1

Module 3

Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and Controversies

Learning Objectives:

 To interpret historical events using primary sources.

 To recognize the multiplicity of interpretation that can be read from a historical text.

 To identify the advantages and disadvantages employing critical tool in interpreting historical events
through primary sources.

 To demonstrate ability to urge for or against a particular issue using primary sources.

In this chapter, we will apply four historiographical problems in Philippine history in an attempt to apply what
we have learned thus far in the work of a historian and the process of historical inquiry. Earlier, we have been
introduced to history as a discipline, the historical method, and the content and context analysis of primary
sources. Two key concepts that need to be defined before proceeding to the historical analysis analysis of
problems in history are interpretation and multiperspectivity.

Making Sense of the Past: Historical Interpretation

History is the study of the past, but more a contemporary definition is centered on how it impacts the
present through its consequences. Geoffrey Barraclough defines history as the “attempt to discover, on the basis
of fragmentary evidence, the significant things of the past.” He also notes “the history we read, though based on
facts, is strictly speaking, not factual at all, but a series of accepted judgments.” Such judgments of historians on
how the past should be seen make the foundation of historical interpretation.

The Code of Kalantiaw a mythical legal in the epic history Maragtas. Before it was revealed as a hoax, it was a source of
pride for the people of Aklan. In fact, a historical marker was installed in the town of Batan, Aklan in 1956, with the
following text:

“CODE OF KALANTIAW. Datu Bendehara Kalantiaw, third Chief of Panay, born in Aklan, established his
government in the ppeninsula of Batang, Aklan Sakup. Considered the first Filipino Lawgiver, he promulgated in about
1433 a penal code now known as the Code of Kalantiaw containing 18 articles. Don Marcelino Orilla of Zaragoza, Spain,
obtained the original manuscript from an old chief of Panay which was later translated into Spanish by Rafael Murviedo
Yzamaney.”

It was only in 1968 that it was proved a hoax, when William Henry Scott, then a doctoral candidate at the University of
Santo Tomas, defended his research on pre-Hispanic source in Philippine history.

He attributed the code to a historical fiction written in 1913 by Jose E. Marco entitled Las Antiguas Leyendas de las Isla de
Negros. Marco attributed the code itself to a priest named Jose Maria Pavon. Prominent Filipino historians did not dissent
Historians
to Scott’s findings, but utilize facts
there are collected
still from
some who primary
would like sources of that
to believe history
theand
codethen
is a draw their document.
legitimate own reading so that
their intended audience may understand the historical event, a process that is essence, “makes sense of the past.”

The premise is that not all primary sources are accessible to a general audience, and without the proper
training and background, a non-historican interpreting a primary source may do more harm than good – a primary
source may even cause misunderstandings; sometimes, even resulting in more problems.

Interpretations of the past, therefore, vary according to who reads the primary source, when it was
read, and how it was read. As students of history, we must be well equipped to recognize different types of
interpretations, why these may differ from each other, and how to critically sift these interpretations through
historical evaluation. Interpretations of historical events change over time; thus, it is an important skill for a
student of history to track these changes in an attempt to understand the past.
 2

“Sa Aking Mga Kabata” is a poem purportedly written by Jose Rizal when he was eight years old and is probably one of Rizal’s
most prominent works. There is no evidence to support the claim that this poem, with the now immortalized lines “ Ang hindi
magmahal sa kanyang salita mahigit sa hayop at malansang isda” was written by Rizal, and worse, the evidence against Rizal’s
authorship of the poem seems all unassailable.

There exist no manuscript of the poem handwritten by Rizal. The poem was first published in 1906, in a book by
Hermenegildo Cruz. Cruz said he received the poem from Gabriel Beato Francisco, who claimed to have received it in 1884
from Rizal’s close friend, Saturnino Raselis, Rizal never mentioned writing this poem anywhere in his writings, and more
importantly, he never mentioned of having a close friend by the person of Raselis.

Further criticism of the poem reveals more about the wrongful attribution of the poem to Rizal. The poem was written
in Tagalog and referred to the word “kalayaan.” But it was documented in Rizal’s letters that he first encountered the word
through a Marcelo H. del Pilar’s translation of Rizal’s essay “El Amor Patrio,” where it was spelled as “kalayahan.”

While Rizal’s native tongue was tagalong, he was educated in Spanish, starting from his mother, Teodora Alonso. Later
on, he would express disappointment in his difficulty in expressing himself in his native tongue.

The poem’s spelling is also suspect- the use of letters “k” and “w” to replace “c” and “u”, respectively was suggested
by Rizal as an adult. If the poem was indeed written during his time, it should use the original Spanish orthography that was
prevalent in his time.

Many of the things we accept as “true” about the past might not be the case anymore; just because these
were taught to us as “facts” when we were younger does not mean that it is set in stone-history is, after all, a
construct. And as a construct, it is open for interpretation. There might be conflicting and competing accounts of
the past that need one’s attention, and can impact the way we view our country’s history and identity. It is
important, therefore, to subject to evaluation not only the primary source, but also the historical interpretation of
the same, to ensure that the current interpretation is reliable to support our acceptance of events of the past.

