Republic of the Philippines

DR. EMILIO B. ESPINOSA, SR. MEMORIAL STATE COLLEGE

(Masbate State College)
www.debesmscat.edu.ph
Mandaon, Masbate

Subject: GE 2- READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Course:
Course Description: Philippine history viewed from the lens of selected primary sources
in different periods, analysis and interpretations.
Topic: Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and Controversies

Week: #7-8

Hours: 6 hours

LEARNING OBJECTIVES:
 Distinguish the historical spaces that experience conflict and
controversies of the past.
 Explain some historical interpretations
 Develop appreciation skill in the contributions of the Filipino Heroes in
the history of Philippines

CONTENT
In this chapter, you will analyze four historiographical problems in Philippine
history in an attempt what we have learned thus far in the work of a historical inquiry. Two
key concepts that need to be define before proceeding to the historical analysis of a
problems in history are interpretation and multiperspectivity.
Making Sense of the Past: Historical Interpretation
History is the study of the past, but a more 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
about the past.”
The Code of kalantiaw is a mythical legal code 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 Berdehera Kalantiaw, third Chief of Panay, born
in Aklan, established his government in the peninsula of Batang, Aklan Sakup. Considered
the First Filipino Lawgiver, he promulgated in about 1433 a penal code now known as
Code 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 sources
in Philippine history. He attributed the code to a historical fiction written in 1913 by Jose

1
E. Marco titled Las Antiguas Leyendas de la Isla de Negros. Marco attributed the code
itself to a priest named Jose Maria Pavon. Prominent Filipino historians did not dissent to
Scott’s findings, but there are still some who would like to believe that the code is a
legitimate document.
Historians utilize facts collected for primary sources of history and then drew their
own readings so that their intended audience may understand the historical event, a process
that is essence, “makes sense of the past”
Interpretations of the past, therefore, vary according to who reads the primary
source, when it was read, and how it was read.

“Sa Aking Mga Kababata” 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, when 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
Raselis.
Further criticism of the poem reveals more about the wrongful attribution of the
poem of Rizal. The poem was written in Tagalog and referred to the word “Kalayaan”. But
it was documented in Rizal’s letters that he first encounted the word through a Mercelo H.
del Pilar’s translation of Rizal’s essay “ El Amor Patrio” where it was spelled as
“Kalayaan”.
While Rizal’s native tongue was Tagalog, he was educated in Spanish, starting from
his mother, Teodora Alonzo. Later on, he would express disappointment in his difficulty in
expressing himself in his native tongue.
The poem’s spelling 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 thought 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.

MULTIPERSPECTIVITY
With several possibilities of interpreting the past, another important concept that we
must note is multiperspectivity. This can be define as a 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, end each could
be equally valid, and at the same time, equally partial as well .Historical writing is, by
2
definition, biased, partial, and contains preconceptions. The historians decides on what
source to use, what interpretation to make more apparent, depending on what his end is.
Historians may misinterpret evidence, attending to those that suggest that 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 their subject, which may not be appropriate to the period
the subject form. Historians may also provide a single cause for an event without
considering other possible causal explanation of said event. These are just many of the
ways a historian may fail in his historical inference, description, and interpretation. With
multipersprpectivity as an approach in history, we must understand that historical
interpretations contains discrepancies, contradictions, ambiguities, and are often the focus
of dissent.
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.
Taking these in close regard in the reading of historical interpretations, it provides
for the audience a more complex, but more complete and richer understanding of the past.

Case Study 1: Where Did the First Catholic Mass Take Place in the Philippines?
The popularity of knowing where the “Frist” happened in history has been an easy
way to trivialized 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 óó It must be noted that there are only two
primary sources that historians refer to identifying the site of the first Mass. One is the log
kept by Francisco Albao, a pilot 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 viaggio intorno al mindo (First Voyage Around the World) . Pigafetta,
like Albao, 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 ó derotero del viage de Magallanes desde ed cabo se S. Agustín en
el Brazil hasta el regreso a Espana de la nao Victoria, escrito por Frandsco Albao,”
1. On the 16th of March (1521) as they sailed in westerly course from Landrones they
saw land towards the northwest; but owing to many shallow places they did not
approach it. They found later that its name was Yunagan
2. They went instead that same day southwards to another small island named Suluan,
and there anchored. There they saw some canoes but these fled at the Spaniard’s
approach. This island was at 9 and two-thirds degree North Latitude.
3. Departing from those two islands, the sailed westward to an uninhabited island of
“Gada” where they took in a supply of wood and water. The sea around that 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 10 degrees
North latitude )

