Finals Module Readings

DISCLAIMER
This module is intended for STUDENTS OF TARLAC STATE UNIVERSITY ONLY in

order to address the flexible learning scheme for A.Y. 2020-2021 as implemented by the
Commission on Higher Education brought by the COVID-19 pandemic. The textbooks, articles,
websites, and video links used in compiling this module are properly cited. No reproduction of
any part of this module may be used, sold, or distributed for commercial purposes or be
changed or included in any other business, work, or publication, whether in print or electronic
unless prior permission has been granted.
Republic of the Philippines
Tarlac State University
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Main Campus Tarlac City
Tel. No. (045) 493-0182; Fax. No. (045) 982-0110
Social Science 1C – Readings in Philippine History
TSU VMGO
VISION Tarlac State University is envisioned to be a premier university

in Asia and the Pacific.
MISSION Tarlac State University commits to promote and sustain the

offering of quality & relevant programs in higher and advanced
education ensuring equitable access to education for people
empowerment, professional development, and global
competitiveness.
Towards this end, TSU shall:

1. Provide high quality instruction trough qualified,
competent & adequately trained faculty members &
support staff.
2. Be a premier research institution by enhancing research
undertaking in the fields of technology & sciences &
strengthening collaborating with local and international
institution.
3. Be a champion in community development by
strengthening partnership with public and private
organization & individuals
CORE VALUES E – xcellence

Q - uality
U - nity
I - ntegrity
T - rust in God, Transparency & True Commitment
Y - earning for Global Competitiveness
PREPARED BY THE FOLLOWING FACULTY MEMBERS:
DR. LINO L. DIZON
Professor VI
 lldizon@tsu.edu.ph
Dr. Lino L Dizon is presently a commissioner of the National

Historical Commission of the Philippines. He is also the Dr. Lee
Ye-lick Alex Professor in Social Sciences and Professor VI (Full
Professor) of Tarlac State University and heads its Center for
Tarlaqueño Studies. He holds a PhD (Philippine Studies) from
the University of the Philippines, Diliman.
He edits ALAYA, the Kapampangan Research Journal of the Center for Kapampangan Studies,
Holy Angel University where he used to be the history consultant and from 2012 until early 2017
had been the Writer –in –Residence of Cavite Studies Center, De La Salle University –
Dasmariñas.
He has already written more than a score of books on Philippine local history and culture,
including Mr. White: A ‘Thomasite’ History of Tarlac Province, 1901-1913, Nascent Philippine
Studies on the Life and Labor of José Felipe Del-Pan, 1821-1891 and Photographing
Revolutionary Cavite: The Colonial Representation, 1896-1899 and is the co-author of a
number of publications including Cruceiro: Spanish Galicia at Some Crossroads in Philippine
History & Culture (1521-1898) and Gloria: Roman Leoncio’s Kapampangan Translation of
Huseng Batute’s Verse Novel, Lost and Found, which won the 2004 Philippines’ National Book
Awards for Translation.
A University Scholar of the University of the Philippines, Diliman from 2005-2007, Prof. Dizon
was a Vice- President of KABANSA, Inc.- the Association of Local Studies Centers in the
Philippines and a current EXECON-Member of the National Commission for the Culture and the
Arts’ Committee for Historical Research (2020-2022, representing Luzon). Recipient of many
national and international scholarship and research grants as those from the Spanish Program
for Cultural Cooperation, American Association of the Philippines, Japan Foundation, Nihon
University - Mishima and the Research Forum on Philippine-Japan Relations, he was a
Fulbright Research Fellow for 2010-2011 at the Bancroft Library, University of California,
Berkeley.
DR. AGNES S. MALLARI-MACARAEG
Professor V
 ammacaraeg@tsu.edu.ph
Dr. Agnes M. Macaraeg was the Dean of the College of Arts

and Social Sciences of Tarlac State University, Tarlac City, from
June 01, 2009 to August 04, 2019. Dr. Macaraeg was a
graduate of Baguio Colleges Foundation, now the known
University of Cordillera, Baguio City with a degree Bachelor of Arts in Political Science in 1985.
She is also a holder of Master’s Degree in Administration and Supervision and Doctor of
Education major in Educational Management. She is a Licensed Professional Teacher. She is
currently under the Social Sciences Department of the College of Arts and Social Sciences,
teaching subjects such as Readings in Philippine History, Philippine Constitution, General
Sociology, Contemporary World and Ethics. Dr. Macaraeg is also a faculty member of the
Graduate Studies of this Institution and at St. La Salle University of Bacolod, teaching masters’
and doctorate students under the Eduardo Cojuangco Foundation Program and likewise, she is
a volunteer Professor at Our Lady of Peace College Seminary, Tarlac City. She is one of the
authors of the Sociology book entitled SOCIOLOGY (Exploring Society and Culture) published
in 2010 by TCS Publishing House and currently working for the publication of the book in
Readings in Philippine History.
MR. CHARLES KEVIN T. SALONGA

Lecturer
 cktsalonga@tsu.edu.ph
Charles Kevin T Salonga is a graduate of Bachelor in Public

Administration at University of the Philippines,Diliman, Quezon
City in 2016. Currently, he is taking up Juris Doctor at Angeles
University Foundation. He is also a lecturer of General
Education Department (Social Science), College of Arts and
Social Sciences at Tarlac State University since 2016. He has
been teaching different social science subjects such as
Readings in Philippine History, Philippine Constitution, Economics and Taxation, Humanities,
Sociology, Ethics, and Contemporary World.
READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY
SOCIAL SCIENCE 1C (SS1C)
3 UNITS Credit
NO Pre-requisite Course
COURSE DESCRIPTION:
The course analyzes Philippine history from multiple perspectives through the lens of selected
primary sources coming from various disciplines and of different genres. Students are given
opportunities to analyze the author’s background and main arguments, compare different points
of view, identify biases and examine the evidences presented in the document. The discussions
will tackle traditional topics in history and other interdisciplinary themes that will deepen and
broaden their understanding of Philippine political, economic, cultural, social, scientific and
religious history. Priority is given to primary materials that could help students develop their
analytical and communication skills. The end goal is to develop the historical and critical
consciousness of the students so that they will become versatile, articulate, broadminded,
morally upright and responsible citizens.
COURSE OUTLINE:
FINAL TERM COVERAGE

CHAPTER III: One Past and many Histories: Controversies and Conflicting Views in
Philippine History
Cases:
Module 10: The First Mass in the Philippines
Module 11: The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Module 12: Jose Rizal’s Retraction
Module 13: Cry of Balintawak or Pugadlawin

CHAPTER IV: Political, Economic, and Socio- Cultural Issues in Philippine History
Mandated Topics:
Module 14 : Malolos Constitution, 1935 Constitution, 1973 Constitution
Module 15: The 1987 Constitution
Module 16: Agrarian Reform in the Philippines
Module 17: Taxation
Module 18: Special Topics:

A. IPRA Law and Government Peace Treaties with Muslim Filipinos
B. Local and Oral History, Cultural Performances and Indigenous practices
TARLAC STATE UNIVERSITY
MODULE 10
HISTORICAL
CONTROVERSY:
The First Mass in the
Philippines
1
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE USER:
1. The user is to study this module at his own pace within the time frame set by the
instructor. Check the OBTL syllabus for guidance.
2. Video links for subtopics are also provided in this module.
3. References, Supplemental and Additional readings are also given for further
understanding and appreciation of the lesson.
4. Self-Check Test are also available for student’s self-assessment. Respective
instructors may ask the students to submit answers via agreed platforms
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Demonstrate to the ability to use primary sources to argue in favor or against a
particular issue
2. Reexamine the conflicting evidence of the First Mass in the Philippines.
3. Be able present a stand based on available facts, data and evidence.
2
The First Mass in the Philippines
The birth of Roman Catholicism in the country was signified by the celebration of the first
Catholic mass in the Philippines March 31, 1521, after Ferdinand Magellan landed on the
Philippines which he named then as the Archipelago of St. Lazarus. However, the location of
the mass is still shrouded with controversy. Originally it was believed that the mass was
celebrated in the island of Limasawa, in Leyte, but the discovery of the Golden Tara in Butuan
made some Philippine Historians question the veracity of the Limasawa location. As recounted
by Pigafetta the first Christian Mass celebrated was made in an island which he called
''Mazaua.''
In 1996, the Philippine Congress directed the National Historical Institute to recommend a
historical finding. The panel and the NHI reaffirmed in 1998 that the place is Limasawa, but the
controversy is still alive until today.
Following is an excerpt coming from a primary source that tackles the issue in question. This is
from Pigafetta’s Chronicles of the Voyage of Magellan. Source: Emma Blair and James
Alexander Robertson. The Philippine Islands Vol. 33.
1. On Saturday, March sixteen,196 1521, we came upon a high land at a distance of

three hundred leguas from the islands of Latroni—an island named Zamal [i.e.,
Samar]. The following day, the captain-general desired to land on another island
which was uninhabited and lay to the right of the abovementioned island, in
order to be more secure, and to get water and have some rest. He had two
tents set up on the shore for the sick and had a sow killed for them.
2. On Monday afternoon, March 18, we saw a boat coming toward us with nine
men in it. Therefore, the captain-general ordered that no one should move or
say a word without his permission. When those men reached the shore, their
chief went immediately to the captain-general, giving signs of joy because of our
arrival. Five of the most ornately adorned of them remained with us, while the
rest went to get some others who were fishing, and so they all came. The
captain-general seeing that they were reasonable men, ordered food to be set
before them, and gave them red caps, mirrors, combs, bells, ivory, bocasine, 197
and other things. When they saw the captain’s courtesy, they presented fish, a
jar of palm wine, which they call uraca [i.e., arrack], figs more than one palmo
long [i.e., bananas],198 and others which were smaller and more delicate, and
two cocoanuts. They had nothing else then, but made us signs with their hands
that they would bring umay or rice, 199 and cocoanuts and many other articles of
food within four days.
3. There are many islands in that district, and therefore we called them the
archipelago of San Lazaro, as they were discovered on the Sabbath of St.
3
Lazurus.208 They lie in x degrees of latitude toward the Arctic Pole, and in a
longitude of one hundred and sixty-one degrees from the line of demarcation.
4. At noon on Friday, March 22, those men came as they had promised us in two
boats with cocoanuts, sweet oranges, a jar of palm-wine, and a cock,209 in
order to show us that there were fowls in that district. They exhibited great signs
of pleasure at seeing us.210 We purchased all those articles from them. Their
seignior was an old man who was painted [i.e., tattooed]. He wore two gold
earrings [schione] in his ears,211 and the others many gold armlets on their
arms and kerchiefs about their heads. We stayed there one week, and during
that time our captain went ashore daily to visit the sick, and212 every morning
gave them cocoanut water from his own hand, which comforted them greatly.
5. On Thursday morning, March twenty-eight, as we had seen a fire on an island
the night before, we anchored near it.219 We saw a small boat which the
natives call boloto with eight men in it, approaching the flagship. A slave
belonging to the captain-general, who was a native of Zamatra [i.e., Sumatra],
which was formerly called Traprobana, spoke to them. They immediately
understood him, came alongside the ship, unwilling to enter but taking a position
at some little distance.220 The captain seeing that they would not trust us,
threw them out a red cap and other things tied to a bit of wood. They
[115]received them very gladly, and went away quickly to advise their king.
About two hours later we saw two balanghai coming.
6. Next day, holy Friday, the captain-general sent his slave, who acted as our
interpreter, ashore in a small boat to ask the king if he had any food to have it
carried to the ships;222 and to say that they would be well satisfied with us, for
he [and his men] had come to the island as friends and not as enemies. The
king came with six or eight men223 in the same boat and entered the ship. He
embraced the captain-general to whom he gave three porcelain jars covered
with leaves and full of raw rice, two very large orade,224 and other things. The
captain-general gave the king a garment of red and yellow cloth made in the
Turkish fashion, and a fine red cap; and to the others (the king’s men), to some
knives and to others mirrors. Then the captain-general [117]had a collation
spread for them, and had the king told through the slave that he desired to be
casi casi225 with him, that is to say, brother. The king replied that he also
wished to enter the same relations with the captain-general. Then the captain
showed him cloth of various colors, linen, coral [ornaments], and many other
articles of merchandise, and all the artillery, some of which he had discharged
for him, whereat the natives were greatly frightened. Then the captain-general
had a man armed as a soldier,226 and placed him in the midst of three men
armed with swords and daggers, who struck him on all parts of the body.
Thereby was the king rendered almost speechless. The captain-general told
him through the slave that one of those armed men was worth one hundred of
his own men. The king answered that that was a fact. The captain-general said
that he had two hundred men in each ship who were armed in that manner.227
He showed the king cuirasses, swords, and bucklers, and had a review made
for him.228 Then he led the king to the deck of the ship, that is located above at
4
the stern; and had his sea-chart and compass brought.229 He told the king
through the interpreter how he had found the strait in order to voyage thither,
and how many moons he had been without seeing land, whereat the king was
astonished. Lastly, he told the king that he would like, if it were pleasing to him,
to send two of his men with him so that he might show them some of his things.
The king replied that he was agreeable, and I went in company with one of the
other men.230
7. Early on the morning of Sunday, the last of March, and Easter-day, the captain-
general sent the priest with some men to prepare the place where mass was to
be said;241 together with the interpreter to tell the king that we were not going
to land in order to dine with him, but to say mass. Therefore the king sent us two
swine that he had had killed. When the hour for mass arrived, we landed with
about fifty men, without our body armor, but carrying our other arms, and
dressed in our best clothes.242 Before we reached the shore with our boats, six
pieces were discharged as a sign of peace. We [125]landed; the two kings
embraced the captain-general, and placed him between them. We went in
marching order to the place consecrated, which was not far from the shore.
Before the commencement of mass, the captain sprinkled the entire bodies of
the two kings with musk water.”243 The mass was offered up. The kings went
forward to kiss the cross as we did, but they did not offer the sacrifice.244 When
the body of our Lord was elevated, they remained on their knees and worshiped
Him with clasped hands. The ships fired all their artillery at once when the body
of Christ was elevated, the signal having been given from the shore with
muskets. After the conclusion of mass, some of our men took communion.245
The captain-general arranged a fencing tournament,246 at which the kings were
greatly pleased. Then he had a cross carried in and the nails and a crown, to
which immediate reverence was made.247 He told the kings through the
interpreter that they were the standards given to him by the emperor his
sovereign, so that wherever he might go he might set up those his tokens. [He
said] that he wished to set it up in that place for their benefit, for whenever any
of our ships came,248 they would know that we had been there by that cross,
and would do nothing to displease them or harm their property [property:
doublet in original MS.]. If any of their men were captured, they would be set
free immediately on that sign being shown. It was necessary to set that cross on
the summit of the highest mountain, so that on seeing it every morning, they
might adore it; and if they did that, neither thunder, lightning, nor storms would
harm them in the least. They [127]thanked him heartily and [said] that they
would do everything willingly. The captain-general also had them asked whether
they were Moros or heathen, or what was their belief. They replied that they
worshiped nothing, but that they raised their clasped hands and their face to the
sky; and that they called their god “Abba.”249 Thereat the captain was very
glad, and seeing that, the first king raised his hands to the sky, and said that he
wished that it were possible for him to make the captain see his love for him.
The interpreter asked the king why there was so little to eat there. The latter
replied that he did not live in that place except when he went hunting and to see
his brother, but that he lived in another island where all his family were. The
5
captain-general had him asked to declare whether he had any enemies, so that
he might go with his ships to destroy them and to render them obedient to
him.250 The king thanked him and said that he did indeed have two islands
hostile to him, but that it was not then the season to go there. The captain told
him that if God would again allow him to return to those districts, he would bring
so many men that he would make the king’s enemies subject to him by force.
He said that he was about to go to dinner, and that he would return afterward to
have the cross set up on the summit of the mountain. They replied that they
were satisfied, and then forming in battalion and firing the muskets, and the
captain having embraced the two kings, we took our leave.
8. After dinner we all returned clad in our doublets, and that afternoon251 went
together with the two [129]kings to the summit of the highest mountain there.
When we reached the summit, the captain-general told them that he esteemed
highly having sweated for them, for since the cross was there, it could not but
be of great use to them. On asking them which port was the best to get food,
they replied that there were three, namely, Ceylon, Zubu, and Calaghann, but
that Zubu was the largest and the one with most trade. They offered of their own
accord to give us pilots to show us the way. The captain-general thanked them,
and determined to go there, for so did his unhappy fate will. After the cross was
erected in position, each of us repeated a Pater Noster and an Ave Maria, and
adored the cross; and the kings did the same. Then we descended through their
cultivated fields, and went to the place where the balanghai was.252 The kings
had some cocoanuts brought in so that we might refresh ourselves. The captain
asked the kings for the pilots for he intended to depart the following morning,
and [said] that he would treat them as if they were the kings themselves, and
would leave one of us as hostage. The kings replied that every hour he wished
the pilots were at his command, but that night the first king changed his mind,
and in the morning when we were about to depart, sent word to the captain-
general, asking him for love of him to wait two days until he should have his rice
harvested, and other trifles attended to. He asked the captain-general to send
him some men to help him, so that it might be done sooner; and said that he
intended to act as our pilot himself. The captain sent him some men, but the
kings ate and drank so much [131]that they slept all the day. Some said to
excuse them that they were slightly sick. Our men did nothing on that day, but
they worked the next two days.
9. It lies in a latitude of nine and two-thirds degrees toward the Arctic Pole, and in
a longitude of one hundred and sixty-two degrees from the line of demarcation.
It is twenty-five from the Acquada, and is called Mazaua.
10. We remained there seven days, after which we laid our course toward the
northwest, passing among five islands, namely, Ceylon, Bohol, Canighan,
Baybai, and Gatighan.
6
Supplemental Reading: Bernad, Miguel ,“Butuan or Limasawa: The Site of the First Mass in the
Philippines: A Reexaminationof the Evidence” at
https://journals.ateneo.edu/ojs/index.php/budhi/article/view/582/579
The Board of Commissioners of the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP)
signed on 15 July 2020 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 (see below), the panel recommended Limasawa, in today’s Southern Leyte, as the
site of the said event.
The panel was convened in response to the requests from various institutions, including the
Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), even as the anticipation of the Filipino
Catholic faithful had just begun for the 500 th anniversary of the introduction of Christianity in the
Philippines (see attached brief background about the process).
Republic Act No. 10086 or Strengthening People’s Nationalism Act of 2009 mandates the
NHCP to “actively engage in the settlement or resolution of controversies or issues relative to
historical personages, places, dates and events.”
(Click the following for the full text)
Official Statement of NHCP