Multiperspectivity

With several possibilities of interpreting the past, another important concept that we must note is
multiperspectivity. This can be defined as the way of looking at historical events, personalities, developments,
cultures and societies from different perspectives. This means that there is a multitude of ways by which we can
view the world, and each could be equally valid, and at the same time, equally partial as well. Historical writing
is, by definition, biased, partial, and contains preconceptions. The historian decides on what sources to use, what
interpretation to make more apparent, depending on what his end is. Historians may interpret evidence, attending
to those that suggest that a certain event happened, and then ignore the rest that goes against the evidence.
Historians may omit significant facts about their subject, which makes the interpretation unbalanced. Historians
may impose a certain ideology to this subject, which may not be appropriate to the period the subject was from.
Historian may also provide a single cause for an event without considering other possible causal explanations of
said inference, description and interpretation. With multiperspectivity as an approach in history, we must
understand that historical interpretations contain discrepancies, contradictions, ambiguities and are often the
focus of dissent.

Exploring multi perspectives in history requires incorporating source materials that reflect different views
of an event in history, because singular historical narratives do not provide for space to inquire and investigate.
Different sources that counter each other may create a space for more investigation and research, while providing
more evidence for those truths that these sources agree on.

Different kinds of sources also provide different historical truths- an official document may note different
aspects of the past than, say, a memoir of an ordinary person on the same event. Different historical agents create
different historical truths and while this may be burdensome work for the historian, it also renders more validity to
the historical scholarship.

CASE STUDY 1: Where Did the First Catholic Mass Take place 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.
 3

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 19th century and the start of the 20th 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 going 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 ship, Trinidad. He was one of the
18 survivors who returned with Sebastian Elcano on the ship Victoria after they circumnavigated the world. The
other, and the more complete, was the account by Antonio Pigafetta, Primo 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.

Primary Source: Albo’s Log

Source: Diario òderotero del viage de magellanes desde el cabo se S. Agustin en el Brazil el regreso a Espana de la
nao Victoria, escrito por Frandsco Albo, “Document n. Xxii in Colleccion de viages y descubrimientos que hicieron
por mas los Españoles desde fines del siglo XV, Ed. Martin Fernandez de Navarrete (reprinted Buenos Aires 1945, 5
Vols.) IV, 191-225. As cited in Miguel A. Bernad “Butuan or Limasawa? The site of the First Mass in the Philippines:
A n Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.

1. On the 6th of March (1521) as they sailed in westerly course from Ladrones, they saw land towards the
northwest; but owing to many shallow places they did not approach it. They found later its name was
Tunagan.

2. They went instead the same day southwards to another small island named Suluan, and there they
anchored. There they saw some canoes but these fled at the Spaniards approach. This island was at 9 and
the 2/3 degrees North latitude.

3. Departing from those two islands of “Gada” where they took in a supply of wood and water. The sea
around the island was free from shallows. (Albo does not give the latitude of this island, but from
Pigafetta’s testimony, this seems to be the “Acquada” or Homonhon, at ten degrees North latitude.)

4. From that island they sailed westward towards a large island names Seilani that was inhabited and was
known to have gold. (Seilani – or, as Pigafetta calls it, “Ceylon” – was the island of Leyte.)

5. Sailing southwards along the coast of that large island of Seilani, they turned southwest to a small island
called “Mazava.” That island is laso at a latitude of 9 and two-thirrds degrees North.

6. The people of that island of Mazava were very good. There the Spaniards planted a cross upon a
mountain top, and from there they were shown three islands to the west and southwest, where they
were told there was much gold. “They showed us how the gold was gathered which came in small pieces
like peas and lentils.”

7. From Mazava they sailed northwards again towards Seilani. They followed the coast of Seilani in a
northwesterly direction, ascending up to 10 degrees of latitude where they saw three small islands.

8. From there they sailed westwards some ten leagues, and there they saw three islets, where they dropped
anchor for the night. In the morning they sailed southwest some 12 leagues, down to a latitude of ten
and one-third degree. There they entered a channel between two islands, one of which was called
“Matan” and the other “Subu”.

9. They sailed down the channel and turned westward and anchored at the town (la villa) of Subu where
they stayed many days and obtained provisions and entered into a peace-pact with the local king.
 4

10. The town of Subu was on a est-west direction with the islands of Suluan and Mazava. But between
Mazava and Subu, there were so many shallows that the boats could not go westward directly but has to
go (as they did) in a round-about way.

It must be noted that in Albo’s account, the location of Mazava fits the location of the island of Limasawa,
at the southern tip of Leyte, 9°54’N. Also, Albo does not mention the first Mass, but only the planting of the
cross upon the mountain top from which could be seen three islands to the west and southwest, which also
fits the southern end of Limasawa.

Primary Source: Pigafetta’s Testimony on the Route of Magellan’s Expedition

Source: Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson, the Philippine Islands, Vols 33 and 34, as cited in Miguel A-
Bernad, “Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the first Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of Evidence” 1981,
Kinaadman: Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.

1. Saturday, 16 March 1521- Magellan’s expedition sighted a “high land” named “Zamal” which was some
300 leagues westward of Ladrones (now Marianas) Islands.

2. Sunday, March 17- “The following day” after sighting Zamal Island, they landed on “another island which
was uninhabited” and which lay “to the right” of the above mentioned of “Zamal.” (To the right here
would mean on their starboard going south or southwest.) There they set up two tents for the sick
members of the crew and a sow killed for them. The name of this island was “Humunu” (Homonhon). This
island was located at 10 degrees North latitude.