3
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 call it, ‘Cylon’- 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 also at a latitude of 9 and
two-thirds degree North.
6. The people of that island of Mazava ware very good. There the Spaniards planted a
cross upon a mountain-top, and from there 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 their small island.
8. From there they sailed westward 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 10 and one-third degree. There they entered a
channel between two islands, which was called “Matan” and the other “Subu.”
9. They sailed down the channel and then turned westward and anchored at the town
(la villa) of Subu where they stayed many days and obtained provisions and entered
into a piece-pact with the local king.
10.The town of Subu was on the east-west direction with the islands of Suluan and
Masava. 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 Masava fits the location of the
of Masava fits the location of the island of Limasawa at the southern tip of Leyte.

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

1. Saturday, 16 March 1521- Magellan’s expedition sighted a “high land”
named “Zamal” which was somw 300 leagues westward of the Landrones
(now Marianas) Island.
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 island of “Zamal” (To the right here we would
mean on their starboard going south or to southwest.) There they set up two
tents for the sick members of the crew and had a sow killed for them. The
name of this island was, ‘”Humunu” (Homomhon). The island was located 10
degrees North Latitude
3. On the same day (Sunday March 17), Magellan named the entire archipelago
the “Island 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 the raising of 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.
5. There were two spring of the water on the island of Homonhon. Also they
saw there some indications that there was gold in these island. Consequently
Magellan renamed the island and called it the “Watering Place of Good
Omen” (Acquada la di bouni segnalli)
6. Friday, March 22- At noon the natives returned. This time they were in two
boats, and they brought food supplies.
4
 7. Magellan’s expedition stayed eight days at Homonhom: 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 island of Homonhon.
9. The route taken by the expedition after leaving Homonhon wa “Toward the
west southwest, between four island: namely, Cenalo, Hiunanghan, Ibusson
and Albarein.
10.Thursday, March 28- In the morning of Holy Thursday, March 28, they
anchored off the island where the previous night they had seen a light or a
bonfire.
11.They remained seven days on Mazaua Island.
12.Thursday, April 4- they left Mazaua, bond to Cebu. They were guide thither
by the King of Mazaua who sailed in his own boat. The route took them past
five “Islands” namely: “Cylon, Bohol, Caninghan, Baibai and Gatinghan.”
13.At Gatinghan, they sailed westward to the three islands of the Camotes
Group, namely, Poro, Pasihan, and Ponson.
14.From the Camotes Islands they sailed southwards towards “Zebu”
15.Sundaym, April 7- At noon they entered the harbor of “Zebu” (Cebu)

It must be pointed out that both Albao and Pigafetta’s testimonies coincide and
collaborated each other. Pigafetta gave more details on what they did during their
weeklong stay at Mazuau.

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 the 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 European could access the spice trade directly, greatly reducing
cost for traders. Spain’s mayor 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 Americas, which was then cut-off from the rest of the known world.

Spain colonized parts of North America, Mexico, and South America in the
sixteenth century. They were also able to reach Philippines and claim it for the Spain
crown. Later on. Other European rulers would compete with the activities of exploring and
conquering lands.

Case Study 2: What Happened in the Cavity Mutiny?

The year 1872 is the historic year of two events: the Cavity Mutiny and the
martyrdom of the three priest: Mariano Gomes, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, Later on
immortalized as GOMBURZA. These events were very important milestone in Philippine
history and have caused ripples throughout time, directly influencing the decisive event in
the Philippine 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 perspective supported by primary sources. In this case study, we zoom in to the events
of Cavite Mutiny, a major factor in the awakening of nationalism among the Filipino of the
time.

