LESSON 3: One Past but Many Histories

Controversies and Conflicting Views in Philippine History

Libner M. Bautista, LPT, MAT History, MAEd, EDD (units)

Learning Outcomes
At the end of the lesson the students will be able to:

1. Recognize the multiplicity of interpretation that can be read from a historical

text.
2. Identify the advantages and disadvantages of employing critical tools in
interpreting historical events through primary sources.
3. Describe the impact of this controversies and conflicting views to the Filipinos
as a nation.

Introduction:
What separates man from other species of God’s creations? It is our ability to
keep records of our past experiences, whether good or bad. Most often, we remember
the good things and forget the bad ones. But human as we are, every moment is
important to us, that is why language was developed in this purpose. Language is a
system of symbols that allows people to communicate with one another. It can either
be written or spoken. Language is the key to cultural transmission this is the process
by which one generation passes culture to the next. Through most of human history,
cultural transmission has been accomplished through oral tradition, but we must
not also ignore about the non-verbal aspect of tradition, as people develop,
civilization begin to create institutions to strengthen their bond that caters to
their everyday needs (Bage, 1999).

People as unique individuals, differ in each other’s views or opinions, how to

understand each other or like each other is very difficult, if there is no common
language, most of the time simple stories were easily grasp and seen as true. We
Filipinos protect our family legacy and the pride that goes with it, that is why we were
being identified as regionalists or racists this divides us as people, as community, and
as nation. No one wants controversies which lead to conflicting ideas, arguments, and
fights that will result to tribal war.

Philippine History is not spared with these things, and in fact we have numerous
events in the past that were full of controversies and has created conflicting view from
us Filipinos. Does it divide us, or strengthen us as people, or more so does it create a
room for us to take a second look at our history, and realize that this bind us as one
nation.

1
Learning Content
CHAPTER – 1: HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION: Narrative Philippine History
(Legends and Hoaxes in Philippine History)
In this lesson, we will learn on how Filipinos preserved their history. When Dr.
Jose Rizal annotate our history as a people, he was inspired by Antonio Morga’s “
Successos delas Islas Filipinas” in 1609 which describes the native communities of
Filipinos during the first wave of Spanish colonization in the Philippines (Ocampo,
2019), that in this book, Rizal was affirmed about the existence of early civilization of
the Filipinos. Tribal communities as barangays, having shared beliefs and traditions of
their own, and datus or chieftains governing independently the people with engaged
trade with our Asian neighbors. It is in London, where Rizal was able to read an English
translation of this book published in 1868. He was moved and challenged to make a
review of this book, as a known historian Prof. Ambeth Ocampo of Ateneo de Manila
University wrote in his Daily Inquirer column:

“Sobre la indolencia de los Filipinos” (On the indolence of the Filipinos) is a very long, and at times
angry, essay by Rizal that saw print in La Solidaridad in March 1890. From abroad and across time, Rizal reacted
to the charge, from the Spanish colonial masters, that Filipinos were indolent or lazy. Rizal did not condemn
it, rather he explained it:

“Nature knows this and like a just mother has therefore made the earth more fertile, more
productive, as a compensation. An hour’s work under that burning sun, in the midst of pernicious influences
springing from nature in activity, is equal to a day’s work in a temperate climate.” It is the Spaniard who is
lazy, argued Rizal, as they detest manual labor and live surrounded by Filipino servants who “not only exist to
take off their shoes for them but even to fan them!” His analysis as a physician and historian led to primary
sources that proved Filipinos in pre-Spanish times were not so: “Indolence in the Philippines is a chronic
malady, but not a hereditary one. The Filipinos have not always been what they are.”

Using his notes gathered from the British Library from 1888 to 1889 while at work on his annotated
edition of Antonio de Morga’s 1609 “Sucesos de las islas Filipinas (Events of the Philippine Islands),” Rizal
presented early accounts like the “Zhu Fan Zhi,” published by Chau Ju-kua in 1225, which described the
industry and honesty of the Filipinos before the Spanish conquest; and Antonio Pigafetta’s chronicle of the
Magellan expedition, regarding the capture and ransom of the Chief of Paragua. Wielding history as a weapon,
Rizal asked sarcastically:

“How did the industrious infidel become indolent centuries later when he was Christianized? Why
did they forget their proud past and become indolent?”

By: Ambeth R. Ocampo - @inquirerdotnet-Philippine Daily Inquirer-March2019

Overwhelmed as a people, early Filipino historians were able to write our

history in their own perspective, as they say “History is written by the victors”, these
historians were designated as American scholars in of public school, colleges and
universities they stablished. In order to develop our identity as a people, the University
of Philippines was instituted, a center for research and archeological studies
spearheaded the building of the National Museum and National Archives which holds
the biggest documentations of our cultural heritage, Emma Helen Blair and James
Alexander Robertson was able to published “The Philippine Islands 1493-1898”, history
of the Filipinos with the complete English translation and annotated by editors the
“Successos delas Islas Filipinas” by Antonio Morga which was published in 1609.

2
 It has been a struggle for historians to write our history without conflicting views.
Before we became a nation, we were tribal communities of people; either a lowlander
Tagalogs or Taga-ilog, Kapampangan from “pampang” riverbeds, (near the seas and
rivers) or highlanders, Taga-bundok (living in the mountain), islander or taga-isla (living
in an island). Geographically, our nature as a people separates us from each other, with
varied culture and heritage that were separated by language barrier. As we know
language define us of our very existence, it is used to communicate and transmit culture
to the next generation and to others who we influence with (Candelaria & Alporha,
2018). Language is a unifying factor developing our own identity and preserving it to
our writings of our own stories. It is also a divisive mechanism that can separate
communities and weaken then as a nation. Knowledge on local languages is an
advantage to an historian in writing local history and eventually developing national
history. What really happen in our Philippine History during the time that we are
building our nation and establishing our national identity?

When Americans conquered the Philippines as a nation through the fall of the
Philippine Revolutionary Government under Gen. Aguinaldo in 1907 and with their
acquisition of the Philippine Island as a colony of Spain in based on the Treaty of Paris,
their 19th Century imperial power was grounded on their “Manifest Destiny” cultural
belief. With this concept they will bring with them the American culture and institutions
to every colony, govern them until they were educated to ran their own government. In
the Philippines, American colonization was anchored on their public-school system
(Guillermo, 2009). This will re-educate the Filipinos who were influenced by the
Spaniards by the Catholic religion. Schools were built in every municipalities. The 1901
Philippine Commission, which headed the policy-making body of the country in the
American government, sent teachers to the public schools. American teachers 1,000 in
numbers were called Thomasites (came to the Philippines by USS Thomas), with lacking
in numbers the commission established the training school for Filipino teachers in
1901, the Philippine Normal (now Philippine Normal University). This is a normal school
that train teachers with the “New Normal” of the time which is Americanization of
Filipinos or developing what was called “the Brown Americans” most of the students
were taught of the English language, the 3Rs of learning “Reading, wRiting, and
aRithmetic”. Children were exposed to American History, American Folksongs, proper
hygiene in the basic education, until they graduated and enrolled in the high school
which was established in 1907 and that qualified the students to go to college offering
technical and degree courses for free lead to the establishment of the University of the
Philippines which is the national university during the American Regime.
The University of the Philippines being the center of educational research and
development of the country, was able to spearhead archeological research and historical
validation during its early establishments. Aside from the universities were owned and
ran by the Catholic church (Augustinians, Dominicans, Benedictines, Recollects,
Franciscans, and Jesuits), there contemporary Western American Protestant
missionaries – Siliman University in the Visayas and a school built by the Brothers of
the Christian School – De La Salle College in 1910 in heart of Manila (Escalante, 2019).
These institute for higher learning, was geared toward producing professionals in
various fields of specialization, like business, engineering, political sciences and law,
etc. All these educational institutions have its own repository of historical researches.