3. On that same day (Sunday, March 17), Magellan named the entire archipelago the “Islands of Saint
Lazarus,” the reason being that it was Sunday in the Lenten season when the Gospel assigned for the
Mass and the Liturgical Office was the eleventh chapter of St. John, which tells of raising Lazarus from the
dead.

4. Monday, March 18- In the afternoon of their second day on that island, they saw a boat coming towards
them with nine men in it. An exchange of gifts was effected. Magellan asked for food supplies, and the
men went away, promising to bring rice and other supplies in “four days.”

5. There were two springs of water on that island of Homonhon. Also they saw there some indications that
there was gold in these islands. Consequently Magellan renamed the island and called it the “Watering
Place of Good Omen” (Acquada la bi bouni segnialli)

6. Friday, March 22- At noon the natives returned. This time they were in two boats, and they brought food
supplies.

7. Magellan’s expedition stayed eight days at Homonhon: from Sunday, March 17, to the Monday of the
following week, March 25.

8. Monday, March 25- In the afternoon, the expedition weighed anchor and left the islands of Homonhon. In
the ecclesiastical calendar, this day (March 25) was the feast day of the Incarnation. Also called the feast
of the Anunciation and therefore “Our Lady’s Day.” On this day, as they were about to weigh anchor, an
accident happened to Pigafetta: he fell into the water but was rescued. He attributed his narrow escape
from death as grace obtained through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary on her feast day.

9. The route taken by the expedition after leaving Homonhon was “toward the west southwest, between
four islands: namely, CENALO, HIUNANGHAN, IBUSSON and ALBARIEN”. Very probably “CANELO” is a
misspelling in the Italian manuscript for what PIGAFETTA in has map calls “CEILON” and ALBO calls
“SEILANI”: namely the islands of LEYTE. “HIUNANGHAN” (a misspelling of HUMUNANGEN) seemed to
PIGAFETTA to be a separate islands, but is actually on the Mainland of LEYTE (I.E.,”CELYON”). On the other
hand, HIBUSON(PIGAFETTA’S IBUSSON) Is an island east of Leyte’s southern tip. Thus it is easy to see
what PIGAFETTA meant by sailing “toward the west southwest” past those islands. They left HOMONHON
sailing westward towards LEYTE, then followed the LEYTE coast southward, passing between the island of
HIBUSON on their PORTSIDE and HIUNANGAN bay on their starboard and then continued southward, then
turning westward to “MAZAUA.”
 5

10. Thursday, march 28- in the morning of holy Thursday, march 28, they anchored off an island where the
previous night they had seen a light or a bonfire. That islands “ lies in a latitude of nine and two-thirds
toward the arctic pole (I.E., North) and in a longitude of one hundred and sixty-two degrees from the line
of demarcation. It is twenty-five leagues from the ACQUADA, and is called MAZAUA.”

11. They remained seven days on MAZAUA Island.

12. Thursday, April 4- they left MAZAUA, bound for CEBU. They were GUINED thither by the king of MAZAUA
who sailed in his own boat. Their route took them past five “islands” namely: “CELYON, BOHOL,
CANIGHAN,BAIBAI, and GATIGHAN.”

13. At Gatighan they sailed westward to the three islands of the camotes group,namely ,PoroPasihan and
Ponson. Here the Spanish ships stopped to allow the king of Mazua to catch up with them,since the
Spanish were much faster than the native balanghai-a thing that excited the admiration of the king of
mazua.

14. From the Camotes islands they sailed southwards towards “Zubu”

15. Sunday, April 7- At noon they enter the harbor of “Zubu” (Cebu). It had taken them has three days to
negotiate the journey from Mazaua northwards to the Camotes islands and then soutwards to cebu.

It must be pointed out that both Albo and Pigafettas testimonies coincide and corroborate each other-
Pigafetta gave more details on what they did during their weeklong stay at Mazaua.

Primary Source: Pigafetta and Seven days in Mazaua

Source: Emma blair and james Alexander Robertson,The Philippine Island,Vols-33 and 34, as cited in Miguel A.
Bernard,”Butuan or Limasawa?The site of the First mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of
Evidence”1981,Kinaadman: A journal southern Philippines,Vol. III, 1-35.

1. Thursday, March 28-In the morning they anchored near an island where they had seen a light the
night before a small boat (boloto) came with eigth natives, to whom Magellan trew some trinklets as
presents. The natives paddled away, but two hours later two larger boats (balanghai) came, in one of
which the native king sat under an awning of mats. At Magellans invitation some of the natives went up
the Spanish ship, but the native king remained seated in his boat. An exchange of gifts was effected. In the
afternoon that day, the Spanish ships weighed anchor and came closer to shore, anchoring near the native
kings village. This Thursday, March 28, was Thursday in holy Week, i.e., Holy Thursday.

2. Friday, March 29- “Next day. Holy Friday,” Magellan sent his slave interpreter ashore in a small
boat to ask the king if he could provide the expedition with food supplies, and to say that they had come
as friends and not as enemies. In replay the king himself came in a boat with six or eight men, and this
time went up Magellan’s ship and the two men embraced. Another exchanged of gifts was made. The
native king and his companion returned ashore, bringing with them two members of Magellan’s
expeditions as guest for the night. One of two was Pigafetta.