5
 NOTE:
Martyrdom- the death or suffering of a martyr
-display of feigned or exaggerated suffering to obtain sympathy or admiration.
Mutiny- an open rebellion against the proper authorities, especially by soldiers or sailors
against their officers

Spanish Accounts of the Cavity Mutiny

The documentation of Spanish historians Jose Montero y 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 mutiny was criticized as woefully
biased and rabid for a scholar. Another account from the official written by the Governor
General Rafael Izquierdo implicated the native clergy, who were then. Active in the
movement towards secularization of parishes. These two accounts corroborated each other.
NOTE:
Clergy- the body of all people ordained for religious duties, especially in the Christian
Church.
Corroborated- confirm of give support to (a statement, theory, or finding)
Rabid- having or proceeding from an extreme or fanatical support of or belief in
something
Secularization- to make secular, separate from religious or speritual connection or
influence; make worldly or unspiritual, imbue secularism.
-to change (clergy) from regular to secular
-to transfer (property) from eccleistical to civil possession or use
Woefully- in a manner expressing sorrow or misery

An excerpt from:
Montero’s Account of the Cavity Mutiny
 The idea of attaining their independence. It was towards this goal that they
started to work. With the poweful assistance of a certain section of the native
clergy
Governor Rafael Izquierdo
 Native clergy attracted supporters by giving them charismatic assurance that
their fight would not fail because the had God support, aside from promise of
lofty rewards such as employment, wealth and ranks in the army.
 It has not been clearly determined if they planned to establish a monarchy or a
Republic , because the indios have no words in their language to discribe this
form of governmet.
 Whose head in Filipino would be called “Hari” but it turns out that they
would place at the head of the government a priest.. the head selected would
be D. Jose Burgos or D. Jacinto Zamora.
- Underscope the reasons for the “Revolution” abolition of preveleges enjoyed by the
workers of Cavite Arsenal such us exemption from payment of tribute and being
employed in Polos y Servicios (Force Labor)
6
 - Presence of the native clergy, against the spanish friars, “ Conspired the supported”
the rebels.

In the Spaniard’s Accounts. 1872 was premediated. A part of a big conspiracy

among educated learders. Mestizos. Lawyers and Residents of Manila and Cavite
They allegedly plan to liquidate high-ranking Spanish officers then kill friars.

JANUARY 20, 1872

 the District of Sampalok celebrated the feast of the virgin Loreto, came with it
were some fireworks display.
 The cavitenos mistook this as the signal to commence with the attack
FEBRUARY 17, 1872
 The Gomburza were executed by Garrote in the Public to serve as a threat to
Filipinos never to attempt to fight the spaniards
 This is a scene purpotedly witnessed by a young Jose Rizal\

Differing Accounts of the Events of 1872

Dr. Trindad Hermenegildo Pardo De Tavera

 A Filipino scholar and reseacher
 Wrote a Filipino version of the Bloody incident in Cavite
 Acccording to Prado De Tavera, the incident was merely amutiny by Filipino
soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal to the dissatisfaction arising from the
draconian policies of Izquierdo (abolision of priveleges and prohibition of the
founding of the school of arts and trades)

The Central Spanish Government was planning to deprive the friars of all the powers of
intervention in matters of civil governmet and direction and management of educational
institution.

An Excerpt from:
Prado de Tavera’s account of the Cavity Mutiny
 “ …Filipinos had great hopes of an improvement in the affairs of their country”
 “… The friars feared that their power in the colony would soon be complete a thing
of the past”

Edmund Plauchut’s accounts of the Cavity Mutiny

 “… the revival in manila of Gen. Izquierdo put a sudden end to all dreams of
reforms
… such a policy must really end in a strong desire on the part of the other to
repress cruelty..”

Differing Accounts
 Friars used Cavity mutiny as part of a large conspiracy to cement their
dominance
7
  They showcased the mutiny as part of a greater conspiracy in the Philippines
by Filipinos to overthrow the Spanish government
 Unintentionally, it resulted in the Martydom of GOMBURZA, and paved way
to the revolution culminating in 1898.

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 Mi Tangere and El Filibusterismo. His essays vilify not the
Catholic religion, but the friars, the main agents of injustice in the Philippine society.

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

Primary Source: Rizal’s Retraction

Source: Translated from the document found by Fr. Manuel Garcia,

C.M. on 18 May 1935

I declare myself a catholic and this Religion in which I was born and educated I wish to live and
die.

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

Manila 29 of December of 1896

Jose Rizal

8
 There are four iterations of the text 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 was later 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 documents 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 Illustrious 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 in the 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 moments after entering, he was served a light breakfast. At approximately 9,
the Assistant of the Plaza, Señor 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, its seems. It appears that these
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 by himself.