3
 Historians were concern on the lack of archeological and historical records about
the early Philippine history especially the Pre-colonial Philippines. This led to the
acceptance of narrative stories of myths and legends as historical facts. We cannot
blame the early historians, for the historical errors, because during their time, there
were limited resources and have no access to private collections which were own by the
missionary orders of the Catholic Church, so therefore, the only basis is the narrative
history of our pre-colonial past shared by local leaders and authorities (Zaide & Zaide,
2006). Most of them blame the early missionaries that connived with the colonizers by
destroying or burning primary resources and most of early Filipino manuscripts
collected were archived Church museums and libraries and for centuries were preserve
and displayed as trophies in their success in the evangelization of the local settlers
1600’s to early 1900’s. And narrative history of local settlers was accepted and believed
to be true and became the basis of their pre-colonial history.
LET US READ AND DISCUSS/REFLECT
1. Maragtas Story

The Maragtas
https://web.archive.org/web/20140227102058/http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/marag_e.htm#legend

How do historians know about events that occurred in the Philippines before the
time of the Spaniards? How do they know the names of the people who lived then and the
things they did if there are almost no authentic written documents from that era?

Much of what we know about the Pre-Hispanic era came to us through legends.
These are stories that were not written but were spoken by each generation to its following
generation. Many legends are usually nothing more than stories about the creation of the
world, the first man and woman and such. It is easy to see that these are not meant to
be regarded as fact. There are some legends that may have a been based on actual events
but they are not reliable records of the past because legends can change with each telling.
Often a teller's memory can be weak or mistaken or the teller may even add or remove
parts of the story just to spice it up.

This article is about one legend called Maragtas but not the Maragtas that was
once taught to Filipino school children. This article is about a modern myth that
surrounds a book entitled Maragtas. And, just like the legends of old, this one has been
“spiced up” too. In this case, however, the legends have become confused with history.
And, as we shall see, when history and legend are mixed, the stories often sound better
but the truth always suffers.

The Legends of Maragtas

The stories known as the Maragtas are legends that may or may not be based on
actual events in the remote past. They are about the ten datus or chiefs who escaped the
tyranny of Datu Makatunaw of Borneo and immigrated to the island of Panay. Once there,
they supposedly bought the lowland plains of the island from Marikudo, the leader of the
indigenous Aytas, for the price of a solid gold salakot (hat). According to the legend, these
ten chiefs and their families are the very ancestors of the entire Visayan population. This
is the legend that has been celebrated yearly in the Ati-atihan festival since the late 1950s
when it became a part of the annual feast of the Santo Niño in Kalibo, Aklan.

4
Pedro Monteclaro's Maragtas
Even though these legends might have been known for generations, the word
maragtas itself was unknown until it was used as the title of a book by Pedro Alcantara
Monteclaro in 1907. He wrote Maragtas in the Hiligaynon and Kinaray-á languages of Panay
and the word maragtas was merely intended to mean "history". To this day the word
maragtas is known only in connection to his book.
Monteclaro regarded legends as an important part of Visayan heritage so he collected
the various stories of the elderly of Panay and published them in his Maragtas. Some people
have claimed that Monteclaro actually translated Maragtas from an ancient Pre-Hispanic
manuscript but in the preface of the book he clearly stated that he himself was its author.
And although he did refer to two old written documents, he said that he did not publish
them due to their poor condition and he did not imply that they were transcribed in his
book.
Monteclaro did not assign any specific dates to these supposedly ancient documents.
One, he said, belonged to his grandfather and the other belonged to the grandfather of an
82-year-old man whom he had met in his hometown of Miag-ao. Monteclaro said that he
managed to copy these documents in 1901 even though they were almost completely
illegible.
The fact that these documents were said to have been written on paper and that, at
best, these sources date back only to two generations before 1901 (Monteclaro claimed one
to be five generations old) places them firmly within the period of the Spanish occupation.
Also, in the epilogue, Monteclaro stated that he had consulted with all the old men of every
town because, he wrote:
...my documents did not give me clear and complete data on the things of the past.
The publisher of Maragtas, Salvador Laguda, even noted that:
According to the author, this Maragtas should not be considered as containing facts
all of which are accurate and true, because many of his data do not tally with what we hear
from old men.
A large part of Maragtas appears to be based on a work written in 1858 by Fr. Tomás
Santarén, and published in 1902 under the title Historia de los primeros datos. It was a
translation of one document of the mid 1800’s and another older document. Santarén did
not mention from what language these documents were translated and he described the
older document simply as old but not ancient. Another note by the publisher of Maragtas
may reveal its connection to this work by Santarén as well as the source of Santarén’s
information.
The scattered sources from which this work is written came from the friars who tried
to keep a record of what they had done and seen in this island.

5
 (Read Monteclaro's entire preface to Maragtas in Foreword to the Readers)
Once Legend, Now History
Despite such clear disclaimers, later historians still came to regard Maragtas as
an actual ancient document. This is probably due to the many misleading translations
of Monteclaro's book.
• Some writers deliberately mistranslated the parts of his foreword that referred to
the two documents mentioned earlier.
• Most deliberately excluded the sections that reveal the work to be modern, (i.e.
the chapters which deal with the Spanish era and the original publisher's notes)
• And all the translators seemed to have turned a collective blind eye to Monteclaro’s
free use of Spanish words such as dios, junta, negrito, and volcán in a document
they claimed to be Pre-Hispanic. Nor did they draw attention to the fact that much
of the book was written in a subjective style and in the third person, past-tense.
That is to say, the parts which dealt with what, according to them, should have
been contemporary information (languages, commerce, law, social customs etc.) were
presented in the style of a modern history book rather than an account written by
someone who had lived at that time.

For example, here is the description of an offence punishable by slavery:

• The most serious and most severely punished offence was laziness.
It is unbelievable that any legal code would present its laws in this manner. Also,
this particular statement is inaccurate because there were other offences mentioned in
Maragtas that were punished by mutilation and death. Incredibly, later writers would
compile these descriptions, call them “The Code of Maragtas” and then claim that they
were written in the year 1212!
In fact, the Maragtas Code only first appeared in an article entitled El Código de
Maragtás written by Guillermo Santiago-Cuino in 1938. These were a set of laws which
were said to have been enacted in the year 1212. This code was allegedly translated by
Santiago-Cuino from "ancient Filipino writing". He claimed that he had found these
documents in the mountains of Madya-as and that he was accompanied by a Bishop
Gabriel Reyes at the time. However, when Reyes was asked about the incident by a
relative, Jaime de Veyra of the National Language Institute, he said that he did not know
Santiago-Cuino nor had he ever been to the Madya-as mountains. Guillermo Santiago-
Cuino never produced his original document for the public or any believable proof for his
essay.
Santiago-Cuino probably took the date of the Code of Maragtas from a work by
Josué Soncuya, Historia prehispana de Filipinas (1917). The year 1212 is the date that
Soncuya gave for the emigration of the ten datus. He based this on two unpublished
documents from Mambusao, Capiz and Bugasong, Antique which were never recognized
to be pre-Hispanic by any historian. In fact, these said documents were not dated as such
but were assigned this date by local school teachers who had prepared chronicles for
their towns to submit to the National Library in 1911. Aside from this, Soncuya's
calculations are generally quite unreliable. For example, by his estimation, the year 1212
is 16 generations after the year 1160. Obviously, 16 human generations could not fit into
a span of only 52 years.