3. Saturday, March 30- Pigafetta and his companion had spent the previous evening feasting and
drinking with the native king and his son. Pigafetta deplored the fact that, although it was Good Friday,
they had to eat meat. The following morning (Saturday) Pigafetta and his companion took leave of their
hosts and returned to the ships.

4. Sunday, March 31- “Early in the morning of Sunday, the last of March and Easter day,” Magellan sent the
priest ashore with some men to prepare for the Mass. Later in the morning Magellan landed with some
fifty men and Mass celebrated, after which a cross was venerated. Magellan and the Spaniard returned to
the ship for the noon day meal, but in the afternoon they returned ashore to plant the cross on the
summit of the highest hill. In attendance both at the Mass and at the planting of the cross were the king
of Mazaua and the king of Butuan.

5. Sunday, March 31 – On that same afternoon, while on the summit of the highest hill, Magellan asked the
two kings which ports he should go in order to obtain more abundant supplies of food than were available
in that island. They replied that there were three ports to choose from: Ceylon, Zubu and Calagan. Of the
three Zubu was the port with the most trade. Magellan then said that he wished to go to Zubu and to
depart the following morning. He asked for someone to guide him thither. The kings replied that the pilots
would be available “any time.” But later that evening the king of Mazaua changed his mind and said that
 6

he would himself conduct Magellan to Zubu but he would first have to bring the harvest in. He asked
Magellan to send him men to help with the harvest.

6. Monday, April 1 – Magellan sent men ashore to help with the harvest, but no work was done that day
because the two kings were sleeping off their drinking bout the night before.

7. Tuesday, April 2 and Wednesday, April 3 – Work on the harvest during the “next days,” i.e., Tuesday and
Wednesday, the 2nd and 3rd of April.

8. Thursday, April 4- They leave Mazaua, bound for Cebu.

Using the primary sources available, Jesuit priest Miguel A. Bernad in his work Butuan or Limasawa: The site of
the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of Evidence (1981) lays down the argument that in the Pigafetta
account, a crucial aspect of Butuan was not mentioned- the river. Butuan is a riverine settlement, situated on the
Agusan River. The beach of Masao is in the delta of said river. It is a curious omission in the account of the river,
which makes part of a distinct characteristic of Butuan’s geography that seemed to be too important to be missed.

The Age of Exploration is a period of competition among European rulers to conquer and colonize lands outside
their original domains. Initially, the goal was to find alternative routes by sea to get to Asia, the main source of
spices and other commodities. Existing routes to Asia were mainly by land and cost very expensive. A sea route to
Asia means that Europeans could access the spice trade directly, greatly reducing costs for traders. Spain’s major
foray into the exploration was through Christopher Columbus, who proposed to sail westward to find a shortcut
to Asia. He was able to reach the Amaericas, which was then cut-off from the rest of the known world.

Spain colonized parts of North America, Mexico, and South America in the 16 th century.

They were also able to reach the Philippines and claim it for the Spanish crown. Later on, other European rulers
would compete with the activities of exploring and conquering lands.

It must be pointed out later on, after magellan’s death, the survivors of his expedition went to Mindanao,
and seemingly went to Butuan. In this instance, Pigafetta vividly describes a trip in a river. But note that this
account already happened after Magellan’s death.

Case study 2: What happened in the CAVITE MUTINITY?

The body 1872 is a historic year of two events: the CAVITE MUTINY and the MARTYDROM of the three
priests: Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, Later on immortalized as GOMBURZA. These events are
very important milestone in Philippine history and have caused ripples throughout time, directly influencing the
decisive events of the Philippines revolution toward the end of the century. While the SIGNIFICANCE is
unquestioned, what made this year controversial are the different sides to the story, a battle of perspectives
supported by primary sources. In this case study, we zoom in to the events of the CAVITE MUTINY, a major factor
in the awakening of nationalism among the Filipinos of that time.

Spanish accounts of the CAVITE MUTINY

The documentation of Spanish historian Jose Montero Vidal centered on how the event was an attempt in
overthrowing the Spanish government in the Philippines. Although regarded as a historian, his account of the
MUNITY was criticized as woefully biased and rabid for a scholar. Another account from the official report written
by then Governor General Rafael IZQUIREDO implicated the native clergy, who were then, active in the movement
toward secularization of parishes. These two accounts corroborated each other.

Primary source: excerpts from Montero’s Account of the Cavite Mutiny

Source: Jose Montero y Vidal, “ Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872,” in Gregorio ZAIDE and Sonia ZAIDE,
Documentary Sources of Philippines History, volume 7 (MANILA: National book store, 1990), 269-273

The abolition of privileges enjoyed by the laborers of the Cavite arsenal of exemption from the tribute was,
according to come, the cause of the insurrection. These were, however, other cause
 7

The Spanish revolution which overthrew a secular throne; the propaganda carried on by an unbridled press against
monarchical principles, ATTENTORY (sic) of the most sacred respects toward the dethroned majesty ; the
democratic and republican books and pamphlets; the speeches and PREACHINGS of these new ideas Spain: the
outbursts of the American publicists and the criminal policy of the senseless Governor whom the Revolutionary
government sent to govern the Philippines, and who put into practice these ideas were the determining
circumstances which independence. It was toward
this goal that they started to work, with the powerful assistance of a certain section of the native clergy, who out
of spite toward friars, made common cause with the enemies of the mother country.