NHCP Board Resolution No. 2, s. 2020
The Final Report of the Mojares Panel on the Butuan-Limasawa Controversy on the
Location of the 1521 First Easter Sunday Mass in the Philippines
ATTENTION!!!
Before you go to the next module, PLEASE SEE ACTIVITY 10 on page 47
GOOD LUCK!!! 😊
REFERENCES:
Pigafetta, Antonio. “First Voyage Around the World.” Blair, Emma and Robertson, James
Alexander. The Philippine Islands. Ohio: Arthur Clarke and Company, Vol. XXXIII, 1519–1522
Bernad, Miguel ,“Butuan or Limasawa: The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A
Reexaminationof the Evidence” at
https://journals.ateneo.edu/ojs/index.php/budhi/article/view/582/579nhcp.gov
7
MODULE 11
HISTORICAL
CONTROVERSY:
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
8
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Demonstrate to the ability to use primary sources to argue in favor or against a

particular issue
2. Reexamine the conflicting evidence of the Cavite Mutiny..
9
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Many believe that the Cavite Mutiny of January 20, 1872 was the beginning of Filipino
nationalism that would eventually lead to the Philippine Revolution of 1896. This phenomenon
was an uprising of military personnel of Fort San Felipe, the Spanish arsenal in Cavite,
Philippines on January 20, 1872. It was believed that around 200 soldiers and laborers rose up
in arms against the Spanish colonizers. Participants were executed and there was a crackdown
on the beginnings of the sentiments of nationalism.
The crackdown led to the execution of the – Gomburza - or the three priests Mariano Gómez,
José Apolonio Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, three Filipino priests who were executed on 17
February 1872 at Bagumbayan (present-day Luneta) in Manila by Spanish colonial authorities
on charges of subversion arising from the 1872 Cavite mutiny. Eventually considered as
martyrs, their execution left a profound effect on many Filipinos including José Rizal, who would
dedicate his 2nd novel El Filibusterismo, done in 1891, to their memory.
The issue on the Cavite Mutiny lies on the interpretation of the real cause of the Mutiny. For the
Spanish perspective, Jose Montero y Vidal, a Spanish historian documented the event and
highlighted it as an attempt of indios or natives to overthrow the Spanish Government in the
Philippines. On the other hand, Governor-General Rafael Izquierdo made use of this to
implicate the native clergy, which was then active in the call for secularization, thus the arrest
and execution of the Gomburza.
Spanish sources would emphasize that the main reason of the revolution are the abolition of
privileges of the workers in the arsenal of Cavite. Izquierdo reported to the King of Spain that
the 'rebels' wanted to overthrow the Spanish government. The three martyrs were executed to
instill fear among the Filipinos so that they may never commit such daring act again.
John N. Schumacher in his article, “The Cavite Mutiny: An Essay On The Published Sources”
(1972) stated the following:
1. The account of Jose Montero y Vidal, a Spanish official in Manila at the time, is the
fullest account of the mutiny itself. It embodies the official interpretation of the mutiny
in Cavite as part of a general revolt directed by the three priests and their lay and
clerical colleagues in Manila and Cavite, having as its aim the assassination of the
Governor-General and a general massacre of all Spaniards. Published only in 1895,
at the height of the Filipino nationalist campaign, Montero's account is strongly
hostile to Filipino reformist aspirations, has no doubt of the guilt of those executed or
exiled, and places much of the blame for the revolt of 1872 on the alleged tolerance
of Governor- General Carlos Maria de la Torre in the period 1869-1871.”
2. “The account of Pardo de Tavera was originally written for the official report of the
census of 1903, as part of a general survey of Philippine history.:" Pardo denies that
there was any plot to overthrow Spanish rule, and sees the Cavite Mutiny simply as
an uprising due to the disaffection of the arsenal workers who had been deprived of
10
their traditional exemption from tribute and the Filipino troops who sympathized with
them. This event the conservative elements in Manila, including the friars, took as
proof that those who had expressed reformist or anti-friar sentiments under the
governorship of De la Torre were plotting to overthrow Spanish sovereignty. Hence
they persuaded the government to inflict severe and exemplary punishments on all
kinds of people without inquir- ing carefully into their guilt. Though Pardo makes no
direct mention of my friar conspiracy" 2 bring about the Cavite affair after the fashion
of Regidor, he sees the punishments meted out as the result of a false conviction on
the part of the government that all opponents of the friars were enemies of Spanish
rule, and attributes the disaffection of the Filipinos with Spain which led to the
Revolution of 1896 to this identification of Spanish interests with friar interests
beginning from 1872.”
SUPPLEMENTAL READING: Piedad-Pugay, Chris , “The Two Faces of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny”
at http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/
THE TWO FACES OF THE 1872 CAVITE MUTINY

By Chris Antonette Piedad-Pugay
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 Philippines’ 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,
Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo’s official report magnified the event and made use of it to implicate
the native clergy, which was then active in the call for secularization. The two accounts
complimented and corroborated with one other, only that the general’s report was more spiteful.
Initially, both Montero and Izquierdo scored out that the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the
workers of Cavite arsenal such as non-payment of tributes and exemption from force labor were
the main reasons of the “revolution” as how they called it, however, other causes were
enumerated by them including the Spanish Revolution which overthrew the secular throne, dirty
propagandas proliferated by unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and republican books and
pamphlets reaching the Philippines, and most importantly, the presence of the native clergy who
11
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.
12
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 sedire to maintain power in the Philippines.
Meanwhile, in the intention of installing reforms, the Central Government of Spain

welcomed an educational decree authored by Segismundo Moret promoted the fusion of
sectarian schools run by the friars into a school called Philippine Institute. The decree proposed
to improve the standard of education in the Philippines by requiring teaching positions in such
schools to be filled by competitive examinations. This improvement was warmly received by
most Filipinos in spite of the native clergy’s zest for secularization.
The friars, fearing that their influence in the Philippines would be a thing of the past, took
advantage of the incident and presented it to the Spanish Government as a vast conspiracy
organized throughout the archipelago with the object of destroying Spanish sovereignty. Tavera
sadly confirmed that the Madrid government came to believe that the scheme was true without
any attempt to investigate the real facts or extent of the alleged “revolution” reported by
Izquierdo and the friars.
Convicted educated men who participated in the mutiny were sentenced life imprisonment
while members of the native clergy headed by the GOMBURZA were tried and executed by
garrote. This episode leads to the awakening of nationalism and eventually to the outbreak of
Philippine Revolution of 1896. The French writer Edmund Plauchut’s account complimented
Tavera’s account by confirming that the event happened due to discontentment of the arsenal
workers and soldiers in Cavite fort. The Frenchman, however, dwelt more on the execution of
the three martyr priests which he actually witnessed.
Unraveling the Truth
Considering the four accounts of the 1872 Mutiny, there were some basic facts that
remained to be unvarying: First, there was dissatisfaction among the workers of the arsenal as
well as the members of the native army after their privileges were drawn back by Gen.
Izquierdo; Second, Gen. Izquierdo introduced rigid and strict policies that made the Filipinos
move and turn away from Spanish government out of disgust; Third, the Central Government
failed to conduct an investigation on what truly transpired but relied on reports of Izquierdo and
the friars and the opinion of the public; Fourth, the happy days of the friars were already
numbered in 1872 when the Central Government in Spain decided to deprive them of the power
to intervene in government affairs as well as in the direction and management of schools
prompting them to commit frantic moves to extend their stay and power; Fifth, the Filipino
13
clergy members actively participated in the secularization movement in order to allow Filipino
priests to take hold of the parishes in the country making them prey to the rage of the friars;
Sixth, Filipinos during the time were active participants, and responded to what they deemed as
injustices; and Lastly, the execution of GOMBURZA was a blunder on the part of the Spanish
government, for the action severed the ill-feelings of the Filipinos and the event inspired Filipino
patriots to call for reforms and eventually independence. There may be different versions of the
event, but one thing is certain, the 1872 Cavite Mutiny paved way for a momentous 1898.
The road to independence was rough and tough to toddle, many patriots named and
unnamed shed their bloods to attain reforms and achieve independence. 12 June 1898 may be
a glorious event for us, but we should not forget that before we came across to victory, our
forefathers suffered enough. As weenjoy our freeedom, may we be more historically aware of
our past to have a better future ahead of us. And just like what Elias said in Noli me Tangere,
may we “not forget those who fell during the night.”
ATTENTION!!!
GOOD LUCK!!! 😊
REFERENCES:
Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 (Zaide 1990, vol 7, pp
274-280)
Jose Montero y Vidal, Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 (Zaide 1990, vol 7, pp269-
273)
Rafael Izquirdo, Official Report on the Cavite Mutiny (Zaide 1990, vol 7, pp 281-286)

14
MODULE 12
HISTORICAL
CONTROVERSY:
Jose Rizal’s Retraction
15
1. The user is to study this module at his own pace within the time frame set
by the instructor. Check the OBTL syllabus for guidance.
3. References, Supplemental and Additional readings are also given for
further understanding and appreciation of the lesson.
4. Self-Check Test are also available for student’s self-assessment.
Respective instructors may ask the students to submit answers via agreed
platforms
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Demonstrate to the ability to use primary sources to argue in favor or against