6
 (Read Monteclaro's entire preface to Maragtas in Foreword to the Readers)
The Verdict on Maragtas
Maragtas was finally placed in its proper perspective as a book of legends rather
than historical fact in 1968 by William Henry Scott. For his doctoral dissertation at the
University of Santo Tomas, Scott made a painstaking investigation into all the sources of
information about the Philippines before the coming of the Spaniards.
Rather than merely plagiarizing past historians, Scott examined the original
documents and searched archives and museums the world over for supporting
documents and artefacts. He questioned the top historians of the day about their sources
of information and consulted with many experts in other fields such as language, geology,
archaeology and anthropology. He scoured the vast collection of prehispanic material
amassed by his personal friend, Dr. H. Otley Beyer. He interviewed the friends, colleagues
and relatives of the figures behind the stories such as Pedro Monteclaro and Jose E.
Marco and he examined their correspondence.
William Henry Scott proved in his dissertation that Maragtas and the
Confederation of Madya-as were not actual ancient documents from long ago but only
legends that were collected and, in some cases, possibly concocted by Pedro Monteclaro
and published in 1907 in his book entitled Maragtas. As for the Maragtas Code, Scott
found that it was merely an invention of Guillermo Santiago-Cuino's mind which was
probably based on Monteclaro's book and published in 1938.
Scott successfully defended his dissertation before a panel of eminent Filipino
historians, some of whom had formerly endorsed and promoted the erroneous facts of
Philippine history. The panel included Teodoro Agoncillo, Horacio de la Costa, Marcelino
Forondo, Mercedes Grau Santamaria, Nicholas Zafra and Gregorio Zaide. Scott's
meticulous research was published in 1968 in his book Prehispanic Source Materials for
the Study of Philippine History and since then no historian has contested his
conclusions.
The Result of Scott's Discoveries
By the 1960s the better scholars already had some doubts regarding Maragtas
and they avoided mentioning it in their works. Scott's thesis confirmed their suspicions.
However, it was many years before the writers of school textbooks noticed Scott's
findings. Most continued to reprint their old texts while others wrote new books that still
contained the old mistakes.
Take for example this quote from Ang Pagsulong ng Pamayanan (1981):
• Maragtas' Code is the premier example of written law and it has been considered
the oldest because it was in effect from 1250.
• Not only is this statement wrong but its authors seem to believe that Maragtas
was a person and not a book.
• Jose Villa Panganiban used Maragtas to trace the origin of the Tagalog language
in the preface of the very popular English-Tagalog Dictionary by Fr. Leo James
English in 1965. To this day it remains unrevised in spite of many reprintings.
• Even one member of Scott's dissertation panel did not appear to be eager to set
the record straight. Gregorio Zaide continued to include information from
Maragtas in works such as Pageant of Philippine History in 1979, History of the
Republic of the Philippines in 1983 and Philippine History 1984 which he co-
authored with his daughter, Sonia Zaide.

7
 While making an effort to correct the errors of the past, some historians
mistook Maragtas to be one of the many hoaxes of Philippine history rather than a
mere legend. When Sonia Zaide revised History of the Republic of the Philippines
in 1987, she mistakenly described Maragtas as a fraudulent document:
The legends surrounding the settling of the Philippines by Malay migrants
are notably celebrated in the ati-atihan festival and perpetrated by hoaxers in the
fraudulent documents containing the Maragtas chronicle and the Code of
Kalantiaw.

Zaide clarified her opinion on the following page:

Although previously accepted by some historians, including the present
authors, it has become obvious that the Maragtas is only the imaginary creation of
Pedro A. Monteclaro, a Visayan public official and poet, in Iloilo in 1907. He based
it on folk customs and legends, largely transmitted by oral tradition.

It would be unfair to brand Pedro Monteclaro a hoaxer or his book a fraudulent

document because he never claimed that Maragtas was anything more than a
collection of legends. Any frauds involving his book were perpetrated by other later
writers who misrepresented it as an authentic ancient document.

1998 Paul Morrow

Latest revision: 22 April, 2007
Postscript
To this day ignorance and misunderstanding of the true nature of Maragtas
is still prevalent throughout Philippine society even among its highest
institutions and organizations. Evidence of this can be seen in the following
list of web sites:
• Supreme Court of the Philippines Brief History. Management
Information Systems Office of the Philippine Supreme Court.
Copyright © 1998 SUPREME COURT. Author not identified.
• Department of Education, Republic of the Philippines Looking Back;
Important Dates in Philippines History. Education News. Vol. 7, No.4.
April 2001. Author not identified.
• Governor's Office, Province of Antique Antique Provincial Profile,
League of Provinces of the Philippines. Copyright 2001 Author not
identified.
• Mayor's Office, City of Iloilo The Exciting Blend of East and West.
Author not identified. Madya-as Heritage Foundation Inc.
• Save Madya-as, Save Panay. Author not identified Akaenon.Com
Confederation of Madyaas. Author not identified.

8
 THE MARAGTAS LEGEND
For more information about the true history of Aklan and the Visayas,visit AklanWeb.
Bibliography
• The main source of information for this article, including some of the quotations
from earlier works, is W.H. Scott’s Prehispanic Source Materials for the Study of
Philippine History, revised edition, 1984.
• The drawing at the top of this article is from Ang Pagsulong ng Pamayanan, first
edition, 1981, p.174 by F.T. Leogardo, R.R. de Leon & P. Jacob. The artist was not
credited.
Other sources:
• AklanWeb, http://aklanweb.tripod.com/ati.htm
• Alip, Eufronio M. Political and Cultural History of the Philippines, revised edition, 1954.
• English, Leo James. English-Tagalog Dictionary, 1965.
• Leogardo, Felicitas T., Rosalina R. de Leon & Purification Jacob. Ang Pagsulong ng
Pamayanan, first edition, 1981.
• Scott, William Henry. Looking for the Prehispanic Filipino, 1992.
• Zaide, Gregorio F. The Pageant of Philippine History vol. 1, 1979.
• Zaide, Gregorio F. & Sonia M. Zaide. Philippine History, corrected edition, 1987.
• Zaide, Gregorio F. & Sonia M. Zaide. History of the Republic of the Philippines, revised edition,
1987.
• Zaide, Gregorio F. & Sonia M. Zaide. Kasaysayan ng Republika ng Pilipinas, 1989.

ACTIVITY 1: Short-Answered Question – limit your answer to at least 250 words.

1. What part of the story is legendary to the people of Panay Island in Pre-Hispanic
Period?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
2. What part of the story was parallel to truth or that has factual evidence?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
3. Do you believe the story of Maragtas? Justify your answer.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
9
1. CODE OF KALANTIAW

"The 17* Theses, or Laws of the Regulos [Datus] in use in 150 since 1433 (sic)
Issued in the year 1433 - Kalantiaw - 3rd Regulo" **
This is the fraudulent Code of Kalantiaw which first appeared in Ancient Legends
of the Island of Negros (volume 1, chapter 9), a book ascribed to a fictitious friar named
José María Pavon but was actually a forgery by José E. Marco (1877? -1963) who claimed
to have discovered it in 1913. Almost nobody questioned the authenticity of the Code for
over 50 years until historian William Henry Scott exposed it and many other historical
frauds in 1968. Unfortunately, it is still thought to be true in many circles today.

See the list of web sites that still perpetuate this hoax in the main article.
• * There are actually 18 laws which cover about 40 different offences.
• ** Later writers added the words "Aklan, Panay" to the title but it was supposedly
written for the island of Negros.

CODE OF KALANTIAW (LAW) NOTES

1 Ye shall not kill, neither shall ye steal nor
shall ye hurt the aged, lest ye incur the
danger of death. All those who this order
shall infringe shall be tied to a stone and
drowned in a river or in boiling water.
Actually 3 laws - for killing, stealing & elder
abuse. Beware. If you break this law you
may "incur the danger of death" before you
are actually killed.

2 Ye shall punctually meet your debt with your
headman. He who fulfils not, for the first time
shall be lashed a hundred-fold, and if the
obligation is great, his hand shall be dipped
threefold in boiling water. On conviction, he
shall be flogged to death
If you're not convicted of defaulting on a
debt you get a lashing or a scalding. "On
conviction" you die. - Neither a borrower nor
a lender be, I guess.

3 Obey ye: no one shall have wives that are too
young, nor shall they be more than what he
can take care of, nor spend much luxury. He
who fulfils not, obeys not, shall be
condemned to swim three hours, and, for the
second time, he shall be scourged with
spines to death.
Actually 3 laws - for statutory rape, extreme
polygamy & extravagance (or possibly lust,
depending on the translation). "Swim for 3
hours". Ancient Filipinos did not divide the
day into 24 "hours" and they had no clocks.

4 Observe and obey ye: Let not the peace of
the graves be disturbed; due respect must
be accorded them on passing by caves and
trees where they are. He who observes not
shall die by bites of ants or shall be flogged
with spines till death.
Actually 2 laws - for disturbing graves &
disrespecting graves. "Observe and obey" -
what's the difference? Also, if you break
this law you die but if you break similar
laws, #6 & #9, you pay a fine or become a
slave.

5 Obey ye: Exchange in food must be carried
out faithfully. He who complies not shall be
lashed for an hour. He who repeats the act
shall, for a day be exposed to the ants.
The western measurement of time, the
hour, is mentioned again here. Also, "Obey
ye" (but don't "observe ye"?). Why the faux
mediaeval English? It's silly. Did the
author of this "translation" think it made
the work more believable?