At various times but especially in the beginning of year 1872, the authorities received anonymous communications
with the INFORMATION that a great uprising would break out against the Spaniards, the minute the fleet a Cavite
left for the south, and that all would be assassinated, including the friars. But nobody gave importance to these
notices. The conspiracy had been going on since the days of La Torre with utmost secrecy. At times, the principal
leaders met either in the house of Filipinos Spaniard, D. Joaquin PARDO DE TAVERA, or in that of the native priest,
Jacinto Zamora, and soul of the movement, whose energetic character and immense wealth enabled him to
exercise a strong influence.

Primary source: excerpts from the official report of governor IZQUIERDO on the Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Source: Rafael IZQUIRED, “official Report on the Cavite Mutiny;” in Gregorio ZAIDE and Sonia ZAIDE, Documentary
sources of Philippines history, volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 281-286

… it seems definite that insurrection was motivated and prepared by the native clergy, by the native lawyers, and
by those known here as ABOGADILLOS…

The instigators, to carry out their criminal project, protested against the injustice of the government in
not paying the injustice of the government in not paying the provinces for their TOBACCO crop, and against the
usury that some practice in documents that the finance department gives crop owners who have to sell them at a
loss. They encouraged the rebellion by protesting what they called the injustice of having obliged the workers in
the Cavite arsenal to pay tribute January 1 and to render personal service, from which they were formerly
exempted…

Up to now it has not been clearly determined If they planned to establish a monarchy or republic, because
the INDIOS have no word in their language to describe this different form of government, whose head in Filipino
would be called HARI; but it turns out that they would place at the head of the government a priest… that The
head selected would be

D. Jose Burgos, or D. Jacinto Zamora

Such is… the plan of the rebels, those who GUIDED them, and the means they counted upon for its
realizations

It is apparent that the accounts underscore the reason for the revolution”: the abolition of privileges
enjoyed by the workers of the Cavite arsenal such as exemption from payment of tribute and being employed in
POLOS y SERVICIOS , or force labor. They also identified other reasons which seemingly made the issue A Lot more
serious, which included the presence of the native clergy, who, out of spite against the Spanish friars, ”conspired
and supported” the rebels. IZQUIERDO, in an obviously biased report, highlighted that attempt to overthrow the
Spanish government in the Philippines to install a new, native clergy attracted supporters by giving them
charismatic assurance that their flight would not fail because they had God’s support, aside from promises of lofty
rewards such a employment, wealth, and ranks in the army.

In the Spaniard’s account, the event of1872 was premeditated, and was part of a big conspiracy among
the educated learners, MESTIZOS, lawyers and residents of Manila and Cavite. They allegedly plan to liquidate
high-ranking Spanish officers, then kill the friars. The signals they identified among these CONSPIRATIONS of
manila and Cavite was the rockets fired from INTRAMUS.

The accounts detail that on 20 January 1872, the district of SAMPALOC celebrated the feast of the Virgin
of Loreto, and came with it were some fireworks display. The CAVITENOS allegedly mistook this as the signal to
commence with the attack. The 200-men CONTINGENT led by7 Sergeant LAMADRID attacked Spanish officers at
sight and seized the arsenal. IZQUIERDO, upon learning of the attacked, ordered the reinforcement of the Spanish
forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The “revolution” was easily crushed, when the MANILENOS who expected to
aid the CAVITENOS did not arrive. Leaders of the plot were killed in the resulting skirmish, while Fathers Gomez,
BURGOS and ZAMORA were tried by a court-martial and sentenced to be executed others who were implicated
such As Joaquin PARDO DE TAVERA , Antonio Ma. REGIDOR, Jose and PIO BASA, and other Filipino lawyers were
suspended from the Marianas Island. IZQUIERDO dissolve the native regiment of artillery and ordered the creation
of an artillery force composed exclusively by PENINSULARES.

On 17 February 187, the GOMBURZA were executed to serve as a threat to Filipinos never to attempt to
fight the Spaniards again.
 8

Differing Accounts of the Events of 1872

Two other primary account exist that seem to counter the accounts of Izquierdo and Montero. First, the
account of Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher, who wrote a Filipino
version of the bloody incident in Cavite.

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

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

This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as a powerful level by the Spanish residents and by the friars….
The Central Government in Madrid had announced its intention to deprive friars in these islands of powers of
intervention in matters of civil government and of the direction and management of the university… it was due to
these facts and promises that the Filipinos had great hopes of an improvement in the affairs of their country, while
the friars, on the other hand, feared that their powers in the colony would soon be complete a thing of the past.

…Up to that time had been no intention of secession from Spain, and the only aspiration of the people was to
secure the material and education advancement of the country…

According to this account, the incident was merely a mutiny by Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite
arsenal to the dissatisfaction arising from the draconian policies of Izquierdo, such as the abolition of privileges and
prohibition of the founding of the school of arts and trades for Filipinos, which the General saw as a smokescreen
to creating a political club.