a particular issue
2. Reexamine the conflicting evidence of Jose Rizal’s Retraction.
16
JOSE RIZAL’S RETRACTION
One of the issues that hounds Philippine History is whether or not Jose Rizal, in his final days,
retracted all of his previous works and statements that were contrary to the dogma and teachings
of the Roman Catholic Church. It was also a renunciation of his membership to the Masonic
Brotherhood. .
"I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and
conduct have been contrary to my character as a son of the Catholic Church.",
This was the statement in the document which made the historians believed that Rizal had
retracted. However, there have been claims that the document, as compared to the original file
which was discovered by Fr. Manuel Garcia, an archdiocesan archivist in 1935, was a forgery.
Regardless of these claims, there are several people who believe that the retraction documents
are authentic.
If and when Rizal wrote the retraction, what are the possible reasons for this?
The following four reasons are oftentimes cited by historians:
1. Rizal love his family so much that if he signs the retraction he could save them from
persecution including other Filipinos.
2. To give Josephine a legal status as his wife
3. To secure reforms from the Spanish government.
4. To help the church cut away from the disease which harmed its organization.
Below is an analysis of Rizal”s Retraction (from the website www. joserizal.ph)
17
At least four texts of Rizal’s retraction have surfaced. The fourth text appeared in El
Imparcial on the day after Rizal’s execution; it is the short formula of the retraction.
The first text was published in La Voz Española and Diaro de Manila on the very day of
Rizal’s execution, Dec. 30, 1896. The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, on
February 14, 1897, in the fortnightly magazine in La Juventud; it came from an
anonymous writer who revealed himself fourteen years later as Fr. Balaguer. The
"original" text was discovered in the archdiocesan archives on May 18, 1935, after it
disappeared for thirty-nine years from the afternoon of the day when Rizal was shot.
We know not that reproductions of the lost original had been made by a copyist who
could imitate Rizal’s handwriting. This fact is revealed by Fr. Balaguer himself who, in his
letter to his former superior Fr. Pio Pi in 1910, said that he had received "an exact copy of
the retraction written and signed by Rizal. The handwriting of this copy I don’t know nor
do I remember whose it is. . ." He proceeded: "I even suspect that it might have been
written by Rizal himself. I am sending it to you that you may . . . verify whether it might be
of Rizal himself . . . ." Fr. Pi was not able to verify it in his sworn statement.
This "exact" copy had been received by Fr. Balaguer in the evening immediately
preceding Rizal’s execution, Rizal y su Obra, and was followed by Sr. W. Retana in his
biography of Rizal, Vida y Escritos del Jose Rizal with the addition of the names of the
witnesses taken from the texts of the retraction in the Manila newspapers. Fr. Pi’s copy of
Rizal’s retraction has the same text as that of Fr. Balaguer’s "exact" copy but follows the
paragraphing of the texts of Rizal’s retraction in the Manila newspapers.
Regarding the "original" text, no one claimed to have seen it, except the publishers of La
Voz Espanola. That newspaper reported: "Still more; we have seen and read his (Rizal’s)
own hand-written retraction which he sent to our dear and venerable Archbishop…" On
the other hand, Manila pharmacist F. Stahl wrote in a letter: "besides, nobody has seen
this written declaration, in spite of the fact that quite a number of people would want to
see it. "For example, not only Rizal’s family but also the correspondents in Manila of the
newspapers in Madrid, Don Manuel Alhama of El Imparcial and Sr. Santiago Mataix of El
Heraldo, were not able to see the hand-written retraction.
Neither Fr. Pi nor His Grace the Archbishop ascertained whether Rizal himself was the
one who wrote and signed the retraction. (Ascertaining the document was necessary
because it was possible for one who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting aforesaid
holograph; and keeping a copy of the same for our archives, I myself delivered it
personally that the same morning to His Grace Archbishop… His Grace testified: At once
the undersigned entrusted this holograph to Rev. Thomas Gonzales Feijoo, secretary of
the Chancery." After that, the documents could not be seen by those who wanted to
examine it and was finally considered lost after efforts to look for it proved futile.
On May 18, 1935, the lost "original" document of Rizal’s retraction was discovered by the
archdeocean archivist Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. The discovery, instead of ending doubts
about Rizal’s retraction, has in fact encouraged it because the newly discovered text
retraction differs significantly from the text found in the Jesuits’ and the Archbishop’s
18
copies. And, the fact that the texts of the retraction which appeared in the Manila
newspapers could be shown to be the exact copies of the "original" but only imitations of
it. This means that the friars who controlled the press in Manila (for example, La Voz
Española) had the "original" while the Jesuits had only the imitations.
We now proceed to show the significant differences between the "original" and the
Manila newspapers texts of the retraction on the one hand and the text s of the copies of
Fr. Balaguer and F5r. Pio Pi on the other hand.
First, instead of the words "mi cualidad" (with "u") which appear in the original and the
newspaper texts, the Jesuits’ copies have "mi calidad" (with "u").
Second, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction omit the word "Catolica" after the first
"Iglesias" which are found in the original and the newspaper texts.
Third, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction add before the third "Iglesias" the word
"misma" which is not found in the original and the newspaper texts of the retraction.
Fourth, with regards to paragraphing which immediately strikes the eye of the critical
reader, Fr. Balaguer’s text does not begin the second paragraph until the fifth sentences
while the original and the newspaper copies start the second paragraph immediately with
the second sentences.
Fifth, whereas the texts of the retraction in the original and in the manila newspapers
have only four commas, the text of Fr. Balaguer’s copy has eleven commas.
Sixth, the most important of all, Fr. Balaguer’s copy did not have the names of the
witnesses from the texts of the newspapers in Manila.
In his notarized testimony twenty years later, Fr. Balaguer finally named the witnesses.
He said "This . . .retraction was signed together with Dr. Rizal by Señor Fresno, Chief of
the Picket, and Señor Moure, Adjutant of the Plaza." However, the proceeding quotation
only proves itself to be an addition to the original. Moreover, in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910,
Fr. Balaguer said that he had the "exact" copy of the retraction, which was signed by
Rizal, but her made no mention of the witnesses. In his accounts too, no witnesses
signed the retraction.
How did Fr. Balaguer obtain his copy of Rizal’s retraction? Fr. Balaguer never alluded to
having himself made a copy of the retraction although he claimed that the Archbishop
prepared a long formula of the retraction and Fr. Pi a short formula. In Fr. Balaguer’s
earliest account, it is not yet clear whether Fr. Balaguer was using the long formula of nor
no formula in dictating to Rizal what to write. According to Fr. Pi, in his own account of
Rizal’s conversion in 1909, Fr. Balaguer dictated from Fr. Pi’s short formula previously
approved by the Archbishop. In his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr. Balaguer admitted that he
dictated to Rizal the short formula prepared by Fr. Pi; however; he contradicts himself
when he revealed that the "exact" copy came from the Archbishop. The only copy, which
Fr. Balaguer wrote, is the one that appeared ion his earliest account of Rizal’s retraction.
19
Where did Fr. Balaguer’s "exact" copy come from? We do not need long arguments to
answer this question, because Fr. Balaguer himself has unwittingly answered this
question. He said in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910:
"…I preserved in my keeping and am sending to you the original texts of the two formulas
of retraction, which they (You) gave me; that from you and that of the Archbishop, and
the first with the changes which they (that is, you) made; and the other the exact copy of
the retraction written and signed by Rizal. The handwriting of this copy I don’t know nor
do I remember whose it is, and I even suspect that it might have been written by Rizal
himself."
In his own word quoted above, Fr. Balaguer said that he received two original texts of the
retraction. The first, which came from Fr. Pi, contained "the changes which You (Fr. Pi)
made"; the other, which is "that of the Archbishop" was "the exact copy of the retraction
written and signed by Rizal" (underscoring supplied). Fr. Balaguer said that the "exact
copy" was "written and signed by Rizal" but he did not say "written and signed by Rizal
and himself" (the absence of the reflexive pronoun "himself" could mean that another
person-the copyist-did not). He only "suspected" that "Rizal himself" much as Fr.
Balaguer did "not know nor ... remember" whose handwriting it was.
Thus, according to Fr. Balaguer, the "exact copy" came from the Archbishop! He called it
"exact" because, not having seen the original himself, he was made to believe that it was
the one that faithfully reproduced the original in comparison to that of Fr. Pi in which
"changes" (that is, where deviated from the "exact" copy) had been made. Actually, the
difference between that of the Archbishop (the "exact" copy) and that of Fr. Pi (with
"changes") is that the latter was "shorter" be cause it omitted certain phrases found in the
former so that, as Fr. Pi had fervently hoped, Rizal would sign it.
According to Fr. Pi, Rizal rejected the long formula so that Fr. Balaguer had to dictate
from the short formula of Fr. Pi. Allegedly, Rizal wrote down what was dictated to him but
he insisted on adding the phrases "in which I was born and educated" and "[Masonary]"
as the enemy that is of the Church" – the first of which Rizal would have regarded as
unnecessary and the second as downright contrary to his spirit. However, what actually
would have happened, if we are to believe the fictitious account, was that Rizal’s addition
of the phrases was the retoration of the phrases found in the original which had been
omitted in Fr. Pi’s short formula.
The "exact" copy was shown to the military men guarding in Fort Santiago to convince
them that Rizal had retracted. Someone read it aloud in the hearing of Capt. Dominguez,
who claimed in his "Notes’ that Rizal read aloud his retraction. However, his copy of the
retraction proved him wrong because its text (with "u") and omits the word "Catolica" as
in Fr. Balaguer’s copy but which are not the case in the original. Capt. Dominguez never
claimed to have seen the retraction: he only "heard".
The truth is that, almost two years before his execution, Rizal had written a retraction in
Dapitan. Very early in 1895, Josephine Bracken came to Dapitan with her adopted father
20
who wanted to be cured of his blindness by Dr. Rizal; their guide was Manuela Orlac,
who was agent and a mistress of a friar. Rizal fell in love with Josephine and wanted to
marry her canonically but he was required to sign a profession of faith and to write
retraction, which had to be approved by the Bishop of Cebu. "Spanish law had
established civil marriage in the Philippines," Prof. Craig wrote, but the local government
had not provided any way for people to avail themselves of the right..."
In order to marry Josephine, Rizal wrote with the help of a priest a form of retraction to be
approved by the Bishop of Cebu. This incident was revealed by Fr. Antonio Obach to his
friend Prof. Austin Craig who wrote down in 1912 what the priest had told him; "The
document (the retraction), inclosed with the priest’s letter, was ready for the mail when
Rizal came hurrying I to reclaim it." Rizal realized (perhaps, rather late) that he had
written and given to a priest what the friars had been trying by all means to get from him.
Neither the Archbishop nor Fr. Pi saw the original document of retraction. What they saw
a copy done by one who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting while the original (almost eaten
by termites) was kept by some friars. Both the Archbishop and Fr. Pi acted innocently
because they did not distinguish between the genuine and the imitation of Rizal’s
handwriting.
ONLINE VIDEO LINK: XiaoChua, “Xiao Time: Retraction ni Jose Rizal, totoo kaya? “at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYzG6tbcYxk
ATTENTION!!!
GOOD LUCK!!! 😊
REFERENCES:
Ricardo P. Garcia, The Great Debate: The Rizal Retraction (pp 9-19;31-43)
Jesus Ma. Cavanna , Rizal’s Unfading Glory, (pp. 7-36)
21
MODULE 13
HISTORICAL
CONTROVERSY:
Cry of Balintawak or Cry of
Pugadlawin?
22
4. Self-Check Test are also available for student’s self-assessment. Respective instructors
may ask the students to submit answers via agreed platforms
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Demonstrate to the ability to use primary sources to argue in favor or

against a particular issue
2. Reexamine the conflicting evidence of the Cry of Balintawak vs
Pugadlawin..
23
On the Unang Sigaw ng Himagsikan (The First Cry of the Revolution): Was it Balintawak
or Pugadlawin or in three other places?
The “Bonifacio Mural”, painted in 1964 by Carlos “Botong” V. Francisco (Philippine National
Artist for Visual Arts since 1973). The work depicts the so-called First Cry of the Philippine
Revolution against Spain in 1896, led by Andres Bonifacio. The question, however, concerns
the exact location of the event: was it at Balintawak (in present day Caloocan City) or
Pugadlawin (in present day Quezon City), or in three other places..
24
Preliminary Events
During the closing days of August,1896, katipuneros (or members of the secret society known
as Katipunan, from its acronym K.K.K.) led by Andres Bonifacio rose up in revolt. However, the
actual site is still in contention. From 1908 until 1963, the official stance of the Philippines was
that it occurred on August 26 in Balintawak, a suburb in the present-day Caloocan City. This
was popularized by the historian Gregorio F. Zaide in his textbook that initially appeared in
1954.
In 1956, another textbook, History of the Filipino People by Teodoro A. Agoncillo that came
out in 1956 debunked both the place and the date. The author got hold of the memoirs of Dr.
Pio Valenzuela, a close associate of Andres Bonifacio who, declared in 1948 that it happened
in Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896. Here was the Agoncillo account of the First Cry:
The news of the discovery of the Katipunan spread throughout Manila and the suburbs.
Bonifacio, informed of the discovery, secretly instructed his runners to summon all the
leaders of the society to a general assembly to be held on August 24. They were to meet at
Balintawak to discuss the steps to be taken to meet the crisis. That same night of August
19, Bonifacio, accompanied by his brother Procopio, Emilio Jacinto, Teodoro Plata, and
Aguedo del Rosario, slipped through the cordon of Spanish sentries and reached
Balintawak before midnight. Pio Valenzuela followed them the next day. On the 21st,
Bonifacio changed the Katipunan code because the Spanish authorities had already
deciphered it. In the afternoon of the same day, the rebels, numbering about 500, left
Balintawak for Kangkong, where Apolonio Samson, a Katipunero, gave them food and
shelter. In the afternoon of August 22, they proceeded to Pugadlawin. The following day, in
the yard of Juan A. Ramos, the son of Melchora Aquino who was later called the "Mother of
the Katipunan", Bonifacio asked his men whether they were prepared to fight to the bitter
end. Despite the objection of his brother-in-law, Teodoro Plata, all assembled agreed to fight
to the last. "That being the case, " Bonifacio said, "bring out your cedulas and tear
them to pieces to symbolize our determination to take up arms!" The men obediently
tore up their cedulas, shouting "Long live the Philippines!" This event marked the so-
called "Cry of Balintawak," which actually happened in Pugadlawin.
In the midst of this dramatic scene, some Katipuneros who had just arrived from Manila and
Kalookan shouted "Dong Andres! The civil guards are almost behind us, and will reconnoiter
the mountains." Bonifacio at once ordered his men to get ready for the expected attack of
the Spaniards. Since they had inferior arms the rebels decided, instead, to retreat. Under
cover of darkness, the rebels marched towards Pasong Tamo, and the next day, August 24,
they arrived at the yard of Melchora Aquino, known as Tandang Sora. It was decided that all
the rebels in the surrounding towns be notified of the general attack on Manila on the night
of August 29, 1896.
In 1963 the Philippine government declared a shift to August 23 in Pugad Lawin as the site
and date of the First Cry of the Philiippine Revolution.
The controversy lingered. “Despite these becoming textbook facts,” contends the popular
historian Ambeth R. Ocampo in 1995, “the Balintawak tradition continues to thrive. Nick Joaquin
25
still writes in support of Balintawak, and I myself did not think about this very much until I was
invited to deliver a paper for the first Annual Bonifacio Lectures in 1989. Reviewing sources on
the revolution, I found out that the Balintawak tradition was more popular than that of the
Pugadlawin.”
“In 1989, after a series of articles on the controversy over Balintawak and
Pugadlawin,” adds Ocampo, “ I received a batch of photocopied manuscripts with an invitation
to
peruse the originals of what appeared to be the papers of Bonifacio. Knowing that these were
transcribed and printed by Agoncillo in two separate books, I did not bother to decipher
Bonifacio’s fine script. Months later, on a lazy afternoon, I decided to compare the Agoncillo
transcriptions with the Bonifacio
originals. I was surprised to find discrepancies in the text. While Agoncillo reproduced the
“orihinal sa Tagalog,” it proved to be slightly different.”
A recent work on the subject that appeared in 1998 and published by Ateneo de Manila Pressr
was done by Soledad Borromeo-Buehler, entitled Cry of Balintawak: A Contrived Controversy.
Through a rigorous analysis of eyewitness and contemporary sources, the book concludes that
the “Cry of Pugad Lawin” is an invented story. It reconstructs the events in Balintawak when
Andres Bonifacio’s Katipuneros assembled in Pook Kangkong from 22 to 26 August 1896,
resolves the questions of where and when cedulas were torn, and when and where the initial
engagement between the Katipuneros and the Spanish troops took place.
Adding to the complexity was the actual date of the First Cry. As mentioned, the previously
recognized date of August 26, being the Cry of Balintawak, was popularized by Gregorio Zaide ,
in 1954.
An officer of the Spanish guardia civil, Lt. Olegario Diaz, stated that the Cry took place in
Balintawak on August 25, 1896.
Teodoro M. Kalaw in his classic work, The Filipino Revolution (prepared in 1925) wrote that the
event took place during the last week of August 1896 at Kangkong, Balintawak.
Santiago Alvarez, a Katipunero and son of Mariano Alvarez, the leader of
the Magdiwang faction in Cavite, stated in 1927 that the Cry took place in Bahay Toro (now in
Quezon City) on August 24, 1896.
Accounts by historians Milagros Guerrero, Emmanuel Encarnacion and Ramon Villegas claim
the event to have taken place in Tandang Sora's barn in Gulod, Barangay Banlat, Quezon City.
Other historians, on the other hand, stipulated the meaning of “First Cry.” Originally the term
"cry", says Borromeo-Buehler, it referred to the first clash between the Katipuneros and the
Guardia-Civil (Civil Guards); but “cry” could also refer to the tearing up of cédulas personales)
(community tax certificates) in defiance of their allegiance to Spain. This was literally
accompanied by patriotic shouts.
Still others reflected on the toponyms or place-names in question. Some of the apparent
confusion is in part due to the double meanings of the terms "Balintawak" and "Caloocan" at the
26
turn of the century. Balintawak referred both to a specific place in modern Caloocan City and a
wider area which included parts of modern Quezon City. Similarly, Caloocan referred to modern
Caloocan City and also a wider area which included modern Quezon City and part of modern
Pasig. Pugad Lawin, Pasong Tamo, Kangkong and other specific places were all in "greater
Balintawak", which was in turn part of "greater Caloocan”
SUPPLEMENTAL READING: Katipunan Documents and Studies. “Notes on the "Cry" of August
1896” at https://sites.google.com/site/katipunandocumentsandstudies/studies/notes-on-the-cry-
of-august-1896
ATTENTION!!!
GOOD LUCK!!! 😊
REFERENCES:
Pio Valenzuela, Cry of Balintawak (Zaide 1990, vol 8, pp 301-302)
Santiago Alvarez, Cry of Bahay Toro (Zaide 1990, vol 8, pp 303-304)
Gregoria de Jesus, Version of the First Cry (Zaide 1990, vol 8, pp 305-306)
Guillermo Masangkay, Cry of Balintawak (Zaide 1990, vol 8, pp 307-309)
Katipunan Documents and Studies. “Notes on the "Cry" of August 1896” at
https://sites.google.com/site/katipunandocumentsandstudies/studies/notes-on-the-cry-of-august-
1896
27
MODULE 14
Malolos Constitution, 1935