6 Ye shall revere respectable places, trees of
known value, and other sites. He shall pay a
month's work, in gold or money, whoever
fails to do this; and if twice committed, he
shall be declared a slave.
Many people say that Kalantiaw was a
Muslim but here he demands that his
subjects must "revere" trees and other
sites like animists do. Also, don't confuse
this with Law #4. You might get the
surprise of your life - your death!

10
 CODE OF KALANTIAW (LAW)
7 They shall die who kill trees of venerable
aspect; who at night shoot with arrows the
aged men and the women; he who enters
the house of the headman without
permission; he who kills a fish or shark or
striped crocodile.
8 They shall be slaves for a given time who
steal away the women of the headmen; he
who possesses dogs that bite the headmen;
he who burns another man's sown field.
9 They shall be slaves for a given time, who
sing in their night errands, kill manual
birds, tear documents belonging to the
headmen; who are evil-minded liars; who
play with the dead.
10 It shall be the obligation of every mother to
show her daughter secretly the things that
are lascivious, and prepare them for
womanhood; men shall not be cruel to their
wives, nor should they punish them when
they catch them in the act of adultery. He
who disobeys this shall be torn to pieces
and thrown to the caymans.
11 They shall be burned, who by force or
cunning have mocked at and eluded
punishment, or have killed two young boys,
or shall try to steal the women of the old
men (agurangs).
12 They shall be drowned, all slaves who
assault their superiors or their lords and
masters; all those who abuse their luxury;
those who kill their anitos by breaking them
or throwing them away.
NOTES
Actually 4 laws - for tree killing, assault
with a deadly weapon, trespassing &
poaching. More animism from the
supposedly Muslim datu. Is it permissible
to shoot the elderly during the day or to
shoot them with something other than
arrows at night? The penalty for
trespassing here is death. But don't worry,
take a look at Law #8.
Actually 3 laws - for adultery, assault with
a vicious animal & vandalism. The penalty
for trespassing on a headman's property is
death (See: Law #7) however you may fool
around with his wives and sic Fido on him
and still just get away with a stint of
slavery.
Actually 5 laws - for night singing, bird
killing, document tearing, being a
politician and necrophilia. Did the ancient
Filipinos have paper documents? Isn't this
what tearing implies? If you kill a manual
bird you risk slavery but if it's a young bird
you will be scourged. See: Law #15. More
"Muslim" animism? And if you enjoy
necrophilia you are only risking temporary
servitude but if you disturb the peace of a
grave while doing so you will be killed. See:
Law #4
Actually 2½ laws - for sexual ignorance,
spousal abuse & spousal abuse with
jealousy. "Torn to pieces and thrown to the
caymans" - wow! There's an incentive for
sex ed. Dad should be understanding if
there's another man in the house; he's
probably just helping Mum with an
educational demonstration.
Actually 3 laws - for thumbing your nose
at the law, double child homicide &
adultery. I guess killing young girls or a
single boy was o.k. in Kalantiaw's
kingdom. Here's a tip: Don't try to steal the
old men's women; just do it! Or just go for
the headmen's women instead and you
won't get burned. See: Law #8.
Actually 3 laws - for assault, taking a
superior for granted & vandalism. The
penalty for breaking this law is death by
drowning. If you want to fight authority
just get your dog to attack a headman. The
penalty is less severe. See: Law #8 again.
Anitos? Kalantiaw is supposed to be a
Muslim, not an animist.
11
 CODE OF KALANTIAW (LAW) NOTES

13 They shall be exposed to the ants for half a
day, who kill a black cat during the new
moon or steal things belonging to the
headmen.
Actually 2 laws - for cat killing & theft.
"Exposed to ants" - aray! If you're going to
steal anything from a headman make sure
it's his women. The penalty for that may be
less painful. See: Law #8 yet again.

14 They shall be slaves for life, who having Fairly straightforward but "hide them in
beautiful daughters shall deny them to the bad faith" is a bit redundant. Pity the
sons of the headman, or shall hide them in pretty.
bad faith.

15 Concerning their beliefs and superstitions:
they shall be scourged, who eat bad meat of
respected insects or herbs that are
supposed to be good; who hurt or kill the
young manaul bird and the white monkey.
Actually 2 laws - for eating bad meat etc.
(huh?) & animal abuse. In the first clause
it seems that Kalantiaw has suddenly
become a detached annotator of his own
work. Law #9 states that slavery is the
punishment for killing a manaul bird. This
law says that if you hurt or kill a young
one you will be scourged. Respected
insects and other animals are more
evidence that Kalantiaw was an animist
not a Muslim.

16 Their fingers shall be cut off, who break
wooden or clay idols in their olagangs and
places of oblation; he who breaks Tagalan's
daggers for hog killing, or breaks drinking
vases.
Again, if Kalantiaw was supposedly a
member of a Muslim ruling class he would
not be protecting "wooden or clay idols".

17 They shall be killed, who profane places
where sacred objects of their diwatas or
headmen are buried. He who gives way to
the, call of nature at such places shall he
burned.
Already covered by Laws#4 and #6. And
diwatas are more evidence that Kalantiaw
was not a Muslim.

18 Those who do not cause these rules to be
observed, if they are headmen, shall be
stoned and crushed to death, and if they are
old men, shall be placed in rivers to be
eaten by sharks and crocodiles.
This is a good law because anyone who
tried to enforce the other seventeen laws
would probably fail due to their insane and
self-contradictory nature.

Source of this version of the Code of Kalantiaw:

Political and Cultural History of the Philippines, Volume 1
published as fact by Eufronio M. Alip, 1954

By contrast, the other Pre-Hispanic source of the ancient Malay colonizers’ legal code. Known
as the Code of Kalantiaw is an outright forgery. Hence, the Code of Kalantiaw is fake, and this has
serious consequence for the student of history, and even government officials. It was previously
known as the second oldest legal code in the Philippines.
This Code of Kalantiaw was a set of a ancient law said to have been promulgated by Datu
Kalantiaw of Aklan in 1433. It is contained in a set of documents sold by Jose E. Marco, collector and
author from Negros Occidental, to Dr. James E. Robertson, the first director of the Philippine Library
and Museum in 1914. Robertson then published an English translation of the legal code, and then
caused Filipino scholars and historians to accept authenticity without question.Until the excellent
doctoral study of archeologist and historian Dr. Henry Scott brought to light the serious objection to
the “fake historical document”.
ZAIDE, SONIA. The Philippines: A Unique Nation, Manila. 1999

12
ACTIVITY 2: Short-Answered Question – limit your answer to at least 250 words.
1. What are you thinking as you read the Code of Kalantiaw?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

2. What part of the code was parallel to truth?

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

3. Do you believe the in the provision of the Code of Kalantiaw? Justify your answer.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

13
2. LEGEND OF PRINSESA URDUJA

The Story of ibn Battuta

Ibn Battuta described Urduja as the ruler of Kaylukari in the land of Tawalisi and leader
of the Kinalakian. After reaching the Samudra-Pasai Sultanate in what is now Sumatra,
Indonesia, Ibn Battuta passed by Tawalisi on his way to China. Princess Urduja was described
as a daughter of a ruler named Tawalisi of a land that was also called Tawalisi. The ruler of
Tawalisi, according to Ibn Battuta, possessed many ships and was a rival of China, which was
then ruled by a Mongol dynasty Ibn Battuta sailed for 17 days to reach China from the land of
Tawalisi Ibn Battuta made a pilgrimage to Mecca and he traveled to many other parts of the
Islamic world. From India and Sumatra, Ibn Battuta reached the land of Tawalisi. Ibn Battuta
described Urduja as a warrior princess whose army was composed of men and women. Urduja
was a woman warrior who personally took part in the fighting and engaged in duels with other
warriors. She was quoted as saying that she will marry no one but him who defeats her in duel.
Other warriors avoided fighting her for fear of being disgraced.
Urduja impressed Ibn Battuta with her military exploits and her ambition to lead an
expedition to India, known to her as the "Pepper Country." She also showed her hospitality by
preparing a banquet for Ibn Battuta and the crew of his ship. Urduja generously provided Ibn
Battuta with gifts that included robes, rice, two buffaloes, and four large jars of ginger, pepper,
lemons, and mangoes, all salted, in preparation for Ibn Battuta's sea-voyage to China Urduja is
often described as a tall and beautiful lady having golden bronze skin, straight shiny luscious
dark hair, and deep, dark-colored eyes. Clad in gold and is adept in sword fighting and
horseback riding. Leader of the Kinalakihan (warrior women). She was described as a brave,
smart and kind-hearted lady. She is also believed to be multi-dialect, which was a common
characteristic of the nobles in pre-colonial Southeast Asia.