Tavera is of opinion that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a way to address other
issues by blowing out of proportion the isolated mutiny attempt. During this time, the Central Government in
Madrid was planning to deprive the friars of all the powers of intervention in matters of civil government and
direction and management of educational institutions. The friars needed something to justify their continuing
dominance in the country, and the mutiny provided such opportunity.

However, the Central Government introduced an educational decree fusing sectarian schools run by the
friars into a school called the Philippine Institute. The decree aimed to improve the standard of education in the
Philippines by requiring teaching positions in these schools to be filled by competitive examinations, an
improvement welcomed by most Filipinos.

Another account, this time by French writer Edmund Plauchut, complemented Tavera’s account and
analayzed the motivations of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny.

Primary Source: Excerpts from Plauchut’s Account of the Cavite Mutiny

Source: Edmund Plauchut, “The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 and the Martyrdom of GOM-BUR-ZA,” in Gregorio Zaide and
Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 251-268

General La Torre…. Created a junta composed of high officials…. Including some friars and six Spanish officials…. At
the same time there was created by the government in Madrid a committee to investigate the same problems
submitted to the manila committee. When the two finished work, it was found that they came to the same
conclusions. Here is the summary of the reforms they considered necessary to introduce:

1. Changes in tariff rates at customs and the method of collection.

2. Removal of surcharges on foreign importations.
3. Reduction of export fees.
4. Permission of foreigners to reside in the Philippines, buy real estate, enjoy freedom of worship, and
operate commercial transports flying the Spanish flag.
5. Establishment inform the Minister of Overseas Affairs in Madrid on the necessary reforms to be
implemented.
6. Changes in primary and secondary education.
7. Establishment of an Institute of Civil Administration in the Philippines, rendering unnecessary the
sending home of the short-term civil officials everytime there is a change of ministry.
8. Study of direct-tax system.
9. Abolition of the tobacco monopoly.

…The arrival in Manila of general IZQUIERDO… put a sudden end to all dreams of reforms… the prosecutions
instituted by the new Governor General were probably expected as a result of the bitter disputes between the
 9

Filipino clerics and the friars. Such a policy must really end in a strong desire on the Part of the other to repress
cruelly.
In regard to schools, it as previously decreed that there should be in Manila a society of arts and trades to be
opened in March of 1871… to repress the growth of liberal teachings, General IZQUIERDO suspended the opening
of the school… the day previous to the scheduled inaugurations…

The Filipino had the duty to render service on public roads construction and pay taxes every year. But those who
were employed at the maestranza of the artillery, in the engineering shops and arsenal of Cavite, were exempted
from this obligation from time immemorial…. Without preliminaries of any kind, a decree by the Governor
withdrew from such old employees their retirement privileges and declassified them into ranks of those who
worked on public roads.

The friars used the incident as part of a larger conspiracy to cement their dominance, which had started to
show cracks because of the discontentment of the Filipinos. They showcased the mutiny as part of a greater
conspiracy in the Philippines by Filipinos to overthrow the Spanish Government. Unintentionally, and more so, the
Cavite Mutiny of resulted in the martyrdom of GOMBURZA, and paved the way to the revolution culminating in
1898.

The GOMBURZA is the collective name of the three martyred priests Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos and Jacinto
Zamora, who were tagged as the masterminds of the Cavite Mutiny. They were prominent Filipino priests charged
with treason and sedition. It is believed that the Spanish clergy connected the priests to the mutiny as part of a
conspiracy to stifle the movement of secular priests who desired to have their on parishes instead of being merely
assistants to the regular friars. The GOMBURZA are executed by garrote in public, a scene purportedly witnessed by a
young Rizal.

Their martyrdom is widely accepted as the dawn of Philippine nationalism in the 19 th century, with Rizal dedicating his
second novel, El Filibusterismo, to their memory.

“The Government, by enshrouding your trial in mystery and pardoning your co-accused, has suggested that
some mistake was committed when your fate was decided; and the whole of the Philippines, in paying homage to
your memory and calling you martyrs, totally rejects your guilt. The Church, by refusing to degrade you, has put in
doubt the crime charged against you.”

Case Study 3: Did Rizal Retract

Jose Rizal is identified as a hero of the revolution for his writings that center on ending colonialism and
liberating Filipino minds to contribute to creating the Filipino nation. The great volume of Rizal’s lifework was
committed to this end, particularly the more influential ones, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. His essays
vilify not the Catholic religion, but the friars, the main agants of injustice in the Philippine society.

It is understandable, thereof, that in any piece of writing from Rizal that recants everything he wrote
against the friars and the Catholic Church in the Philippines could deal heavy damage to his image as a prominent
Filipino revolutionary. Such document purportedly exists, allegedly signed by Rizal a few hours before his
execution. This document, referred to as “The Retraction”, declares Rizal’s belief in Catholic faith, and retracts
everything he wrote against the Church.

Primary Source: Rizal’s Retraction

Source: Translated from the document found by Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. on May 18, 1935.

I declare myself a catholic and in this religion in which I was born and educated I wish to live and die.
I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct has been contrary to my
character as 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 have caused and so that God and people may pardon me.