Constitution, and 1973
Constitution
28
1. The user is to study this module at his own pace within the time
frame set by the instructor. Check the OBTL syllabus for guidance.
3. References, Supplemental and Additional readings are also given
for further understanding and appreciation of the lesson.
Respective instructors may ask the students to submit answers via
agreed platforms
MODULE 14 OUTLINE
I. Nature and Concept of the Constitution

a. Meaning
b. Nature and Purpose
II. Constitution of the Philippines

a. Malolos Constitution
b. 1935 Constitution
c. 1973 Constitution
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Comprehend the definition, nature, and concept of the constitution

2. Appreciate the importance of the constitution
3. Distinguish between Malolos, 1935 and 1973 constitution
1
NATURE AND CONCEPT OF THE CONSTITUTION
MEANING:
In its broad sense, it refers to that body of rules and principles in accordance with which the
powers of sovereignty are regularly exercised.
It is also defined as written instrument by which the fundamental powers of the government are
established, limited and defined and by which these powers are distributed among the several
departments or branches for their safe and useful exercise for the benefit of the people. (2011,
Hector S. De Leon)
Micro meaning – a document having a special legal status which sets out the framework and
principal functions of the organs of government within the state and declare the principles or
rules by which those organs must operate.
Macro meaning – the whole system of government of a country, the collections of rules which
establish and regulate the government. (https://www.oxbridgenates/law-constitutional-law) It is
the fundamental law of the state which contains the principles on which government is founded,
and regulates the division and exercise of sovereign powers.
The Constitution is a social contract because people have surrendered their sovereign powers
to the state for the common good. Likewise, constitution is both a conferment of powers and a
limitation on the exercise of such powers, like the provisions of the Bill of Rights. (Judge Ed
Vincent S. Albano)
Kinds of Constitution:
1.As to their Origin and History
a. Conventional or enacted – one which is enacted by a constitutional assembly or granted by a
monarch to his subjects.
b. Cumulative or evolved – one which is a product of growth or a lonf period of development
originating in customs, traditions, or judicial decisions rather than from a deliberate and formal
enactment.
2. As to their Form
a. Written – one which has been given defenite written form at a particular time, usually by a
special constituted authority.
b. Unwritten – one which is entirely the product of political evolution, consisting largely of a
mass of customs, usages, and judicial decisions together with a smaller body of tatutory
enacments of a fundamental character, usually bearing different dates.
3. As to the manner of Amending
2
a. Rigid or inelastic – one regarded as a document of special sanctity which cannot be amended
or altered except by some special machinery more cumbrous than the ordinary legislative
process.
b. Flexible or elastic – one which possesses no higher legal authority than ordinary laws and
which may be altered in the same way as other laws.
NATURE AND PURPOSE:
1. Serves as the supreme or fundamental law of the land – it is the charter creating the
government. It is binding on all individual citizens and all organs of the government. It is
the law to which all other laws must conform.
2. Establishes basic framework and underlying principles of government – the purpose of a
constitution is to prescribe the permanent framework of the system of government and to
assign to the different departments their respective powers and duties and to establish
certain basic principles on which the government is founded. It is primarily designed to
preserve and protect the rights of individuals against arbitrary actions of those in
authority. Likewise, it limits the actions of every individual citizen.
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

A. MALOLOS CONSTITUTION
The only constitution ever framed by Filipinos is what is known as the Malolos Constitution,
taking its name from the then capital of the Filipino Revolutionary government. This constitution,
to be understood, should be viewed in relation to its background.
The Political Constitution of 1899 (Spanish: Constitución Política de 1899), informally known
as the Malolos Constitution, was the basic law of the First Philippine Republic. ... After a
lengthy debate in the latter part of 1898, it was promulgated on 21 January 1899. It established
the First Philippine Republic.
The Malolos Constitution was the first important state document that the Filipino people,
speaking through their representatives, had ever produced. Rebublican in orientation, the
Congress worked hard to have a constitution for the people, which was democratic in its
aspects. It is unique for three reasons: 1) The Assembly or the legislative branch was more
powerful than the executive or the judicial branch; 2) It provided that when the Assembly was
not in session, a Permanent Commission, composed of members of the Assembly, would sit as
a legislatuve body; and lastly 3) The Constitution established a unicameral legislature.
This Constitution has the following features: 1) It declared that sovereignty resides exclusively in
the people (Title I; Article 3); 2) It separated the powers of the Executive, Legislative and
Judicial branches of the government (Title II); 3) It separated the Church and the State (Title III);
4) It enumerated basic civil rights (Title IV with all of its Articles); 5) It called for the creation of
an Assembly of Representatives to act as the legislative body (Title V); and 6) It called for a
Presidential form of government (Title VI & Title VIII).
3
PREAMBLE
We, the Representatives of the Filipino people, lawfully convened, in order to establish
justice, provide for common defense, promote the general welfare, and insure the
benefits of liberty, imploring the aid of the Sovereign Legislator of the Universe for the
attainment of these ends, have voted, decreed, and sanctioned the following
provisions of the Constitution.
Provisions of the Malolos Constitution

TITLE I - THE REPUBLIC
TITLE II - THE GOVERNMENT
TITLE III – RELIGION
TITLE IV - THE FILIPINOS AND THEIR NATIONAL AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
TITLE V - THE LEGISLATIVE POWER
TITLE VI - THE PERMANENT COMMISSION
TITLE VII - THE EXECUTIVE POWER
TITLE VIII - THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
TITLE IX - THE SECRETARIES OF GOVERNMENT
TITLE X - THE JUDICIAL POWER
TITLE XI - PROVINCIAL AND POPULAR ASSEMBLIES
TITLE XII - ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATE
TITLE XIII - AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION
TITLE XIV - CONSTITUTIONAL OBSERVANCE, OATH, AND LANGUAGE
TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
ADDITIONAL ARTICLE
(https://www.lawphil.net/consti/consmalo.html)
B. 1935 CONSTITUTION
This constitution was approved by President Franklin Roosevelt of the Tydings-McDuffie law on
March 24, 1934 and it was ratified by the Filipino electorate on May 14, 1935.
The 1935 Constitution was adopted by the Commonwealth Government of the Philippines from
1935 to 1946. This Constitution did not contain original ideas of government. While the
dominating influence was the Constitution of the United States, other sources were also
consulted by the framers, particularly the 1898 Malolos Constitution and the three organic laws
that were enforced in the Philippines before the passage of the Tydings-McDuffie law, namely;
the Instruction of President William McKinley to the Second Commission on April 7, 1900; the
Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902; and the Jones Law of August 26, 1916 which, of the three
mentioned, was the nearest approach to a written constitution.
The constitution as approved by the 1935 Constitutional Convention was intended both for the
Commonwealth and the Republic. The government established by this constitution shall be
known as the Commonwealth of the Philippines. Upon the final and complete withdrawal of the
sovereignty of the United States and the Proclamation of the Philippine Independence, the
Commonwealth of the Philippines shall henceforth be known as the Republic of the Philippines.
In like manner, this Constitution was also used by the Third Republic of the Philippines after the
July 4, 1946 declaration of the Philippine Independence from the United States of America until
4
1972 after President Ferdinand E. Marcos declared Martial law in September 21, 1972 by virtue
of Proclamation Order No. 1081 and called for an Amendment of the 1935 Constitution.
This Constitution was Amended three times. These are among the Amendments:
1. Establishing a bicameral legislature.
2. Allowing the re-eligibility of the President and the Vice President for a second four-
year term of office.
3. Creating for a separate Commission on Elections.
4. The inclusion of the Parity Amendment which gave way to American citizens equal
rights with the Filipinos in the exploitation of our natural resources and the operation
of the public utilities; and
5. Allowing the women, the right to suffrage as per Plebiscite held on April 30, 1937.
(2011, Hector S. De Leon)
The 1935 Constitution has the following features:

1. Aiming to meet the approval of the American government;
2. Ensuring that United States of America would keep its promise to grant the Philippine
independence (Article XVII);
3. Providing a Unicameral National Assembly then later on it was amended into a
Bicameral legislature (Article VI);
4. Provides the Charter of Liberties (Article III);
5. Provides the Presidential form of government (Article VII);
6. Guaranteeing the separation of powers of the three branches of government
(Articles’VI, VII, & VIII)
Preamble
The Filipino people, imploring the aid of Divine Providence, in order to establish a
government that shall embody their ideals, conserve and develop the patrimony of
the nation, promote the general welfare, and secure to themselves and their
posterity the blessings of independence under a regime of justice, liberty, and
democracy, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.
Provisions of the 1935 Constitution

Article I – National Territory
Article II – Declaration of Principles
Article III – Bill of Rights
Article IV – Citizenship
Article V – Suffrage
Article VI – Legislative Department
Article VII – Executive Department
Article VIII – Judicial Department
Article IX – Impeachment
Article X – Commission on Election
Article XI – General Auditing Office
Article XII – Civil Service
5
Article XIII – Conservation and Utilization of Natural Resources
Article XIV – General Provisions
Article XV – Amendments
Article XVI – Transitory Provisions
Article XVII – Special Provisions Effective Upon the Proclamation of the Independence of the
Philippines
Article XVIII – The Commonwealth and the Republic
C. 1973 CONSTITUTION
Accordingly, the experience of more than three decades as a sovereign nation had revealed
flaws and inadequacies in the 1935 Constitution. Taking into account the “felt necessities of the
times”, particularly the new and grave problems arising from an ever-increasing population,
urgently pressing for solution to call for an Amendment of the 1935 Constitution. It was in March
16, 1967, when the Congress in joint session passed a Resolution No. 2 (as amended by
Resolution No. 4, passed on June 17, 1969), authorizing the holding of a Constitutional
Convention in 1971.
The Constitutional Convention started its work of rewriting the Constitution on June 1, 1971. The
1935 Constitution was made the basis for the drafting of Amendments to the new constitution.
The proposed Constitution was signed on November 30, 1972. But, earlier on September 21,
1972, The President of the Philippines then Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Proclamation Order no.
1081 placing the entire country under martial law.
On December 31, 1972 the government issued Presidential Decree No. 80 creating a Citizens
Assembly in each Barrio in municipalities and in each district in chartered cities throughout the
country. Subsequently, Presidential Decree No. 86-A issued on January 5, 1973 defining the
role of the barangays (formerly Citizens’ Assembly). Under the same Decree, the barangays
were to conduct a referendum on national issues between January 10 and 15. Pursuant to PD
No. 86-A, the following questions were asked:
1. Do you approve the New Constitution? and
2. Do you still want a plebiscite to be called to ratify the New Constitution?
All the members of the Barangays (Citizens’ Assembly) voted for its adoption with a vote of
14,976,561, as against 743,869 who voted for its rejection. On the question as to whether or not
the people would still like a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new constitution, 14,298,814
answered that there was no need for a plebiscite.
Thus, on the basis of the above results purportedly showing that more than 95% of the
members of the Barangays were in favor of the New Constitution and upon the allegedly “strong
recommendation” of the Katipunan ng mga Barangay, the President of the Philippines then
Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Proclamation Order No. 1102 on January 17, 1973, certified and
proclaimed that the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention had been
ratified by the Filipino people and had thereby come into effect.
President Marcos, what he called “Constituional Authoritarianism”, extended his presidency that
lasted twenty years or two decades – the longest in Philippine history. With Martial rule, the
1971 Constitutional Convention ended with the promulgation of the 1973 Constituion that
provided for a transitory form of government. Under it, the term of office of all officials, starting
6
with the president, was extended. To effectively silence the opposition, the Congress was
padlocked, media was shut down, and Marcos’s critics and rivals were arrested and
detained.Marcos promise a NEW SOCIETY that will solved insurgency, criminality, and poverty
This Constitution had been amended on four occasions. Among the important amendments and
features are:
1. Making the then incumbent President, the regular President and regular Prime Minister;
2. Granting concurrent law-making powers to the President which the latter exercised even
after the lifting of martial law in 1981;
3. Establishing a parliamentary form of government then, it was modified into a Semi-
Parliamentary form of government;
4. Permitting natural born citizens who have lost their citizenship to be transferees of
private land, for use by them as residence;
5. Allowing the grant of lands of the public domain to qualified citizens; and
6. Providing for urban land reform and social housing program. (2011, Hector S. De Leon)
PREAMBLE
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Divine Providence, in order to establish
a government that shall embody our ideals, promote the general welfare, conserve and
develop the patrimony of our Nation, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings
of democracy under a regime of justice, peace, liberty, and equality, do ordain and
promulgate this Constitution.