The Philippine Theory about Urduja

In the late 19th Century, Jose Rizal, national hero of the Philippines,
speculated that the land of Tawalisi was in the area of the northern part of the
Philippines, based on his calculation of the time and distance of travel Ibn Battuta
took to sail to China from Tawalisi. In 1916, Austin Craig, an American historian of
the University of the Philippines, in "The Particulars of the Philippines Pre-Spanish
Past", traced the land of Tawalisi and Princess Urduja to Pangasinan. In the province
of Pangasinan, the governor's residence in Lingayen is named "Urduja House". A statue
of Princess Urduja stands at the Hundred Islands National Park in Pangasinan.
Philippine school textbooks used to include Princess Urduja in the list of great
Filipinos.

The Philippine Theory about Urduja

Princess Urduja's gifts of rice, buffaloes, ginger, pepper, lemons, mangoes, and
salt are products that are abundant in Pangasinan and India. The closely related Ibaloi
people have an oral tradition of a woman named Udayan who ruled an ancient alliance
of lowland and highland settlements in Pangasinan and the neighboring province of
Benguet. Ibn Battuta also mentioned that Urduja had some knowledge of a Turkic
language, which indicates contact with foreigners. Tawalisi was said to be in contact
with Mongol-ruled Yuan China so the Turkic language may have been Mongolian.
Ibn Batutta's travel account suggests that he also saw elephants in the land
ruled by Urduja. Elephants can still be found in Borneo, and may have been gifts or
traded in Pangasinan in earlier times. Ancient Malayo-Polynesian sailing vessels (such
as the Balangay), like the ones used by the ancient Bugis and those depicted in the
Borobudur bas-reliefs, were capable of transporting heavy cargo, including elephants.
There are depictions of such ancient ships in maritime Southeast Asia transporting
several elephants for trade.
URDUJA (WIKIpedia – Free Encyclopedia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urduja#cite_note-2

14
 Java theory
The aforementioned gifts can also be found in Java. Chinese records showed
that, almost all of Asian commodities can be found in Java during the Majapahit era.
This is because the Javanese were skilled sailors and merchants, travelling as far as
Ghana since the 8th century.While the original name of the duchess of the said land
was actually spelled in Arabic by Ibn Battuta as WHR DJ in his Rihlah which might
be misread as Urduja instead of reading it as Wahre Daja (Bhre Daha) due to the lack
of geographical perspective and the lack of knowledge in the Arabic script congruent
to the period when it happened. Bhre Daha was a title given to Dayah Wiyat (literally
means "princess vagina"), the twin sister of Bhre Kahuripan, as duchess of Daha (also
known as Kediri). Both duchesses were daughters of Raden Wijaya and Gayatri. After
the death of Kala Gemet both duchesses assumed power as rajah kembars (twin
rulers) and both were given the title Tribhuana tungga dewi (meaning Majapahit
empress). Another theory is that Urduja is actually a misspelling of Gitarja, the Bhre
of Kahuripan, and also the Queen regnant of Majapahit. Tradition mentioned her as a
woman of extraordinary valour, wisdom and intelligence. Javanese texts mentioned
her as a brave woman, even riding into battle herself.

Java had been attacked by Mongols they called Tatars for several times, first
in the last part of the 13th century A.D. (the 1293 invasion), second during the reign
of Kala Gemet. and few more unrecorded invasions. Hence, it is very clear that Java
at that time especially the royal court had also been linguistically influenced by the
Turkic speaking Tatars. Thus, the Bhre Daha could talk in Turkic as was observed by
Ibn Battuta during his visit in her court.

Elephants flourished in Java during Majapahit era. Majapahit's cavalry usually

consisted of elephants and horses. Majapahit also possessed one of the most powerful
navy of Javanese junks (jong) during its era. Each junk is able to carry 500-1000 men,
and several hundred horses. The number of junks possessed by Majapahit is
unknown, but the largest expedition mobilized 400 large junks.
URDUJA (WIKIpedia – Free Encyclopedia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urduja#cite_note-2
Ibn Battuta, The Travels of Ibn Baṭṭūṭa, A.D. 1325–1354, vol. 4, trans. H. A. R. Gibb and
C. F. Beckingham (London: Hakluyt Society, 1994), pp. 884–5.

ACTIVITY 3: Short-Answered Question – limit your answer to at least 250 words.

1. What are you thinking as you read the story of Princess Urduja?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

15
 2. What part of the story was parallel to truth, and can be part of our history?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
3. Do you believe the in the story of Princess Urduja? Justify your answer.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

Learning Content
HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION

Philippine History is full of historical errors – wrong dates, places, and

personalities, in our efforts to correct them, is a work-in- progress. Sometimes there
are things that remains to be part of our tradition and we consider them legends, and
myths. Its literature will remain as part of our identity as a people.

History is the construction and deconstruction of explanatory narratives about the

past, derived from evidences and in-questions. This can be explained to children
(students) as finding answers to questions and questions to answers, by taking
apart and putting together again real stories of the past (Bage, 1999).

Though people in the past lived under different circumstances and viewed
the world through different belief systems, many students might assume that people of
the past had the same goals, intentions, attitudes, and beliefs as people in today’s
society, and as such, this presentism might result in misunderstandings about the past
(Barton & Levstik, 2004)
This will be a challenge for TEACHERS and you as students of history, our
oral history, legends or myths must be preserved and transferred to the generations to
come, for us to be recognized as people. Facts and evidences could be updated
depending on historical researches, writing it will be another story.

16
CHAPTER – 2: MULTIPERSPECTIVITY: Controversies and Conflicting
Views in Philippine History
Here is an example of controversy that happened in our history the presidential
election for the leadership of Commonwealth Government in 1935, Senate President
Manuel L. Quezon run against General Emilio Aguinaldo who was the president of the
First Philippine Republic and the leader of the Filipino-American War. It was a partisan
campaign as Aguinaldo bannered The National Socialist Party versus Quezon’s as
Nationalist Party, and Gregorio Aglipay ran also representing the Republican Party.
Considered to be the most controversial election during that era. There were “No TV”
coverage of debates, “No Internet” videos of campaigns, technology was just developing
yet people would come to every campaign assemblies that these two known personalities
organized and the press are there to cover the event through radio and newspapers
headlines. At the height of the campaign, Quezon used the bones of Andres Bonifacio
the Supremo of the Katipunan, which he was able to get from the Bonifacio family, it
was identified by Guillermo Masangkay, and used this bone to tell its story of how
Aguinaldo was able to execute the leader of the revolution. In the discourse of their
debate, Aguinaldo would contest that he did not order for the execution of the Supremo
and that the alleged bones were not Bonifacio’s.

In 1918, the alleged bones of Bonifacio were unearthed in Nagpatong, under

the watchful eyes of Guillermo Masangkay who headed a committee in charge of
finding his bones. It was from Masangkay that we hear of the story that Bonifacio
was hacked to death, thereby incurring some damage to the skull. The problem
with this story is that it contradicts the account of Lazaro Makapagal, the Filipino
officer who carried out the order to execute the Bonifacio brothers on a hill called
Tala or close to it. The brothers, they say, were shot. His story puts the authenticity
of the bones found in Nagpatong into question. (note: Guillermo Masangkay is a
leader in the Katipunan by Andres Bonifacio, and Lazaro Makapagal was an officer
of the Revolution whose president is Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo – Who is telling the
truth?)
Ambeth Ocampo, Bones of Contention, 2014

During that time there was no DNA testing, since there are limited access to the
remains of the Katipunan leader, the voting public accepted the argument that was well
stated by Manuel L. Quezon as that of historical fact, and the story behind the bones
will always reminds us of how weak General Emilio Aguinaldo as a revolutionary leader
and was branded as traitor to the cause of the Revolution. Eventually, this statement
gave the young politician from Baler a seat in the presidency of the Commonwealth
government. This was one of the factors of his success aside from the fact that his name
was growing popular during that time as a senate president and head of various program
by the American Government. And Aguinaldo as an anti-American was a controversial
leader at that era.
Who was telling the truth? And who was not? Its up to the historians who has
the grasp of the materials (primary sources, or secondary sources). Things like this is
but natural to any writer, as to what they think is true and valid. For the early for the
beginning of our independence as a people, during the Commonwealth Republic, until
the freedom granted by the American government, history was considered as a literary
works, with bias, and being subjective to the authors political viewpoint.
17
ACTIVITY 1: What Are You Thinking?
Express your thoughts by answering the following question:
1. In the readings above, what is your analysis on Quezon’s campaign strategy?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