At 3 in the afternoon, Father March entered the chapel and Rizal handed him what
he had written. Immediately the chief of the firing squad, del Fresno, and Maure, were
9
informed. They entered death row and together with Rizal signed the document that the
accused has written.

At 5 this morning of the 30th, 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 it credence.
However, nowhere in the account was Fr. Balaguer mentioned, which makes the friara
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 to 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 have 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 Kataas-taasang Sanggunian ng Katipunan) from 1892 to 1896, 13
were former members of La Liga Filipina. Katipuneros even used Rizal’s name as a password.

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 account of his meeting with Rizal
have been greatly doubted by many scholars, but 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 resources. 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 that Katipunan should first secure the
support of wealthy Filipino to strengthen their cause, and suggested that Antonio Luna be
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 nineteenth century,
including the Philippines. Journalists of the time referred 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
10
government. These events are important markers in the history of colonies that struggled
for their independence against their colonizers.

The controversy regarding this event stems from the identification of the date and
place where the Cry happened. Prominent Filipino historian Teodoro Agoncillo
emphasizes the even when Bonifacio tore the cedula or tax receipt before the Katipuneros
who also did the same. Some writers identified the first military even 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
de los Santos (EDSA) Avenue 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 chose for an unknown reason.

DIFFERENT DATES and PLACES of the CRY

Various accounts of the Cry give different dates and places. A guardia civil, Lt.
Olegario Diaz, identify the Cry to have happened in Balintawak on 25 August 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
24 August 1896.

Pio Valenzuela, known Katipunero and privy to many events concerning the Katipunan
stated that the Cry happened in Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896. Historian Gregorio Zaide
identified the Cry to have happened in Balintawak on 26 August 1896, while Teodoro
Agoncillo put it at Pugad Lawin on 23 August 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 24 August 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 were all
leaders of the Katipunan and composed the board of directors of the organization.
Delegates from Bulacan, Cabanatuan, Cavite, and Morong were also present.

11
 At about nine o’clock in the morning 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. Teodora 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 starting with revolution early, appealed to
them in a fiery speech in which he said: “You remember the fate of our countrymen who
were shot in Bagumbayan. Should we return now to the towns, the Spaniards will only
shoot us. Our organization has been discovered and we are all marked men. If we don’t
start the uprising, the Spaniards will get us anyway. What then, do you say? “

“Revolt!” the people shouted a one.

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

Pio Valenzuela

Source: Pio Valenzuela, “Cry of Pugad Lawin,” in Gregorio 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,
Teodora Plata, Aguedo del Rosario and myself was 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 aboe, among those who were Briccio
Pantas, Alejandro Santiago, Ramon Bernardo, Apolonio Samson, and others. Here, views
were only exchange, and no resolution wsa debated or adopted. It was at Pugad lawin, the
house, store-house, and yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino, where over 1000
members of the Katipunan met and carried out considerable debate and discussion on
August 23 1896… After the tumultuous meeting, many of those present tore their cedula
certificated and shouted” Long love the Philippines!”

From the eyewitness accounts presented, there indeed marked disagreement among
historical witnesses as to the place and time of the occurrence of the Cry. Using primary
and secondary sources, four places have been identified: b Balintawak, Kangkong, Pugad
Lawin and Bahay Toro, while dates vary: 23,24,25 or 26 August 1896

Valenzuela’s account should be read with caution: He once told a Spanish

investigator that the “Cry” happened in Balintawak on Wednesday, 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 a red flag when
dealing with primary sources.

12
 According to Guerrero, Encarnacion, and Villegas, all these places are in
Balintawak, then part of Caloocan, now in Quezon City. As for the dates, Bonifacio and
his troops may have been moving from one place to another to avoid being located by the
Spanish government, which could explain why there are several accounts of the Cry.

xcdee
******
REFERENCES:
 Reading in Philippine History by: John Lee P. Candelaria, et.al., pg. 1-9
 Carr, E. (1991). What is History.London, United Kingdom:Penguin.

TASK TO BE DONE:
ASSESSMENT: Quiz # 02
Direction: Answer the Following Questions
1. Identify the advantages and disadvantages of employing critical tools in interpreting
historical events through primary sources. Identify at least (5) and briefly discuss. (5points
each.)
2. Choose at least (1) particular historical controversy stated in this module and a
corresponding stance (Affirmative or Negative). Use Primary source in defending your
side. At least (500 words). (15 points)

God Bless! 

13