Article II – Declaration of Principles and State Policies
Article III – Citizens
Article IV - Bill of Rights
Article V – Duties and Obligations of Citizens
Article VI – Suffrage
Article VII – The President and the Vice President
Article VIII – National Assembly
Article IX – The Prime Minister and the Cabinet
Article X – Judiciary
Article XI – Local Government
Article XII – The Constitutional Commissions
Article XIII – Accountability of Public Officers
Article XIV – The National Economy and Patrimony of the Nation
Article XV – General Provisions
Article XVI - Amendments
Article XVII – Transitory Provisions
7
ATTENTION!!!
Before you go to the next module, PLEASE ANSWER the ACTIVITY 14 on page 48
GOOD LUCK!!! 😊
REFERENCES:
1. https://www.lawphil.net/consti/consmalo.html
2. https://www.oxbridgenates/law-constitutional-law
3. Agoncillo, Teodoro A. and Mangahas, Fe B. PHILIPPINE HISTORY: Expanded and Updated
Edition. 2010
4. Albano, Ed Vincent S. POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER. 1998
5. De Leon, Hector S. TEXTBOOK ON THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION. 2011 Edition
6. Rodee, Carlton C. et.al. INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL SCIENCE. Fourth Edition

7. Zulueta, Francisco M. FOUNDATION AND DYNAMICS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE. 1996
8
MODULE 15
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
9
LEARNING OBJECTIVES:
1. Compare the previous constitution to the present constitution which is the 1987 constitution.
2. Appreciate the need of having a constitution.
3. Analyze every provisions of the present constitution.
10
1987 CONSTITUTION
Pursuant to Proclamation Order No. 3, the then President Corazon C. Aquino promulgated on
April 23, 1986 Proclamation Order No. 9 , the “Law Governing the Constitutional Commission of
1986”, to organize the Constitutional Commission, to provide for the details of its operations and
establish the procedure for the ratification or rejection of the proposed new Constitution.
The Constitutional Commission, which marked the fourth exercise in the writing of a basic
Charter in the Philippine history since the Malolos Constitution at the turn of the Century,
convened on June 2, 1986. With the Malolos Constitution of 1898, the 1935 Constitution and the
1973 Constitution as “working drafts”, the Commission in addition to committee discussions,
public hearings, and plenary sessions, conducted public consultations in different parts of the
Country.
The proposed new Constitution was approved by the Commission on October 12, 1986. The
final session was held on October 15, 1986 and it was ratified by the people in a plebiscite
called for on February 2, 1987. With its ratification the FIFTH Republic was born. It superseded
the provisional Constitution which had abrogated the 1973 Charter.
The 1987 Constitution preserved many of the 1935 Constitution. Amonf its important and new
provisions include the following: 1) a single fixed term of six years for the President; 2) the
President’s power to appoint cabinet members, ambassadors and consuls, the Armed Forces
(from the rank of colonel and up)subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments in
Congress; 3) the power of the President to declare martial law that needs the approval of
Congress and that the President reports on his/her action within fourty-eight (48) hours; 4) the
Senator’s term is limited to two (2) terms, the Representative to three (3) terms and; 5)
members of the judiciary, although to be appointed by the President, should be recommended
by a Judicial and Bar Council.
Moreover, the 1987 Constitution provides for people empowerment; the recall of elected
officials; the appointment of sectoral representatives from labor, peasants, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, the disabled; and the recognition of the role of
the people’s organizations. Also, the declaration of a nuclear-free Philippines would prohibit the
storing of nuclear arms in the country.
This Constitution has the following features/principles:

1. Recognition of the aid of Almighty God (Preamble);
2. Sovereignty of the people (Article II; Sec. 1);
3. Renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy (Article II; Sec. 2);
4. Supremacy of the civilian authority over the military (Article II; Sec. 3);
5. Separation of the Church and the state (Article II; Sec. 6);
6. Recognition of the importance of the family as a basic social institution and of the
vital role of youth in the nation building (Article II; Sec. 12 & Article XV);
7. Guarantee Human Rights (Article III);
8. Government through suffrage (Article V);
9. Separation of powers (Article VI, VII & VIII);
10. Independence of the Judiciary (Article VIII);
11. Guarantee of local autonomy (Article X);
12. High sense of Public service morality and accountability of public officers (Article XI)
11
13. Nationalization of natural resources and certain private enterprises affected with
public interest (Article XII)
14. Non-suability of the state ( Article XVI);
15. Rule of the majority (Article II); and
16. Government of laws and not of men (Article III) (2011, Hector S. De Leon)
PREAMBLE
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just
and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and
aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to
ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of
law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and
promulgate this Constitution.

Article II – Declaration of Principles and State Policies
Article III – Bill of Rights
Article IV - Citizenship
Article V – Suffrage
Article VI – Legislative Department
Article VII – Executive Department
Article VIII – Judicial Department
Article IX – Constitutional Commissions
Article X – Local Government
Article XI – Accountability of Public Officers
Article XII – National Economy and Patrimony
Article XIII – Social Justice and Human Rights
Article XIV – Education, Science & Technology, Culture, Arts and Sports
Article XV – The Family
Article XVI – General Provisions
Article XVII – Amendments/Revisions
Article XVIII – Transitory Provisions
12
ATTENTION!!!
Before you go to the next module, PLEASE ANSWER the ACTIVITY 15 Page 49
GOOD LUCK!!! 😊
REFERENCES:
1. Agoncillo, Teodoro A. and Mangahas, Fe B. PHILIPPINE HISTORY: Expanded and Updated

Edition. 2010
2. De Leon, Hector S. TEXTBOOK ON THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION. 2011 Edition
3. Nolledo, Jose N. STUDENT’S MANUAL ON THE NEW CONSTITUTION. 1996 Revised

Edition
13
MODULE 16
AGRARIAN REFORM
14
1.Analyze the context, content and perspective of agrarian reform.
2.Differentiate PD 27 to RA 6657.
3. Determine the contribution of agrarian reform in understanding the Philippine economy.
4. Develop critical and analytical skills in understanding the laws on agrarian reform.
5. Appreciate the importance of agrarian reform to the lives of the Filipinos.
15
AGRARIAN REFORM IN THE PHILIPPINES
Meaning
The term “agrarian” came from Classical Latin agrarius which is from the term ager, meaning a
field or acre (yourdictionary.com). This being the case therefore, when we say agrarian it refers
to anything that has something to do with agricultural production or agricultural economy and
when we say agrarian reform, this refers to restructuring of agricultural production. Another
term related to this is ‘land reform” which refers to the redistribution of land to benefit the
landless particularly the tenants. Land Reform is the physical redistribution of land such as the
program under Presidential Decree No. 27. Agrarian reform means the redistribution of lands
including the totality of factors and support services designed to lift the economic status of the
beneficiaries. Thus, agrarian reform is broader than land reform.
• Agrarian Reform means the redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or fruits
produced, to farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, irrespective of tenurial
arrangement, to include the totality of factors and support services designed to lift the
economic status of the beneficiaries and all other arrangement alternative to the
physical redistribution of lands, such as production or profit-sharing, labor
administration, and the distribution of stock, which will allow beneficiaries to receive a
just share of the fruits of the lands they work. [Section 3(a) of RA 6657]
HISTORICAL ROOTS OF AGRARIAN PROBLEMS IN THE PHILIPPINES

Spanish Colonial Period (1521-1898)
Prior to the coming of the Spaniards, land ownership was communal, the community or
barangay own the lands. Agrarian problems in the Philippines can be traced back during the
Spanish Period. When the Spaniards colonized the Philippines, various economic controls
were implemented thus affecting the agrarian production of the native Filipinos and their
economic life.
The Spanish colonial government started the idea of land holding and took control of large tracts
of land owned for centuries by the native Filipinos. These native Philippine people came to live
on lands that were owned by the Spanish or people with close ties to the Spanish and they
became tenants or paid laborers.
The native Filipino who was not used to having land ownership or on having land titles have
been devoid of his land tilled because of the initial policy of Spain declaring all lands in the
Philippines as owned by the Spanish government being it a colony, thus this gave right to the
Spanish government to control all lands. Because of this the Royal crown have now the right to
give lands to those who defended the crown against local insurrections. This gave birth to the
“Encomienda System”. The Encomiendas are tracts of land that were given by the Spanish
government through the governor general to persons or group of people as rewards, in effect
16
the encomendero as he was called gain control of the Encomienda hence this gave them the
right to collect tributes from the tenants.
Comparison between PD 27 and RA 6657
PD 27 RA 6657
1. Presidential Decree No. 27 – Republic Act No. 6657 – An Act instituting a

Tenant’s Emancipation Decree Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program to
(October 21, 1972) Promote Social Justice and Industrialization,
providing the Mechanism for its Implementation
2. Letter Instruction No. 474- and other purposes. (June 15, 1988)
PLACING UNDER OLT
TENANTED RICE/CORN LANDS 1. The power of
SEVEN HECTARES OR LESS IN President Aquino to promulgate Proc.
AREA UNDER CERTAIN No. 131 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 was
CONDITION (OCTOBER 21, authorized under Section 6 of the
1976) Transitory Provision of the 1987
Constitution.
1. Presidential Decree No. 27 was
assumed to be constitutional and
upheld as part and parcel of the law of COVERAGE OF CARL 1988
the land Scope – All PUBLIC and PRIVATE
Agricultural Lands regardless of tenurial
The REQUISITES FOR arrangement and commodity produced,
COVERAGE under OPERATION including lands of the public domain suitable
LAND TRANSFER (OLT) program for agriculture. (1st par. Sec. 4, RA 6657)
are the following:
Specific lands covered by CARP.
1. The land must be
DEVOTED to RICE or a. All alienable and disposable lands of
CORN crops; and the public domain devoted to or
2. There must be a system of suitable for agriculture
SHARE CROP or LEASE b. All lands of the public domain in
TENANCY obtaining excess of the specific limits as
therein. determined by Congress in the
preceding paragraph;
RULES ON COVERAGE OF LANDS c. All other lands owned by the
UNDER PD 27. Government devoted to or suitable
Rule 1 for agriculture; and
Landed estates or landholdings larger d. All private lands devoted to or
than 24 hectare - covered by OLT suitable for agriculture regardless of
and there is no retention to the the agricultural products raised or
landowner. that can be raised thereon.
Rule 2 PRIORITIES – The DAR, in coordination

Landholding of 24 hectares or less (but with the PARC shall plan and program the
above 7 hectares covered by OLT but acquisition and distribution of all agricultural
17
landowner is entitled to retention lands through a period of ten (10) years from
the effectively of this Act. Land shall be
Rule 3 acquired and distributed as follows:
Landholding of seven (7) hectares or
less is EXEMPTED from OLT except Phase One:
if LOI 474 is applicable under the 1.Rice and corn land under PD 27;
following circumstances: 2. Idle and abandoned lands
Landowner owns other 3. Private lands voluntarily offered
agricultural land of more than by the owners for agrarian
seven hectares in aggregate area, reform;
or he owns COMMERCIAL, 4. Foreclosed land by government
INDUSTRIAL, RESIDENTIAL or financial institutions;
URBAN LAND where he derive an 5. Land acquired by the Presidential
adequate income, Adequate Commission on Good
income is at least FIVE Government; and
THOUSAND (P5000.00) PESOS 6. All other lands owned by the
per annum. (Gross Income). Government devoted to or
suitable for agriculture
These shall be acquired and
Lands not covered by Presidential distributed immediately upon
Decree No. 27. effectivity of the Act, with the
implementation to be completed
1. Private agricultural lands which are within a period of not more than
NOT PRIMARILY DEVOTED TO four (4) years (Sec. 7, par. 2, RA
RICE OR CORN, or 6657)
2. There is NO SYSTEM OF SHARE
CROP OR LEASE TENANCY Phase Two:
obtaining in the landholding. 1. All Disposable and alienable
public agricultural lands;
*The REQUISITES for the exercise by 2. All Arable public agricultural
the landowner of his RIGHT OF lands under agro-forest, pasture
RETENTION are the following: and agricultural leases already
cultivated and planted for crops
1. The land must be DEVOTED TO in accordance with Sec. 6, Art.
RICE OR CORN CROPS; XIII of the Constitution;
3. All public agricultural lands
2. There must be a system of share- which are opened for new
crop or lease tenancy obtaining development and resettlement;
there. and
3. The size of the landholding MUST 4. All private agricultural lands in
NOT EXCEED TWENTY FOUR excess of fifty (50) hectares
(24) hectares provided that at least These shall be distributed
seven (7) hectares thereof are immediately upon the effectivity of
covered lands and more than the Act, with the implementation to
seven (7) hectares of it consist of be completed within a period of not
“other agricultural lands.” more than four (4) years.
Phase Three: All private AGRICULTURAL