2. What was the factor that made people believe on the allegation of Quezon on
the personality of Aguinaldo as a leader?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

3. If you were there during the 1935 election, who would you vote for? Why?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

18
Learning Content
What historians wrote about Pres. Manuel Quezon actions during that
Commonwealth campaign against Gen. Aguinaldo was a clear example of historical
interpretation. Some would say that he was able to convince the masses that the bones
were that of the Supremo of the Katipunan Andres Bonifacio, and his tragic stories in
the hands of Aguinaldo’s men was traitorous to the cause of the revolution, therefore
Quezon won the heart of the voting Filipinos. Historical writings can be subjective to the
authors view or even from its sources and eyewitnesses. It can manipulate its readers
to what course action they would take after reading the stories, it can be self-serving,
just like what the Western Empires did “History is Written by the Victors” (Philan,
2019). The same word was mentioned by William Churchill in his speech after the Allied
Forces victory in World War II. And so as to rewrite history in favor of the winners
(victors). With this contemporary history, was use to preserve, promote, and promulgate
the status quo or the current leadership of the nation.

In his book Logics of History, social historian William Sewell, Jr. (2005) noted that
historians should respect the differences that separate one period from another. He argued
that “we cannot know what an act or utterance means and what its consequences might be
without knowing the semantics, the technologies, the conventions—in brief, the logics—that
characterize the world in which the action takes place” (p. 10).
Other historians also stress the importance of considering the contextual
circumstances when interpreting historical phenomena (e.g., Bevir, 2002; Gaddis, 2002;
Tully, 1988).
Accordingly, as student ability to contextualize historical phenomena is
considered an important component of historical thinking, such conceptualization is being
incorporated into history education worldwide (e.g., Lévesque, 2008; Seixas & Morton,
2013; Van Drie & Van Boxtel, 2008). In history education, it is possible to contextualize
historical sources and phenomena, including persons, events, and developments
(Havekes, Coppen, Luttenberg, & Van Boxtel, 2012). When history education researchers
discuss the contextualization of the actions of people and groups in the past, they often
use the term historical perspective taking (HPT; e.g., Davis, Yeager, & Foster, 2001;
Doppen, 2000).Though people in the past lived under different circumstances and viewed
the world through different belief systems, many students might assume that people of
the past had the same goals, intentions, attitudes, and beliefs as people in today’s society,
and as such, this presentism might result in misunderstandings about the past (Barton
& Levstik, 2004; Lee & Ashby, 2001).
For example, without the ability to perform HPT, students could not explain that
Julius Caesar could not have breakfasted in Rome and dined in the Gaul region of France
on the same day, as the transportation necessary for such a trip was not available during
Caesar’s time (Lévesque, 2008).
Engaging in HPT could avoid presentism and help students understand and
explain historical agents’ decisions and historical phenomena (Van Boxtel & Van Drie,
2012). Some scholars also argue that HPT could contribute to citizenship in multicultural
societies as it promotes the recognition and understanding of other people’s views (e.g.,
Barton, 2012; Den Heyer, 2003; Rüsen, 2004). For example, Seixas and Peck (2004)
argued that to promote students’ social and political orientation and moral judgment, they
must engage in HPT assignments.
Toward Historical Perspective Taking: Students’ Reasoning When Contextualizing
the Actions of People in the Past by: Tim Huijgen
A Journal Research – Journal Theories and Research in Social Education
Vol.45, 2017-Issue 1
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00933104.2016.1208597

19
Elements in Studying Readings in History
The articles will tell us about the two (2) important elements of historical readings or
sources. Objectivity and Subjectivity in history, are elements of scientific or educational
researches that needs factual evidences, references, and parallel studies to support its content.
Most of the time we identify them as truthfulness, being factual, and the latter being bias.

QUORA FORUM - What is the difference between objectivity and subjectivity in history?
Historians are only human — but they know that all
As humans, we are always tempted to read history in reference to my individual habits, or
to the traditions of my own family, or to the traditions of my local community; or to the
traditions of the State itself.
Yet historians also know that these bias skews the Objectivity in History, and as genuine
scientists, the Historians seek optimum Objectivity.
Therefore, the Historian (even in ancient times) makes a heroic effort to set aside
personal and cultural predispositions — and to read History without ethnocentric
prejudice.
Not only does the Historian struggle to attain Objectivity — philosophers like Hegel assure
us that Objectivity is entirely possible, probable and necessary.
Thus, great Historians are able to set aside cultural prejudice and to deal with World History
in Objective terms. This is precisely what makes them great, and why their works stand the
test of Time — they last century after century.
PAUL TREJO, MA from Humanities & Sociology,
California State University, Dominguez Hills (Graduated 1989)
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-objectivity-and-subjectivity-in-history

History is a diverse subject. Any study of history that is undertaken with the intent to
answer a question or deduce a truth is inherently subjective.
Subjectivity is how we view the history that we know or don’t know. We do this by
analyzing events, people, ideas, and cultures through various encompassing lenses. These
different lens could be cultural, religious, socioeconomic, Marxist, gender study or feminist,
rights activism, progressive history, anthropological, intellectuality, political, etc. literally
anything that is more finite or focused than general history (which itself is subjective because
it chooses events, people, ideas, etc to recognize and not to recognize).
Subjectivity is also a method of research analysis. Like before, “subjective” research is
how the research is conducted, what is chooses to include or omit, and what it is studying.
Objectivity is how subjective history and research should be viewed and presented
(however, this is quite hard to achieve). There is no such thing as objective history. It is
impossible to be completely objective in study and in research because it is impossible to
exist at a point in your life where you are not affected by your past experiences and
knowledge, current bias, or situation/surrounding, as well as ethnocentricity amongst a host
of other technicalities.

The closest thing we can achieve to objectivity is the complete resocialization of one’s culture.
This is complete immersion into a new culture with no restraint and full integration and
immersion into new, and often terrifying or awe inspiring, traditions and practices. Even then
we are still products of our past memories, experiences, education, upbringing, etc. ad
nauseum.

JACOB FINEGAN, Researcher and Studied Intellectual History

at the University of Central Florida (2018)
https://www.quora.com/What-is-objectivity-and-subjectivity-in-history

20
MULTIPERPECTIVITY
Aside from interpretation, there are other possibilities on how people
interpret the past, whether it’s objective or subjective, another concept is
multiperspectivity or multiple perspective. This define as the way of looking at historical
events, personalities, developments, cultures, and societies from different perspective,
which means that there are multitude of ways by which we can view the world, and each
could be valid and at the same time, equally partial as well (Candelaria & Alporha, 2018).
Historical writing is by definition subjective and biased, and with errors that opens for
research and investigation.

There are ways by which historians may fail in his writing (Barton & Levstik, 2004):
1. HISTORIANS MOTIVE/GOAL. The historians decide on what sources to use, and
what interpretation to make depending on what is his motive is.
2. HISTORIANS LEANING OR FAVORED GROUP. Historians may misinterpret
evidence, attending to those that suggest that a certain thing happened, and then
ignore the rest of that goes against the evidence.
3. HISTORIANS UNBALANCE PRESENTATION. Historians may omit significant facts
about their subject, which makes the interpretation unbalance.
4. HISTORIANS IDEALS. Historians may impose certain ideology to the subject, which
may not be appropriate to the period the subject was from.
5. HISTORIANS BOXED IDEAS. Historians may also provide single cause or causality
for an event without considering other possible causal explanation of the said event.