Manila 29 of December of 1896

Jose Rizal

There are four iterations of the texts of this retraction: the first was published in La Voz Española and
Diario de Manila on the day of the execution, 30 december 1896. The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain in
the magazine La Juventud, a few months after the execution, 14 February 1897, from an anonymous writer who
 10

was later on revealed to be Fr. Vicente Balaguer. However, the “original” text was only found in the archdiocesan
archives on 18 May 1935, after almost four decades of disappearance.

The Balaguer Testimony

Doubts on the retraction document abound, especially because only one eyewitness account of the
writing of the document exists that of the Jesuit friar Fr. Vicente Balaguer. According to his testimony, Rizal woke
up several times, confessed four times, attended a Mass, received communion, and prayed the rosary, all of which
seemed out of character. But since, it is the only testimony of allegedly a “primary” account that Rizal ever wrote a
retraction document, it has been used to argue the authenticity of the document.

The Testimony of Cuerpo de Vigilancia

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

Primary Source: Eyewitness Account of the last Hours of Rizal

Source: Michael Charleston Chua, “Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga bagong Dokumento at Pananaw,” GMA News
Online, published 29 December 2016.

Most Illostrious Sir, the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia stationed in Fort Santiago to report on the events during
the (illegible) day in prison of the accused Jose Rizal, informs me on this date of the following:

At 7:50 yesterday morning, jose Rizal entered death row accompanied by his counsel, Señor taviel de Andrade, and
the Jesuit priest Vilaclara. At the urgings of the former and momentsafter entering, he was served a light breakfast.
At approximately 9, the Assistant of the Plaza Señnor Maure, asked Rizal if he wanted anything. He replied that at
the moment he only wanted a prayer book which was brought to him shortly by Father March.

Señor Andrade left death row at 10 and Rizal spoke for a long while with the Jesuit fathers, March and Vilaclara,
regarding religious matters, it seems. It appears that those two presented him with a prepared retraction on his life
and deeds that he refused to sign. They argued about the matter until 12:30 when Rizal ate some poached egg and
a little chicken. Afterwards he asked to leave to write and wrote for a long time to himself.

At 3 in the afternoon, Father March entered the chapel and Rizal handed him what he had written. Immediately
the chief of the firing squad Señor del Fresno and the Assistant of the Plaza, Señor Maure ere informed. They
entered death row and together with Rizal signed the document that he accused had written.

At 5 this moring of the 30 th, the lover of Rizal arrived at the prison… dressed in mourning. Only the former entered
the chapel, followed by a military chaplain whose name I cannot ascertain. Donning his formal clothes and aided
by a soldier of the artillery, the nuptials of Rizal and the woman who had been his lover were performed at the
point of death (in articulo mortis). After embracing him she left, flooded with tears.

This account corroborates the existence of the retraction document giving credence. However, nowhere
in the account was Fr. Balaguer mentioned, which makes the friars a mere secondary source to the writing of the
document. The retraction of Rizal remains to this day, a controversy; many scholars however, agree that the
document does not tarnish the heroism of Rizal. His relevance remained solidified to Filipinos and pushed them to
continue the revolution, which eventually resulted in independence in 1898.

Rizal’s Connection to the Katipunan is undeniable- in fact, the precursor of the katipunan as an organization is the La Liga
Filipina, an organization Rizal founded, with Andres Bonifacio as one of its members. But La Liga Filipina was short lived as
the Spaniards exiled Rizal in Dapitan. Former members decided to band together to establish the katipunan a few days
after Rizal’s exile on 7 July 1892.

Rizal may not been officially part of the Katipunan, but the Katipuneros showed great appreciation of his work toward the
same goals. Out of the 28 members of the leadership of the Katipunan (known as the Kataastaasang Sangunian ng
Katipunan) from 1892-1896, 13 were former members of La Liga Filipina. Katipuneros even used Rizal’s name as a
password.
 11

In 1896, the Katipuneros decided to inform Rizal of their plans to launch the revolution, and sent Pio Valenzuela to visit
Rizal in Dapitan. Valenzuela’s accounts his meeting with Rizal have been greatly doubted by many scholars, buit
according to him, Rizal objected to the plans, saying that doing so would be tantamount to suicide since it would be
difficult to fight the Spaniards who had the advantage of military sources. He added that the leaders of the Katipunan
must do everything they could to prevent the spilling of Filipino blood. Valenzuela informed Rizal that the revolution
could inevitably break out if the Katipunan were to be discovered by the Spaniards. Rizal advised Valenzuela informed
Rizal that the revolution could inevitably break out if the Katipunan ere to be discovered by the Spaniards. Rizal advised
Valenzuela that the Katipunan should first secure that Antonio Luna recruited to direct the military movement of the
revolution.

Case Study 4: Where Did the Cry of Rebellion Happen?

Momentous events swept the Spanish colonies in the late 19 th century, including Philippines. Journalists of
the time refered to the phrase “EL Grito de Rebelion” or “Cry of Rebellion” to mark the start of these revolutionary
events, identifying the places where it happened. In the Philippines, this happened in August 1896, northeast of
manila, where they declared rebellion against the Spanish colonial government. These events are important
markers in the history of colonies that struggled for their independence against the colonizers.