Right of Retention by Landowners under LANDS commencing with LARGE
Presidential Decree No. 27. Supplemental landholdings and proceeding to
Guideline A.O. No. 04, Series of 1991). MEDIUM and SMALL landholding
18
under the following schedules:
The policy statements are as follows: a) Landholdings ABOVE 24
a. Landowners covered by PD 27 are hectares up to 50 hectares to
entitled to retain SEVEN hectares, begin on the forth year from
except those whose entire effectivity of this act and to be
tenanted rice and corn lands are completed within three years;
subject to acquisition and and,
distribution under OLT. b) Landholdings from the
RETENTION LIMIT up to 24
hectares, to begin on the sixth
AN OWNER MAY NOT year from effectivity of this Act
RETAIN UNDER THE and to be completed within four
FOLLOWING CASES: year.
a) If he as of October 21, 1972

owned more than 24 hectares
of tenanted rice or corn lands; LANDS NOT COVERED BY CARP
or
b) By virtue of LOI 474, if he as of 1. Those which are not suitable for
21 October 1972 owns less agriculture or those which are classified
than 24 hectares of tenanted as mineral, forest residential,
rice but additionally owned the commercial or industrial lands. (Sec. 3.
follows = ©, RA 6657);
 Other agricultural land of
more than seven 2. Those which have been classified and
hectares, whether approved as NON-AGRICLTURAL
tenanted or not, whether prior to June 15, 1988. (DOJ Opinion
cultivated or not, and No. 44, S. 1990)
regardless of the income
derived therefrom; or 3. Those which are EXEMPT pursuant to
 Land use for Sec. 10, RA 6657.
commercial, industrial,
residential or other 4. Those which are devoted to poultry,
urban purposes, from swine or livestock-raising as of June
which he derives 15, 1988 pursuant to the Supreme
adequate income to Court ruling on Luz. Farms vs. The
support himself and his Hon. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
family (192 SCRA 51);
b. Landowners who filed their
application for retention 5. Fishponds and prawn farms exempted
BEFORE 27 August 1985, the pursuant to R.A. No. 7881, and its
deadline set by Administrative implementing Administrative Order No.
Order No. 1, Series of 1985, 3, Series of 1995;
may retain not more than
seven hectares of their 6. Those which are retained by the
landholding covered by PD 27 landowners;
regardless of whether or not
they complied with LOI Nos. 7. Those lands or portions thereof under the
41, 45, and 52. coverage of EO 407 but found to be no
Landowners who filed their longer suitable for agriculture and
application AFTER 27 August therefore, could not be given
19
1985 but complied with the appropriate valuation by the LBP as
requirement of LOI No. 41, 45 determined by DAR/LBP; and
and 52 shall likewise be
entitled to such a seven 8. Those lands declared by Presidential
hectares retention area. Proclamations for certain uses other than
However landowner who agricultural.
filed their application for
retention AFTER the 27 August Rules and Procedures Governing the Exercise of
1985 deadline and DID NOT Retention Rights by Landowners and Award to
COMPLY with the Children under Sec. 6 of RA 6657
requirements of LOI Nos. 41, A. Landowners whose landholding are
45, and 52 shall only be covered by CARP may retain an area of
entitled to a maximum of five FIVE (5) hectares.
(5) hectares as retention area. In addition, each of his children,
(legitimate, illegitimate or adopted may
c. A landowner WHO HAS DIED be AWARDED three (3) hectares as
must have manifested during PREFERRED BENEFICIARY provided-
his lifetime his intention to 1. That the child was at least 15
exercise his right of retention years of age on the June 15,
prior to 23 AUGUST 1990 to 1988 (RA 6657-effectivity); and
allow his heirs to now exercise 2. The child was actually tilling the
such right under these land or directly managing the
Guidelines. Said heirs must farmland from June 15, 1988 to
show proof of the original the filing of the application for
landowners intention. retention and/or at the time of
The heirs may also acquisition of the land under
exercise the original CARP.
landowners' right of retention if
they can prove that the Retention of husband and wife:
decedent HAD NO
KNOWLEDGE of OLT 1. For marriages covered by the New
coverage over the subject Civil Code, the spouses who
property. owns only CONJUGAL
PROPERTIES may retain a total
of five (5) hectares unless there is
The BENEFICIARIES of Presidential an agreement for the JUDICIAL
Decree No. 27 are TENANT-FARMERS, SEPERATION OF
thus: PROPERTIES. However, if either
or both of them are landowners in
“This shall apply to TENANT- their respective rights (capital
FARMERS of PRIVATE and/or paraphernal) they may
AGRICULTURAL LANDS retain not more than five (5)
PRIMARILY DEVOTED TO RICE hectares each from their
OR CORN under a SYSTEM OF respective landholdings. In no
SHARE-CROP or LEASE- case, however, shall the total
TENANCY, whether classified as retention of such a couple exceed
landed estate or not. (Par. 5, 10 hectares, and
Presidential Decree No. 27). 2. For marriage covered by the New
Family Code (August 3, 1988), a
“The tenant-farmers, whether in husband owning capital property
land classified as landed estate or and/or a wife owning paraphernal
20
not shall be DEEMED OWNER of a property may retain not more
portion constituting of family-size than five (5) hectares each
farm of FIVE (5) hectares if not provided they execute a
irrigated and THREE (3) JUDICIAL SPERATION OF
HECTARES IF IRRIGATED. (Par. PROPERTIES prior to entering
6, Presidential Decree No. 27) the marriage. In the absence of
such an agreement all properties
The tenant shall pay for THE COST (capital, paraphernal and
OF THE LAND, including interest of conjugal) shall be considered
six (6) percent per annum in held in absolute community.
FIFTEEN (15) YEARS of fifteen
(15) equal annual amortizations. QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES.- The lands
NOTE: The period in extended covered by the CARP shall be distributed as
to twenty (20) years equal much a possible to landless residents of the
annual amortization under Sec. same barangay, or in the absence thereof,
6, E.O.. 228 of July 17, 1987 by landless resident of the same municipality in
Pres. Corazon C. Aquino. the following order of priority:
The TITLE to the land owned by a) agricultural lessees and share

the tenant shall not be transferable tenants;
except BY HEREDITARY b) regular farmworkers;
SUCCESSION or TO THE c) seasonal farmworkers;
GOVERNMENT in accordance with d) other farmworkers;
this Decree, the Code of Agrarian e) actual tillers or occupants of public
Reform and other existing laws and lands;
regulation. f) collectives or cooperatives of the
NOTE: Sec. 6, EO 228 above beneficiaries; and
provides, “Ownership of lands g) others directly working on the land.
acquired by farmer-beneficiary (Par. 1, Sec. 22, RA 6657)
may be transferred after full
payment of amortization. The children of landowners who are qualified
under Sec. 6 of this Act shall be given
The EMANCIPATION PATENT. preference in the distribution of the land of
Awarded to the TENANT- their parents; And, further, that actual tenant-
BENEFICIARY CREATES a VESTED tillers in the landholding shall be ejected or
RIGHT OF ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP removed therefrom. (Par. 2, Sec.22, RA
in the landholding – “a right which has 6657).
become fixed and established and is
no longer open to doubt or “Distribution Limit – No qualified beneficiary
controversy. “ may own more than Three (3) hectares of
agricultural land” (Sec. 23, RA 6657)
The Mode of Transfer of lands Tenant-
Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree “Award Ceiling for Beneficiaries. –
No. 27 are the following: Beneficiaries shall be awarded an area NOT
EXCEEDING THREE (3) HECTARES which may
1. OPERATION LAND TRANSFER cover a CONTIGUOUS tract of land or SEVERAL
(OLT) under PD 27 and EO 228; PARCELS of land cumulated up to the
and prescribed award limits.” (Sec. 25, RA 6657).
Operation Land Transfer is the Payment by Beneficiaries.- Lands awarded

ORDERLY and SYSTEMATIC pursuant to this Act shall be paid for the
21
TRANSFER of land from the beneficiaries to the LBP in thirty (30) annual
landowner to the tenant-farmer amortizations at six percent (6%) per annum.
under Presidential Decree No. 27. The payments for the first three (3) years after
the award may be at reduced amounts as
2. DIRECT PAYMENT SCHEME established by the PARC: Provided, That the first
(DPS). – The landowner and the five (5) annual payments may not be more than
tenant-beneficiary can AGREE on five percent (5%) of the value of the annual gross
the DIRECT SALE terms and production as established by the DAR. Should
conditions which is not onerous to the scheduled annual payments after the fifth
the tenant-beneficiary. year exceed ten percent (10%) of the annual
gross production and the failure to produce
The value if the land shall accordingly is not due to the beneficiary’s fault,
equivalent to two and one half (2- the LBP may reduce the interest rate or reduce
1/2) times the AVERAGE the principal obligation to make the repayment
HARVEST OF THREE NORMAL affordable.
CROP YEARS IMMEDIATELY
PRECEDING THE
PROMULGATION OF THIS The LBP shall have a lien by way of
DEGREE. mortgage on the land awarded to the beneficiary;
and this mortgage may be foreclosed by the LBP
for non-payment of an aggregate of three (3)
annual amortizations. The LBP shall advise the
DAR of such proceedings and the latter shall
subsequently award the forfeited landholding to
other qualified beneficiaries. A beneficiary
whose land, as provided herein, has been
foreclosed shall thereafter be permanently
disqualified from becoming a beneficiary under
this Act. (Sec.26, RA 6657).
Transferability of Awarded Lands.- lands

acquired by beneficiaries under this Act may not
be sold, transferred or conveyed except through
hereditary succession, or to the government, or
to the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries for
a period of ten (10) years; Provided, however,
That the children or the spouse of the transferor
shall have a right to repurchase the land from the
government or LBP within the period of two (2)
years. Due notice of the availability of the land
shall be given by the LBP to he Barangay
Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) of the
barangay where the land is situated. The
Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating
Committee (PARCCOM), as herein provided,
shall, in turn, be given due notice thereof by the
BARC.
If the land has not yet been fully paid by

the beneficiary, the rights to the land may be
transferred or conveyed, with prior approval of
22
the DAR, to any heir of the beneficiary or to any
other beneficiary who, as a condition for such
transfer or conveyance, shall cultivate the land
himself. Failing compliance herewith, the land
shall be transferred to the LBP which shall give
due notice of the availability of the land in the
manner specified in the immediately preceding
paragraph.
In the event of such transfer to the LBP,

the latter shall compensate the beneficiary in
one lump sum for the amounts the latter has
already paid, together with the value of
improvements he has made on the land.(Sec.
27, RA 6657).
The TITLES awarded to farmer-beneficiaries

CARP are the following:
1. Free Patent for Public Alienation and

Disposable lands;
2. CERTIFICATE OF LAND OWNERSHIP

AWARD (CLOA) for Resettlement sites:
3. STEWARDSHIP CONTRACT for Lands

covered by INTERGRATED SOCIAL
FORESTRY PROGRAM (ISFP); and
4. CLOA for Private of Agricultural Lands.
The MODES OF ACQUIRING LANDS for

distribution under CARP:
a. COMPULSORY ACQUISITION (CA)

(Sec. 16, RA 6657)
b. VOLUNTARY OFFER TO SELL
(VOS) (Sec. 19, RA 6657)
c. VOLUNTARY LAND
TRANFER/DIRECT PAYMENT
SCHEME (VLT/DPS) (Sec. 20, RA
6657).
Factors/Criteria considered in determining just

compensation:
1. Cost of Acquisition of the land;

2. Current Value of like properties;
3. Nature of the land;
4. Actual use;
23
5. Income;
6. Sworn valuation by the landowner;
7. Tax Declaration;
8. Assessment made by government
assessors;
9. The social and economic benefits
contributed by the farmers, and
10.Non-payment of taxes or loans secured
from any government financing
institution on the land.
ATTENTION!!!
Before you go to the next module, PLEASE ANSWER the ACTIVITY 16 on page 50-51
GOOD LUCK!!! 😊
REFERENCES:
1.lawphil.net COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW OF 1988

2.lawphil.net DECREEING THE EMANCIPATION OF TENANANTS FROM THE SOIL PD 27
24
MODULE 17
TAXATION
25
1. Analyze the general principles of taxation.
2. Determine the contribution of taxation to the country.
3. Develop critical and analytical skills in differentiating the different purposes of taxation.
4. Appreciate the role of taxation towards our country’s development.
26
TAXATION
General Principles of Taxation

The power of taxation is normally defined in at least three (3) ways – as a power itself, as a
means, or as a process – as follows:
As a power, it refers to the inherent power of the State to impose proportionate burden from
among the citizenry for the respective share in the cost of running the government and the
delivery of its constitutional mandate to serve and protect.
As a means, it refers to one of the few ways by which the State raises revenue to support its
existence and operations. Other ways to raise revenue could be by foreign financing (e.g.
foreign loans from World Bank, Asian Development Bank, etc.) or by domestic financing (e.g.
issuing bonds and other evidences of indebtedness to the public) and such other means.
As a process, it refers to the method of imposing a tax to raise revenue by the legislative act of
the Congress in passing a law or ordinance. Implementation and enforcement of such laws
belongs to the Executive Department, interpretation is for the Judiciary and compliance rests
upon the taxpayers involved, except upon the hammers of the law against erring taxpayers.
Taxation therefore, is the inherent power of the sovereign, exercised through the legislature, to
impose burdens upon subjects and objects within its jurisdiction for the purpose of raising
revenues to carry out the legitimate objects of government.
It is also defined as the act of levying a tax, i.e. the process or means by which the sovereign,
through its law-making body, raises income to defray the necessary expenses of government. It
is a method of apportioning the cost of government among those who, in some measure, are
privileged to enjoy its benefits and must therefore bear its burdens.
Taxes
Taxes are the enforced proportional contributions from persons and property levied by the law-
making body of the State by virtue of its sovereignty for the support of the government and all
public needs.
Essential elements of a tax
1. It is an enforced contribution.
2. It is generally payable in money.
3. It is proportionate in character.
4. It is levied on persons, property, or the exercise of a right or privilege.
5. It is levied by the State which has jurisdiction over the subject or object of taxation.
6. It is levied by the law-making body of the State.
7. It is levied for public purpose or purposes.
Purposes of taxation
27
1. Revenue or fiscal: The primary purpose of taxation on the part of the government is to
provide funds or property with which to promote the general welfare and the protection of its
citizens and to enable it to finance its multifarious activities.
2. Non-revenue or regulatory: Taxation may also be employed for purposes of regulation
or control.
a) Imposition of tariffs on imported goods to protect local industries.
b) The adoption of progressively higher tax rates to reduce inequalities in wealth and
income.
c) The increase or decrease of taxes to prevent inflation or ward off depression.
Sumptuary purpose of taxation

· More popularly known as the non-revenue or regulatory purpose of taxation.
While the primary purpose of taxation is to raise revenue for the support of the government,
taxation is often employed as a devise for regulation by means of which certain effects or
conditions envisioned by the government may be achieved.
· For example, government may provide tax incentives to protect and promote new
and pioneer industries. The imposition of special duties, like dumping duty, marking duty,
retaliatory duty, and countervailing duty, promote the non-revenue or sumptuary purpose of
taxation.
Theory and basis of taxation
· The power of taxation proceeds upon the theory that the existence of government
is a necessity; that it cannot continue without means to pay its expenses; and that for these
means, it has a right to compel all its citizens and property within its limits to contribute.
· The basis of taxation is found in the reciprocal duties of protection and support
between the State and its inhabitants. In return for his contribution, the taxpayer received
benefits and protection from the government. This is the so-called “benefits received principle.”
Life blood or necessity theory

· The life blood theory constitutes the theory of taxation, which provides that the
existence of government is a necessity; that government cannot continue without means to pay
its expenses; and that for these means it has a right to compel its citizens and property within its
limits to contribute.
Illustrations of lifeblood theory
1. Collection of taxes cannot be enjoined by injunction.
2. Taxes could not be the subject of compensation or set off.
3. A valid tax may result in destruction of the taxpayer’s property.
4. Taxation is an unlimited and plenary power.
28
Benefit-received principle
· This principle serves as the basis of taxation and is founded on the reciprocal
duties of protection and support between the State and its inhabitants. Also called “symbiotic
relation” between the State and its citizens.
· In return for his contribution, the taxpayer receives the general advantages and
protection which the government affords the taxpayer and his property. One is compensation or
consideration for the other; protection for support and support for protection.
· However, it does not mean that only those who are able to and do pay taxes can
enjoy the privileges and protection given to a citizen by the government.
Nature or characteristics of the State’s power to tax
1. It is inherent in sovereignty; hence, it may be exercised although it is not expressly
granted by the Constitution.
2. It is legislative in character; hence, only the legislature can impose taxes (although the
power may be delegated).
3. It is subject to Constitutional and inherent limitations; hence, it is not an absolute power
that can be exercised by the legislature anyway it pleases.
Power to tax v. Police power v. Power of eminent domain
TAXATION POLICE POWER EMINENT DOMAIN
Power of the State to