With multiperspectivity as an approach in history, we must understand that

historical interpretations contain discrepancies, contradictions, ambiguities, and are
often focus of dissent. What does it require? (a) incorporating source materials that
reflect different views of an historical event; (b) different sources that counter each other
may create space for more investigation and research – providing more evidence for
those truth that these sources agree on (Candelaria & Alporha, 2018).
Using this approach in our readings in certain events in Philippine History will
provide us complex ideas of people, the situation of the time of events, the factor that
lead to the event, and various views of people with common and contradicting ideas,
that will complete our journey and understanding of the past.
Try incorporating primary sources that represent a range of views on a historical
issue. Then, ask students to spend some time thinking about why different groups may
see the same event in different ways. Oftentimes a different story emerges when those
multiple perspectives are put together. The result is enriched historical understanding.

21
ACTIVITY 2: Let’s Try To Apply What We Have Learned

Direction: Use a sheet of paper as a notepad in your Reading Experiences.

1. Read the following case studies in the events in Philippine History.
2. Compare the sources in terms of differences and similarities of accounts.
3. Look for controversies that created confusion, it could be presented in a
question form or inquiries as you read the case study.
4. You must decide on which source of account will you accept or believe, make
your own justification.

CASE STUDY No.1: Where is the Site of the First Mass in the Philippines?
(Saan Naganap ang Unang Misa sa Pilipinas?)

Bernad, M. (2013). Butuan or Limasawa: The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A
Reexaminationof the Evidence. Budhi: A Journal of Ideas and Culture, 5(3 6.1), 133-166.
Retrieved from https://journals.ateneo.edu/ojs/index.php/budhi/article/view/582/579

22
Bernad, M. (2013). Butuan or Limasawa: The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A
Reexaminationof the Evidence. Budhi: A Journal of Ideas and Culture, 5(3 6.1), 133-166.
Retrieved from https://journals.ateneo.edu/ojs/index.php/budhi/article/view/582/579

23
Bernad, M. (2013). Butuan or Limasawa: The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A
Reexaminationof the Evidence. Budhi: A Journal of Ideas and Culture, 5(3 6.1), 133-166.
Retrieved from https://journals.ateneo.edu/ojs/index.php/budhi/article/view/582/579

24
Bernad, M. (2013). Butuan or Limasawa: The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A
Reexaminationof the Evidence. Budhi: A Journal of Ideas and Culture, 5(3 6.1), 133-166.
Retrieved from https://journals.ateneo.edu/ojs/index.php/budhi/article/view/582/579

25
Bernad, M. (2013). Butuan or Limasawa: The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A
Reexaminationof the Evidence. Budhi: A Journal of Ideas and Culture, 5(3 6.1), 133-166.
Retrieved from https://journals.ateneo.edu/ojs/index.php/budhi/article/view/582/579

26
Bernad, M. (2013). Butuan or Limasawa: The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A
Reexaminationof the Evidence. Budhi: A Journal of Ideas and Culture, 5(3 6.1), 133-166.
Retrieved from https://journals.ateneo.edu/ojs/index.php/budhi/article/view/582/579

27
28
CASE No. 2 – What Happened in the Cavite Mutiny?
The Two Faces of the Cavite Mutiny – National Historical Commission of the
Philippines (NHCP)
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 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.
29
 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 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 TWO FACES OF THE 1872 CAVITE MUTINY
By Chris Antonette Piedad-Pugay
https://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-
faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/

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 (Piedad-Pugay, 2012). As we enjoy our
freedom, may we be more historically aware of our past to have a better future ahead of
us. And just like what Elias said in Noli me Tangere, may we “not forget those who
fell during the night.”

30
CASE No. 3 – Did Rizal Retracted?

Did Jose Rizal Die a Catholic?

Revisiting Rizal’s Last 24 Hours Using Spy Reports
Rene Escalante
There is one issue in Jose Rizal’s life that historians have debated on several
occasions but remains unsettled. That issue is whether Rizal, on the eve of his death,
re-embraced the Catholic faith and disassociated himself from Masonry. The matter is
controversial because parties on both sides are affiliated with an organization that
promotes moral values and the pursuit of truth. The pro-retraction camp is represented
by the Jesuits, the archbishop of Manila, and a few other members of the Catholic
hierarchy. Since they are all ordained priests, they are assumed to be truthful in their
pronouncements. Their opponents are the members of Masonry, an organization that
promotes brotherhood, integrity, decency, and professionalism (Escalante, 2019).

Rene Escalante, a DLSU History Professor, in his paper resurrects the retraction
controversy in the light of the emergence of another primary source that speaks about
what happened to Rizal on the eve of his death. This document was never considered in
the history of the retraction controversy because it was made available to researchers
only in the past decade. The author of the report is a credible eyewitness because he
was physically present in the vicinity of where Rizal was detained. His narrative is lucid
and contains details that cast doubt on the credibility and reliability of earlier primary
sources on which previous narratives were based. This document needs serious
consideration and should be included in the discourse on Rizal’s retraction (Escalante,
2019).
This is an excepts from his paper with the early primary sources and the latest
primary source being included in the discourse.

31
32
33
(Escalante, 2019)

https://englishkyoto-seas.org/2019/12/vol-
8-no-3-rene-escalante/

34
CASE No. 4 – Where did The Cry of Rebellion Happened?
There are various accounts that give differing dates and places for the Cry. An officer of the Spanish
guardia civil, Lt. Olegario Diaz, stated that the Cry took place in Balintawak on August 25, 1896. Historian
Teodoro Kalaw in his 1925 book “The Filipino Revolution” 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. Pío Valenzuela, a close associate of Andrés Bonifacio, declared in 1948
that it happened in Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896 (Candelaria & Alporha, 2018). Historian Gregorio
Zaide stated in his books in 1954 that the "Cry" happened in Balintawak on August 26, 1896. Fellow
historian Teodoro Agoncillo wrote in 1956 that it took place in Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896, based on
Pío Valenzuela's statement. 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 (Zaide & Zaide, 2006).

