph/about-culture-and-arts/in-focus/balintawak-the-cry-for-a-nationwide-revolution/