Power of the State to
enact such laws in
take private property
Power of the State to relation to persons and
for public use upon
demand enforced property as may
DEFINITION paying to the owner a
contributions for public promote public health,
just compensation to
purposes safety, morals, and the
be ascertained
general welfare of the
according to law
public
May be granted to
Authority Only the government Only the government
public service
Exercising or its political or its political
companies of public
the Power subdivisions subdivisions
utilities
Enforced contribution Use of property is

is demanded for the regulated for the Property is taken for
PURPOSE
support of the purpose of promoting public use
government the general welfare
29
Operates upon a Operates upon a Operates on an
Persons
community or class of community or class of individual as the owner
Affected
individuals individuals (usually) of a particular property
Money contributed in No transfer of title, at Transfer of the right to

the concept of taxes most, there is restraint property whether it be
EFFECT
becomes part of public on injurious use of the ownership or a lesser
funds property right
Assumed that the Person affected

individual receives the receives no direct and
Person affected
equivalent of the tax in immediate benefit but
BENEFITS receives the market
the form of protection, only such as may arise
RECEIVED value of the property
and benefits received from the maintenance
taken from him
from the government of a healthy economic
as such standard of society
Amount imposed
should not be more
No amount imposed
Generally no limit on than that sufficient to
AMOUNT OF but rather the owner is
the amount of tax that cover the cost of the
IMPOSITION paid the market value
may be imposed license and the
of the property taken
necessary expenses of
regulation
Relatively free from Subject to certain

Relationship Subject to certain Constitutional Constitutional
to the Constitutional limitations and is limitations (e.g. inferior
Constitution limitations superior to the to impairment of
impairment provisions contracts clause)
Tax differentiated from other terms

Tariff / Duties
· The term tariff and custom duties are used interchangeably in the Tariff and
Customs Code or PD No. 1464.
· Customs duties, or simply duties, are taxes imposed on goods exported from or
imported into a country. Custom duties are really taxes but the latter term is broader in scope.
· On the other hand, tariff may be used in one of three senses:
1. A book of rates drawn usually in alphabetical order containing the names of several kinds
of merchandise with the corresponding duties to be paid for the same; or
2. The duties payable on goods imported or exported; or
30
3. The system or principle of imposing duties on the importation or exportation of goods.
License or regulatory fee v. tax
1. License fee is legal compensation or reward of an officer for specific services while a tax
is an enforced contribution from persons or property by the law-making body by virtue of
its sovereignty and for the support of the government and all public needs.
2. License fee is imposed for regulation, while tax is levied for revenue.
3. License fee involves the exercise of police power, tax of the taxing power.
4. Amount of license fee should be limited to the necessary expenses of inspection and
regulation, while there is generally no limit on the amount of the tax to be imposed.
5. License fee is imposed only on the right to exercise a privilege, while tax is imposed also
on persons and property.
6. Failure to pay a license fee makes the act or business illegal, while failure to pay a tax
does not necessarily make the act or business illegal.
Regulatory tax
· Examples: motor vehicle registration fee, sugar levy, coconut levy, regulation of
non-useful occupations
Special assessment v. tax
1. A special assessment is an enforced proportional contribution from owners of lands
specially or peculiarly benefited by public improvements.
2. A special assessment is levied only on land.
3. A special assessment is not a personal liability of the person assessed; it is limited to the
land.
4. A special assessment is based wholly on benefits, not necessity.
5. A special assessment is exceptional both as to time and place; a tax has general
application.
Some rules:
· An exemption from taxation does not include exemption from a special
assessment.
· The power to tax carries with it the power to levy a special assessment.
Toll v. tax
1. Toll is a sum of money for the use of something. It is the consideration which is paid for
the use of a road, bridge, or the like, of a public nature. Taxes, on the other hand, are
enforced proportional contributions from persons and property levied by the State by
virtue of its sovereignty for the support of the government and all public needs.
2. Toll is a demand of proprietorship; tax is a demand of sovereignty.
31
3. Toll is paid for the use of another’s property; tax is paid for the support of government.
4. The amount paid as toll depends upon the cost of construction or maintenance of the
public improvement used; while there is no limit on the amount collected as tax as long
as it is not excessive, unreasonable, or confiscatory.
5. Toll may be imposed by the government or by private individuals or entities; tax may be
imposed only by the government.
Tax v. penalty
1. Penalty is any sanction imposed as a punishment for violation of law or for acts deemed
injurious; taxes are enforced proportional contributions from persons and property levied
by the State by virtue of its sovereignty for the support of the government and all public
needs.
2. Penalty is designed to regulate conduct; taxes are generally intended to generate
revenue.
3. Penalty may be imposed by the government or by private individuals or entities; taxes
only by the government.
Obligation to pay debt v. obligation to pay tax
1. A debt is generally based on contract, express or implied, while a tax is based on laws.
2. A debt is assignable, while a tax cannot generally be assigned.
3. A debt may be paid in kind, while a tax is generally paid in money.
4. A debt may be the subject of set off or compensation, a tax cannot.
5. A person cannot be imprisoned for non-payment of tax, except poll tax.
6. A debt is governed by the ordinary periods of prescription, while a tax is governed by the
special prescriptive periods provided for in the NIRC.
7. A debt draws interest when it is so stipulated or where there is default, while a tax does
not draw interest except only when delinquent.
Survey of Philippine Taxes

A. Internal revenue taxes
1. Income tax
2. Transfer taxes
a. Estate Tax
b. Donor’s Tax
3. Percentage taxes
a. Value Added Tax
b. Other Percentage Taxes
32
4. Excise taxes
5. Documentary stamp tax
B. Local/Municipal Taxes
C. Tariff and Customs Duties
D. Taxes/Tax incentives under special laws
Classification of Taxes
As to subject matter or object
1. Personal, poll or capitation tax
Tax of a fixed amount imposed on persons residing within a specified territory, whether
citizens or not, without regard to their property or the occupation or business in which they may
be engaged, i.e. community tax.
2. Property tax
Tax imposed on property, real or personal, in proportion to its value or in accordance with
some other reasonable method of apportionment.
3. Excise tax
A charge imposed upon the performance of an act, the enjoyment of a privilege, or the
engaging in an occupation.
As to purpose
1. General/fiscal/revenue tax
A general/fiscal/revenue tax is that imposed for the purpose of raising public funds for the
service of the government.
2. Special/regulatory tax
A special or regulatory tax is imposed primarily for the regulation of useful or non-useful
occupation or enterprises and secondarily only for the purpose of raising public funds.
As to who bears the burden
1. Direct tax
A direct tax is demanded from the person who also shoulders the burden of the tax. It is a tax
which the taxpayer is directly or primarily liable and which he or she cannot shift to another.
2. Indirect tax
An indirect tax is demanded from a person in the expectation and intention that he or she shall
indemnify himself or herself at the expense of another, falling finally upon the ultimate purchaser
or consumer. A tax which the taxpayer can shift to another.
As to scope of the tax
1. National tax
33
A national tax is imposed by the national government.
2. Local tax
A local tax is imposed by municipal corporations or local government units (LGUs).
As to the determination of amount
1. Specific tax
A specific tax is a tax of a fixed amount imposed by the head or number or by some other
standard of weight or measurement. It requires no assessment other than the listing or
classification of the objects to be taxed.
2. Ad valorem tax
An ad valorem tax is a tax of a fixed proportion of the value of the property with respect to which
the tax is assessed. It requires the intervention of assessors or appraisers to estimate the
value of such property before the amount due from each taxpayer can be determined.
As to gradation or rate
1. Proportional tax
Tax based on a fixed percentage of the amount of the property receipts or other basis to
be taxed. Example: real estate tax.
2. Progressive or graduated tax
Tax the rate of which increases as the tax base or bracket increases. Example: income
tax.
Digressive tax rate: progressive rate stops at a certain point. Progression halts at a
particular stage.
3. Regressive tax
Tax the rate of which decreases as the tax base or bracket increases. There is no such
tax in the Philippines.
Tax Systems
Constitutional mandate
· The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a
progressive system of taxation. [Section 28(1), Article VI, Constitution]
Progressive system of taxation v. regressive system of taxation
· A progressive system of taxation means that tax laws shall place emphasis on
direct taxes rather than on indirect taxes, with ability to pay as the principal criterion.
· A regressive system of taxation exists when there are more indirect taxes
imposed than direct taxes.
Three basic principles of a sound tax system
1. Fiscal adequacy
34
It means that the sources of revenue should be sufficient to meet the demands of public
expenditures. [Chavez v. Ongpin, 186 SCRA 331]
2. Equality or theoretical justice
It means that the tax burden should be proportionate to the taxpayer’s ability to pay. This is the
so-called “ability to pay principle.”
3. Administrative feasibility
It means that tax laws should be capable of convenient, just and effective administration.
Power to tax is exclusively legislative in nature
· The power to tax is peculiarly and exclusively legislative and cannot be exercised
by the executive or judicial branches of the government. Hence, only Congress can impose
taxes.
Matters within the competence of the legislature
1. The subject or object to be taxed.
2. The purpose of the tax so long as it is a public purpose.
3. The amount or rate of the tax.
4. The manner, means, and agencies of collection of the tax.
Inherent Limitations
1. Purpose must be public in nature
2. Prohibition against delegation of the taxing power
3. Exemption of government entities, agencies and instrumentalities
4. International comity
5. Limitation of territorial jurisdiction
Public purpose in taxation

· This is one of the inherent limitations of the power to tax and is synonymous to
“governmental purpose.” A tax must always be imposed for a public purpose, otherwise, it will
be declared as invalid.
· The term “public purpose” has no fixed connotation. The essential point is that
the purpose of the tax affects the inhabitants as a community and not merely as inhabitants.
· It has been said that the best test of rightful taxation is that the proceeds of the tax
must be used:
a) for the support of the government; or
b) some of the recognized objects of government; or
c) to promote the welfare of the community.
Reasons for exempting governmental entities
35
· Government will be taxing itself to raise money for itself.
· Immunity is necessary in order that governmental functions will not be impeded.
What government entities are exempt from income tax?
1. Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)
2. Social Security System (SSS)
3. Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC)
4. Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO)
5. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR)
Prohibition against appropriation of proceeds of taxation for the use, benefit, or support
of any church
Section 29, Article VI, Constitution
1. No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made
by law.
2. No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed directly or
indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any church, denomination, sectarian institution or
system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister or other religious teacher, or dignitary as
such except when such priest, preacher, minister or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or
to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.
3. All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special
fund and paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose for which a special fund was created has
been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to the general funds of the
government.
Prohibition against taxation of real property actually, directly and exclusively used for
religious, charitable and educational purposes
· Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto,
mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly,
and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from
taxation. [Section 28 (3) , Article VI, Constitution]
· This is an exemption from real property tax only.
· The exemption in favor of property used exclusively for charitable or educational
purposes is not limited to property actually indispensable therefore, but extends to facilities
which are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of said purposes.
[Abra Valley College v. Aquino, 162 SCRA 106]
Prohibition against taxation of the revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit
educational institutions
· All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions used
actually, directly, and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and
36
duties. Upon the dissolution or cessation of the corporate existence of such institutions, their
assets shall be disposed of in the manner provided by law. [Section 4, Article XIV, Constitution]
· This exemption from corporate income tax is embodied in Section 30 of the NIRC
which includes a non-stock, non-profit educational institution.
· Note however the last paragraph of Section 30 which states: “Notwithstanding the
provisions in the preceding paragraphs, the income of whatever kind and character of the
foregoing organizations from any of their property, real or personal, or from any of their activities
conducted for profit, regardless of the disposition made of such income, shall be subject to tax
imposed under this Code.”
Taxation of proprietary educational institutions

· Proprietary educational institutions, including those cooperatively owned, may
likewise be entitled to such exemptions subject to the limitations provided by law including
restrictions on dividends and provisions for investment. [Section 4 (3), Article XIV, Constitution]
· Under Section 27(B) of the NIRC, proprietary educational institutions and
hospitals which are non-profit shall pay a tax of ten percent (10%) on their taxable income
except for passive incomes which are subject to different tax rates.
Situs in Taxation
· Literally, situs of taxation means place of taxation. It is the State or political unit
which has jurisdiction to impose a particular tax.
· The determination of the situs of taxation depends on various factors including
the:
1. Nature of the tax;
2. Subject matter thereof (i.e. person, property, act or activity;
3. Possible protection and benefit that may accrue both to the government and the taxpayer;
4. Residence or citizenship of the taxpayer; and
5. Source of the income.
ATTENTION!!!
Before you go to the next page, PLEASE ANSWER ACTIVITY 17 on page 52
GOOD LUCK!!! 😊
37
REFERENCES:
1.BIR.gov.ph TAX REFORM FOR ACCELERATION AND INCLUSION ACT RA 10963

2.De Leon, Hector S and De Leon, Hector M. FUNDAMENTALS OF TAXATION. 2016
38
MODULE 18
Special Topics: IPRA Law

and Government Peace
Treaties with Muslim
Filipinos
39
1. The user is to study this module at his own pace within the time frame
set by the instructor. Check the OBTL syllabus for guidance.
3. References, Supplemental and Additional readings are also given for
further understanding and appreciation of the lesson.
Respective instructors may ask the students to submit answers via
agreed platforms
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Effectively communicate, using various techniques and genres, their

historical analysis of a particular event or issue that could help others
understand the chosen topic
2. Propose recommendation/solutions to present-day problems based on
their understanding of root causes and anticipation of future scenarios.
40
INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S RIGHTS ACT (Republic Act. No. 8371)
Full Text: https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1997/ra_8371_1997.html

Salient Features: https://www.sec.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/2018_RTD_NCIP-
PPT-PRESENTATION-SUSTAINABILITY-1.pdf
Understanding the indigenous people’s rights to their ancestral domain