The controversy regarding this event stems from the identification of the date and place where the Cry
happened. Prominent historian Teodoro Agoncill emphasizes the event when Bonifacio tore the cedula or tax
receipt before the Katipuneros who also did the same. Some writers identified the first military event with the
Spaniards as the moment of the Cry, for which, Emilio Aguinaldo commissioned an “Himno de Balintawak” to
inspire the renewed struggle after the Pact of the Biak-na-Bato failed. A monument to the Heroes of 1896 was
erected in what is now the intersection of Epifanio delos Santos Avenue (EDSA) and Andres Bonifacio Drive-North
Diversion road, and from then on until 1962, the Cry of Balintawak was celebrated every 26 th of August. The site of
the monument was chosen for the unknown reason.

Different Dates and Places of the Cry

Various accounts of the Cry give different dates and places. A guradia civil, Lt. Olegario Diaz, identified the
Cry to have planned in Balintawak on August 25, 1896. Teodoro Kalaw, Filipino historian, marks the place to be in
Kangkong Balintawak on the last week of August 1896. Santiago Alvarez, a Katipunero and son of Mariano Alvarez,
leader of the Magdiwang faction in Cavite, put the Cry in Bahay Toro in Quezon City on August 24, 1896. Pio
Valenzuela, known katipunero and privy to many events concerning the Katipunan stated that the Cry happened in
Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896. Historian Gregorio Zaide identified the Cry to have happened in Balintawak on
August 26, 1896, while Teodoro Agoncillo put it in Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896, according to statements by Pio
Valenzuela. Research by historians Milagros Guerrero, Emmanuel Encarnacion and ramon Villegas claimed that the
event took place in tandang Sora’s barn in Gulod, Barangay banlat, Quezon City on August 24, 1896.

Primary Source: Accounts of the Cry

Guillermo Masangkay

Source: Guillermo Masangkay, “Cry of Balintawak” in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of
Philippine History, volume 8 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 307-309.

On August 26th, a big meeting was held in Balintawak, at the house of Apolonio Samson, then cabeza of that
barrio of Caloocan. Among those who attended, I remember, were Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Aguedo del Rosario,
Tomas Remigio, Briccio Pantas, Teodoro Plata, Pio Valenzuela, Enrique Pacheco and Francisco Carreon. They are all
leaders of the Katipunan and composed the board of directors of the organization and composed the board
directors of the organization. Delegates from Bulacan, Cabanatuan, cavite and Morong ere also present.

At about nine o’clock in the moring of August 26, the meeting was opened with Andres Bonifacio presiding and
Emilio Jacinto acting as secretary. The purpose was to discuss when the uprising was to take place. Teodoro Plata,
Briccio Pantas and Pio Valenzuela were all opposed to starting the revolution too early. Andres Bonifacio, sensing
that he would lose in the discussion then, left the session hall and talked to the people, who were waiting outside
for the result of the meeting of the leaders. He told the people that the leaders were arguing against the starting
the revolution too early, and appealed to them in a fiery speech in which he said: “You remember the faith of our
 12

countrymen who were shot in Bagumbayan. Should we return now to the towns, the Spaniards will only shoot us.
Our organization has been discovered and we are all marked men. If we don’t start the uprising, the Spaniards will
get us anyway. What then, do you say?”

“Revolt!” the people shouted as one.

Bonifacio then asked the people to give pledge that they were to revolt. He told them that the sign of slavery of
the Filipinos were (sic) the cedula tax charged each citizen. “If it is true that you are ready to revolt…. I want to see
you destroy your cedulas. It will be a sign that all of us have declared our severance from Spaniards.”

Pio Valenzuela

Source: Pio Valenzuela, “Cry of Pugad Lawin,” in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of
Philippine History, Volume 8 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 301-302.

The first place of refuge of Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Procopio Bonifacio, Teodoro Plata, Aguedo del Rosario
and myself was in Balintawak, the first five arriving there on August 19, and I, on August 20, 1896. The first place
where some 500 members of the Katipunan met on August 22, 1896, was the house and yard of Apolonio Samson
at Kangkong. Aside from the persons mentioned above, among those who were there ere Briccio Pnatas, Alejandro
Satiago, Ramon Bernardo, Apolonio Samson, and others. Here, views were only exchanged and no resolution was
debated or adopted. It was at Pugad Lawin, the house, store-house and yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora
Aquino, where over 1,000 members of the Katipunan met and carried out considerable debate and discussion on
August 23, 1896. The discussion was on whether or not the revolution against the Spanish government should be
started on August 29,1896… after the tumultuous meeting, many of those present tore their cedula certificates
and shouted “long live the Philippines! Long live the Philippines!

From the eyewitness accounts presented, there is indeed Marked disagreement among historical witness as to the
place and time of the occurrence of the Cry. Using primary and secondary sources, four places have been
identified: balintawak, kangkong, pugad, lawin, and Bahay Toro, while the dates very:23,24,25 or 26 August 1896.

Valenzuela’s account should be read with caution: he once told a Spanish investigator that the “Cry” happened in
BALINTAWAK on Wednesday, 26 August 1896. Much later, he wrote in his Memoirs of the Revolution that it
happened at Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896. Such inconsistencies in accounts should always be seen as red flag
when dealing with primary sources.

According to Guerrero, Encarnacion, and villenges all these places are in BALINTWAK, then part of Caloocan, now,
in Quezon City. As for dates BONIFACIO and his troops may have been moving from one place to another to
avoid being located by the Spanish government, which could explain why there are several accounts of the cry.