By: Sara Mae D. Mawis - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 04:20 AM April 04, 2020
(Last of two parts)
Under the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), self-delineation shall be the guiding
principle in identifying and delineating ancestral domains. As such, indigenous cultural
communities (ICC) and indigenous people (IP) shall have a decisive role in all activities
pertinent thereto.
The Sworn Statement of the Elders as to the scope of the territories and the agreements or
pacts made with neighboring ICCs/IPs, if any, will be essential in determining these traditional
territories. Meanwhile, the government shall take the necessary steps to identify lands which the
ICCs/IPs concerned traditionally occupy and guarantee effective protection of their rights of
ownership and possession thereto.
Thus, ancestral lands or domains, which may be owned by ICCs/IPs, shall refer to its total
environment—that is, its physical environment, including the spiritual and cultural bonds to the
areas which they possess, occupy, and use, and to which they have claims of ownership.
In this regard, the indigenous concept of ownership generally holds that ancestral domains are
the ICC’s/IP’s private but community property, which belongs to all generations and thus, cannot
be sold, disposed, or destroyed. It likewise covers sustainable traditional resource rights.
The ICC’s/IP’s rights to their ancestral domain shall include the: (a) right of ownership over
lands, bodies of water traditionally and actually occupied by them, sacred places, traditional
hunting and fishing grounds, and improvements introduced thereon; (b) right to develop lands
and natural resources, subject to preexisting property rights within the ancestral domains; (c)
right to stay in their territories, except when they have given their free and prior informed
consent, and subject to the Philippines’ power of eminent domain; (d) right to be resettled in
suitable areas should they be displaced through natural catastrophes; (e) right to regulate entry
of migrants; (f) right to safe and clean air and water; (g) right to claim parts of reservations; and
(h) right to resolve land conflicts in accordance with the customary laws of the area where the
land is located.
Moreover, ICC’s/IP’s rights to their ancestral lands shall include the: (a) right to transfer land or
property rights among members of the same ICC or IP, subject to their customary laws and
41
traditions; and (b) should the land transfer to a non-member be tainted with vitiated consent, the
right of redemption within a period not exceeding 15 years therefrom.
ICCs and IPs occupying an ancestral domain covered by a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title
(CADT) shall be responsible for: (a) maintaining ecological balance by protecting the flora and
fauna, watershed areas, and other reserves; (b) restoring denuded areas, subject to just and
reasonable remuneration; and (c) observing the IPRA.
Nevertheless, the ICC’s/IP’s rights to their ancestral domains by virtue of native title shall be
recognized and respected. Formal recognition, when solicited by the ICC/IP, shall be embodied
in a CADT, which shall recognize their title over the territories identified and delineated.
Meanwhile, individual members of the ICC who, by themselves or through their predecessors-
in-interest, have been in continuous possession and occupation of their ancestral lands in the
concept of an owner since time immemorial or for a period of at least 30 years from the approval
of the IPRA, and uncontested by the other members of the same ICC, shall have the option to
secure title to their ancestral lands pursuant to the Land Registration Act of 1946, within 20
years from the approval of the IPRA.
Ancestral lands that may be covered by this title shall be agricultural in character and actually
used for agricultural, residential, pasture, and tree farming purposes, including those with a
slope of 18 percent or more.
Unauthorized and unlawful intrusion upon, or any use of any portion of the ancestral domain, or
any violation of the rights thereto, shall be punished pursuant to the concerned ICC/IP’s
customary laws. But, the impossable penalty shall neither be cruel, degrading, or inhuman
punishment nor death penalty or excessive fines.
Upon conviction, the offender may be imprisoned for less than nine months but not more than
12 months, or fined for not less than P100,000 nor more than P500,000, or penalized with both
imprisonment and fine, upon the court’s discretion. Moreover, he shall be obliged to pay the
aggrieved ICC/IP whatever damage it may have suffered because of his unauthorized and
unlawful intrusion upon the ancestral domain.
Read more: https://business.inquirer.net/294122/understanding-the-indigenous-peoples-rights-

to-their-ancestral-domain#ixzz6YxzQ4bGL
42
GOVERNMENT PEACE TREATIES FOR MUSLIM FILIPINOS
Excerpts from the case of The Province of North Cotabato vs The Government of the Republic
of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP), Separate Concurring Opinion of CJ
Puno, Part I. Historical Roots
G.R. Nos. 183591, 183572, 183893 and 183951 - THE PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO,
duly represented by GOVERNOR JESUS SACDALAN and/or VICE-GOVERNOR
EMMANUEL PINOL, for and in his own behalf vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC
OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN (GRP), represented by
SEC. RODOLFO GARCIA, ATTY. SEDFREY CANDELARIA, MARK RYAN SULLIVAN,
and/or GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., the latter in his capacity as the present and
duly-appointed Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP) or the so-called
Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process
Promulgated:
October 14, 2008
x--------------------------------------------x
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION
PUNO, C.J.:
It is the duty of the government to seek a just, comprehensive and enduring peace with any
rebel group but the search for peace must always be in accord with the Constitution. Any search
for peace that undercuts the Constitution must be struck down. Peace in breach of the
Constitution is worse than worthless.
I. Historical Roots
A historical perspective of our Muslim problem is helpful.
From time immemorial, an enduring peace with our Muslim brothers and sisters in Mindanao
has eluded our grasp. Our Muslim problem exploded in March of 1968 when Muslim trainees
were massacred by army officers at Corregidor. About 180 Muslim trainees had been recruited
in the previous year as a part of a covert force named Jabidah,1 allegedly formed to wrest away
Sabah from Malaysia. The trainees were massacred when they reportedly protested their
unbearable training and demanded the return to their home. 2 The Jabidah Massacre fomented
the formation of Muslim groups clamoring for a separate Islamic state. One of these groups was
the Muslim Independence Movement (MIM), founded by the then Governor of Cotabato, Datu
Udtog Matalam.3 Another was the Nurul Islam, led by Hashim Salamat.
On September 21, 1972 Martial Law was declared by President Ferdinand E. Marcos. Among
the reasons cited to justify martial law were the armed conflict between Muslims and Christians
and the Muslim secessionist movement in the Southern Philippines.4 The imposition of martial
law drove some of the Muslim secessionist movements to the underground. One of them was
the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) headed by Nur Misuari. In 1974, the MNLF shot to
prominence, when the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) officially gave it recognition.
43
During the 5th ICFM, they strongly urged "the Philippines Government to find a political and
peaceful solution through negotiation with Muslim leaders, particularly with representatives of
the MNLF in order to arrive at a just solution to the plight of the Filipino Muslims within the
framework of national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Philippines"; and recognized "the
problem as an internal problem with the Philippine Government to ensure the safety of the
Filipino Muslims and the preservation of their liberties in accordance with the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights."5
In December 1976, the Philippine government and the MNLF under the auspices of the OIC
started their peace negotiation in Tripoli, Libya. It bore its first fruit when on January 20, 1977,
the parties signed the Tripoli Agreement in Zamboanga City in the presence of the OIC
Representative.
President Marcos immediately implemented the Tripoli Agreement. He issued Presidential
Proclamation No. 1628, "Declaring Autonomy in Southern Philippines." A plebiscite was
conducted in the provinces covered under the Tripoli Agreement to determine the will of the
people thereat. Further, the legislature enacted Batasang Pambansa Blg. 20, "Providing for the
Organization of Sangguniang Pampook (Regional Legislative Assembly) in Each of Regions IX
and XII." President Marcos then ordered the creation of Autonomous Region IX and XII.
In the meanwhile, the MNLF continued enhancing its international status. It was accorded the
status of an observer in Tripoli, Libya during the 8 th ICFM. In the 15th ICFM at Sana'a, Yemen, in
1984, the MNLF's status was further elevated from a mere 'legitimate representative' to 'sole
legitimate representative' of the Bangsamoro people.6
In April 1977, the peace talks between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP)
and MNLF Talks collapsed. Schism split the MNLF leadership. The irreconcilable differences
between Nur Misuari and Hashim Salamat led to the formation of the Moro Islamic
Liberation Front (MILF), headed by Hashim Salamat. Thus, the Maguindanao-led MILF,
parted ways with the Tausug-led MNLF.
In 1986, the People Power Revolution catapulted Corazon C. Aquino to the Presidency.
Forthwith, she ordered the peace talks with the MNLF to resume. The 1987 Constitution was
ratified by the people. It provided for the creation of the Autonomous Region of Muslim
Mindanao through an act of Congress. But again the talks with the MNLF floundered in May
1987.7 Be that as it may, it was during President Aquino's governance that a culture of peace
negotiations with the rebellious MNLF and MILF was cultivated. 8 Thus, the Autonomous Region
of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) was created through Republic Act No. 6734. The law took effect
on August 1, 1989.
Then came the presidency of President Fidel V. Ramos. He issued on September 15, 1993,
Executive Order No., 125 (E.O. 125) which provided for a comprehensive, integrated and
holistic peace process with the Muslim rebels. E.O. 125 created the Office of the Presidential
Adviser on the Peace Process to give momentum to the peace talks with the MNLF.
In 1996, as the GRP-MNLF peace negotiations were successfully winding down, the
government prepared to deal with the MILF problem. Formal peace talks started on January of
1997, towards the end of the Ramos administration. The Buldon Ceasefire Agreement was
signed in July 19979 but time ran out for the negotiations to be completed.
44
President Joseph Estrada continued the peace talks with the MILF. The talks, however, were
limited to cessation of hostilities and did not gain any headway. President Estrada gave both
sides until December 1999 to finish the peace process. 10 They did not meet the deadline. The
year 2000 saw the escalation of acts of violence and the threats to the lives and security of
civilians in Southern Mindanao. President Estrada then declared an "all-out war" against the
MILF.11 He bowed out of office with the "war" unfinished.
Thereafter, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo assumed office. Peace negotiations with the
MILF were immediately set for resumption. Executive Order No. 3, was issued "Defining Policy
and Administrative Structure: For Government's Comprehensive Peace Efforts." On March 24,
2001, a General Framework for the Resumption of Peace Talks between the GRP and the MILF
was signed. Republic Act No. 905412 was also enacted on March 31, 2001 and took effect on
August 14, 2001 to strengthen and expand the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao.
Through the Organic Act of 2001, six municipalities in Lanao del Norte voted for inclusion in the
ARMM.
On June 22, 2001, the ancestral domain aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement was signed
in Libya. Several rounds of exploratory talks with the MILF followed. Unfortunately, on April 2,
2003, Davao was twice bombed. Again, the peace talks were cancelled and fighting with the
MILF resumed. On July 19, 2003 the GRP and the MILF agreed on "mutual cessation of
hostilities" and the parties returned to the bargaining table. The parties discussed the problem of
ancestral domain, divided into four strands: concept, territory, resources, and governance.
On February 7, 2006, the 10th round of Exploratory Talks between the GRP and the MILF
ended. The parties issued a joint statement of the consensus points of the Ancestral Domain
aspect of GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of June 22, 2001. The Joint Statement
provides that:
"Among the consensus points reached were:
· Joint determination of the scope of the Bangsamoro homeland based on the technical maps
and data submitted by both sides;
· Measures to address the legitimate grievances of the Bangsamoro people arising from the
unjust dispossession and/or marginalization;
· Bangsamoro people's right to utilize and develop their ancestral domain and ancestral lands;
· Economic cooperation arrangements for the benefit of the entire Bangsamoro people."
On July 27, 2008, a Joint Statement on the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral
Domain (MOA-AD) was signed by Chairperson Rodolfo C. Garcia on behalf of the GRP Peace
Panel, and Mohagher Iqbal on behalf of the MILF Panel. In the Joint Statement, it was declared
that the final draft of the MOA-AD has already been initialed. It was announced that "both sides
reached a consensus to initial the final draft pending its official signing by the Chairmen of the
two peace panels in early August 2008, in Putrajaya, Malaysia."
45
REFERENCES:
IPRA Law, RA 9371 accessed at:

https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1997/ra_8371_1997.html
IPRA and NCIPSalient Features:
https://www.sec.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/2018_RTD_NCIP-PPT-PRESENTATION-
SUSTAINABILITY-1.pdf
Sarah Mawis, Understanding the indigenous people’s rights to their ancestral domain, accessed
at https://business.inquirer.net/294122/understanding-the-indigenous-peoples-rights-to-their-
ancestral-domain#ixzz6YxzQ4bGL
The Province of North Cotabato vs GRP, G.R. Nos. 183591, 183572, 183893 and
183951 (2008)
46

Finals Module Readings

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Finals Module Readings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DISCLAIMER

This module is intended for STUDENTS OF TARLAC STATE UNIVERSITY ONLY in

Social Science 1C – Readings in Philippine History

VISION Tarlac State University is envisioned to be a premier university

MISSION Tarlac State University commits to promote and sustain the

Towards this end, TSU shall:

CORE VALUES E – xcellence

Dr. Lino L Dizon is presently a commissioner of the National

Dr. Agnes M. Macaraeg was the Dean of the College of Arts

MR. CHARLES KEVIN T. SALONGA

Charles Kevin T Salonga is a graduate of Bachelor in Public

FINAL TERM COVERAGE

Module 11: The Cavite Mutiny of 1872

Module 12: Jose Rizal’s Retraction

Module 13: Cry of Balintawak or Pugadlawin

Module 15: The 1987 Constitution

Module 16: Agrarian Reform in the Philippines

Module 17: Taxation

Module 18: Special Topics:

1. On Saturday, March sixteen,196 1521, we came upon a high land at a distance of

(Click the following for the full text)

Official Statement of NHCP

1. Demonstrate to the ability to use primary sources to argue in favor or against a

THE TWO FACES OF THE 1872 CAVITE MUTINY

1872 Cavite Mutiny: Spanish Perspective

On 17 February 1872 in an attempt of the Spanish government and Frailocracia to instill

A Response to Injustice: The Filipino Version of the Incident

Meanwhile, in the intention of installing reforms, the Central Government of Spain

Unraveling the Truth

TARLAC STATE UNIVERSITY

1. Demonstrate to the ability to use primary sources to argue in favor or against

1. Demonstrate to the ability to use primary sources to argue in favor or

Malolos Constitution, 1935

I. Nature and Concept of the Constitution

II. Constitution of the Philippines

1. Comprehend the definition, nature, and concept of the constitution

CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Provisions of the Malolos Constitution

The 1935 Constitution has the following features:

Provisions of the 1935 Constitution

Provisions of the 1973 Constitution

6. Rodee, Carlton C. et.al. INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL SCIENCE. Fourth Edition

THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

This Constitution has the following features/principles:

Provisions of the 1987 Constitution

1. Agoncillo, Teodoro A. and Mangahas, Fe B. PHILIPPINE HISTORY: Expanded and Updated

3. Nolledo, Jose N. STUDENT’S MANUAL ON THE NEW CONSTITUTION. 1996 Revised

HISTORICAL ROOTS OF AGRARIAN PROBLEMS IN THE PHILIPPINES

Comparison between PD 27 and RA 6657

1. Presidential Decree No. 27 – Republic Act No. 6657 – An Act instituting a

Rule 2 PRIORITIES – The DAR, in coordination

Phase Three: All private AGRICULTURAL

a) If he as of October 21, 1972

The TITLE to the land owned by a) agricultural lessees and share

Operation Land Transfer is the Payment by Beneficiaries.- Lands awarded

Transferability of Awarded Lands.- lands

If the land has not yet been fully paid by

In the event of such transfer to the LBP,

The TITLES awarded to farmer-beneficiaries

1. Free Patent for Public Alienation and

2. CERTIFICATE OF LAND OWNERSHIP

3. STEWARDSHIP CONTRACT for Lands

4. CLOA for Private of Agricultural Lands.

The MODES OF ACQUIRING LANDS for