Definition of the Cry

The term "Cry" is translated from the Spanish el grito de rebellion (cry of rebellion) or el grito
for short. Thus, the Grito de Balintawak is comparable to Mexico's Grito de Dolores (1810). However, el grito
de rebellion strictly refers to a decision or call to revolt. It does not necessarily connote shouting, unlike the
Filipino sigaw (Ocampo, 2019).
ACCOUNTS OF THE CRY OF REBELLION
GUILLERMO MASANGKAY (Joaquin, 2017)
On August 26th, a big meeting was held in
Balintawak, at the house of Apolonio Samson,
then cabeza of that barrio of Caloocan. Among
those who attended, I remember, were Bonifacio,
Emilio Jacinto, Aguedo del Rosario, Tomas
Remigio, Briccio Pantas, Teodoro Plata, Pio
Valenzuela, Enrique Pacheco, and Francisco
Carreon. They were all leaders of the Katipunan
and composed the board of directors of the
organization. Delegates from Bulacan,
Cabanatuan, Cavite, and Morong were also
present.
At about nine o'clock in the morning of
August 26, the meeting was opened with Andres
Bonifacio presiding and Emilio Jacinto acting as
secretary. The purpose was to discuss when the
uprising was to take place. Teodoro Plata, Briccio
Pantas, and Pio Valenzuela were all opposed to
starting the revolution too early...Andres
Bonifacio, sensing that he would lose the
discussion then, left the session hall and talked
to the people, who were waiting outside for the
result of the meeting of the leaders. He told the
people that the leaders were arguing against
starting the revolution early, and appealed to
them in a fiery speech in which he said: "You
remember the fate of our countrymen who were
shot in Bagumbayan. Should we return now to
the towns, the Spaniards will only shoot us. Our
organization has been discovered and we are all
marked men. If we don't start the uprising, the
Spaniards will get us anyway. What then, do you
say?"
"Revolt!" the people shouted as one.
Bonifacio then asked the people to give a
pledge that they were to revolt. He told them that
the sign of slavery of the Filipinos were (sic) the
cedula tax charged each citizen. "If it is true that
you are ready to revolt... I want to see you destroy
your cedulas. It will be a sign that all of us have
declared our severance from the Spaniards.
The Cry of Balintawak occurred on August 26,
1896. The Cry, defined as that turning point when
the Filipinos finally refused Spanish colonial
dominion over the Philippine Islands. With tears
in their eyes, the people as one man, pulled out
their cedulas and tore them into pieces. It was the
beginning of the formal declaration of the
separation from Spanish rule."Long Live the
Philippine Republic!", the cry of the people. An
article from The Sunday Tribune Magazine on
August 21, 1932 featured the statements of the
eyewitness account by Katipunan General
Guillermo Masangkay, "A Katipunero Speaks".
Masangkay recounts the "Cry of Balintawak",
stating that on August 26,1896, a big meeting was
held in Balintawak at the house of Apolonio
Samson, then the cabeza of that barrio of
Caloocan. At about nine o'clock in the morning of
August 26, the meeting was opened with Andres
Bonifacio presiding and Emilio Jacinto acting as
Secretary. In August 1896, after the Katipunan
was discovered, Masangkay joined Bonifacio,
Emilio Jacinto, and others in a clandestine
meeting held on the 26th of that month at
Apolonio Samson’s house in Caloocan.
Initially, the leaders of the movement quarreled
over strategy and tactics, and many of its35
members questioned the wisdom of an open
rebellion due to the lack of arms and logistical
support. However, after Bonifacio’s intense and
convincing speech, everyone destroyed their
PIO VALENZUELA’S ACCOUNT (Joaquin, 2017)
The Supremo Bonifacio was restless because of fear of
sudden attack by the enemy. He was worried over the
In 1935, Pio Valenzuela, along with Briccio
thought that any of the couriers carrying the letter
Pantas and Enrique Pacheco said (in English
sent by Emilio Jacinto could have been intercepted;
translation) "The first Cry of the revolution did not
and in that eventuality, the enemy would surely know
happen in Balintawak where the monument is, but in
their whereabouts and attack them on the sly.He
a place called Pugad Lawin." In 1940, a research team
decided that it was better to move to a site called
of a forerunner of the National Historical Institute (NHI)
Bahay Toro. At ten o'clock that Sunday morning, 23
which included Valenzuela, identified the location as
August 1896 we arrived at Bahay Toro. Our member
part of sitio Gulod, Banlat, Kalookan City. IN 1964, the
had grown to more than 500 and the house, yard, and
NHI described this location as the house of Tandang
warehouse of Cabesang Melchora was getting crowded
Sora.
with us Katipuneros. The generous hospitality of
The first place of refuge of Andres Bonifacio,
Cabesang Melchora was no less than that of Apolonio
Emilio Jacinto, Procopio, Bonifacio, Teodoro Plata,
Samson. Like him, she also opened her granary and
Aguedo del Rosario, and myself was Balintawak, the
had plenty of rice pounded and animals slaughtered
first five arriving there on August 19, and I on August
to feed us. The following day, Monday, 24 August,
20, 1896. The first place where some 500 members of
more Katipuneros came and increased our number to
the Katipunan met on August 22, 1896, was the house
more than a thousand. The Supremo called a meeting
and yard of Apolonio Samson at Kangkong. Aside from
at ten o'clock that morning inside Cabesang
the persons mentioned above, among those who were
Melchora's barn. Flanking him on both sides at the
there were Briccio Pantas, Alejandro Santiago, Ramon
head of the table were Dr. Pio Valenzuela, Emilio
Bernardo, Apolonio Samson, and others. Here, views
Jacinto, Briccio Pantas, Enrique Pacheco, Ramon
were only exchanged, and no resolution was debated or
Bernardo, Pantelaon Torres, Francisco Carreon,
adopted. It was at Pugad Lawin, the house, store-
Vicente Fernandez, Teodoro Plata, and others.
house, and yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora
Aquino, where over 1,000 members of the Katipunan
We were so crowded that some stood outside the barn.
met and carried out considerable debate and
The following matters were approved at the meeting:
discussion on August 23, 1896. The discussion was on
(Ocampo, 2019)
whether or not the revolution against the Spanish
1. An uprising to defend the people's freedom was
government should be started on August 29, 1896...
to be started at midnight of Saturday, 29 August
After the tumultuous meeting, many of those present
1896;
tore their cedula certificates and shouted "Long live the
2. To be on a state of alert so that the Katipunan
Philippines! Long live the Philippines!"
forces could strike should the situation arise
where the enemy was at a disadvantage. Thus,
SANTIAGO ALVAREZ ACCOUNT (Joaquin, 2017)
the uprising could be started earlier than the
agreed time of midnight of 29 August 1896
The account of Santiago Alvarez regarding the Cry of
should a favorable opportunity arise at that
Balintawak flaunted specific endeavors, as stated:
date. Everyone should steel himself and be
resolute in the struggle that was imminent
We started our trek to Kangkong at about eleven that
3. He immediate objective was the capture of
night. We walked through the rain over dark expanses
Manila.
of muddy meadows and fields. Our clothes drenched
and our bodies numbed by the cold wind, we plodded
After the adjournment of the meeting at twelve noon,
wordlessly. It was nearly two in the morning when we
there were tumultuous shouts of "Long live the Sons
reached the house of Brother Apolonio Samson in
of the People!" (Ocampo, 2019)
Kangkong. We crowded into the house to rest and
warm ourselves. We were so tired that, after hanging
our clothes out to dry, we soon feel asleep. The
Supremo began assigning guards at five o'clock the
following morning, Saturday 22 August 1896.
He placed a detachment at the Balintawak boundary
and another at the backyard to the north of the house
where we were gathered. No less than three hundred
men assembled at the bidding of the Supremo Andres
Bonifacio. Altogether, they carried assorted weapons,
bolos, spears, daggers, a dozen small revolvers and a
rifle used by its owner, one Lieutenant Manuel, for
hunting birds.

36
Learning Content
Historians agree the precise date and location are not vitally important. They
concur, a few mavericks excepted, that the “Cry” took place between August 23 and 26,
1896 in what was then the municipality of Caloocan. The doubt about the exact site
could be put aside, as Ambeth Ocampo has suggested, simply by calling the occasion
the “Cry of Caloocan”. But this fudge would not end the controversy. Official history
demands precise dates to commemorate and exact places to mark, and historians feel
uneasy that decades of debate have not produced any clear answers. Pinpointing the
“Cry” is a challenge they have failed to meet. Nicolas Zafra voiced such a view back in
1960. The detail of the “Cry” might seem insignificant in relation to the broader sweep
of events, he acknowledged, and indeed it might seem “pointless and unprofitable” to
pursue the matter, but the historical profession had a duty to ensure the facts of public
history were as accurate as humanly possible. Settling the problem, he said, would
redound to the “credit, honor and glory of historical scholarship in our country.”
These notes aim firstly to clarify the issues of geography and terminology that
have complicated the “Cry” debate over the years; secondly to summarize the current
state of knowledge about the “Cry”; and thirdly, at some length, to discuss the long
evolution and the credibility of the official version of events, namely that the “Cry” took
place on August 23, 1896; at a site known as Pugad Lawin, situated in what today is
Bahay Toro, Quezon City; which in 1896 had been the house and yard of Juan Ramos.
ACTIVITY 2: What Are You Thinking?
Express your thoughts by answering the following question:
1. In the readings above, what is your analysis on Cases presented?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
2. How did controversies arise in Philippine History?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

37
ACTIVITY 3: INTEGRATED PAPER
Direction: Make an integrated paper for this LESSON No.3. This will assess the learning
that you have earned in reading and understanding the topics within this lesson. Refer
to the sample diagram and illustration of the content of an integrated paper in Readings
in Philippine History.

38
References
Bage, G. (1999). Narrative matters: Teaching and Learning History Through Story. New York: Falmer Press Routledge
Inc. Taylor and Francis eLibrary, 2002.

Barton, K., & Levstik, L. (2004). Teaching History for the Common Good. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlburm
Associates, Inc.
Bernard, M. A. (2013). Butuan or Limasawa: The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexaminationof the
Evidence. Budhi: A Journal Of Ideas And Culture, 5 (3 6.1), 133-166. Retrieved from
https://journals.ateneo.edu/ojs/index.php/budhi/article/view/582/579.
Blair, E. H. (2011). The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Philippine Islands, 1493-1898. Jeroen Hellingman and the
Online DistributedProofreading Team for Project Gutenberg at http://www.pgdp.net/.
Candelaria, J. L., & Alporha, V. C. (2018). Readings in Philippine History. Quezon City: Rex Printing Company, Inc.
CHED, C. o. (2019). Readings in Philippine History. Manila: CHED.
Craig, A. (1927). Rizal’s Life and Minor Writings. . Quezon City : Manila Philippine Education Co. Custodio, M. (project
director) Dalisay J. Jr, (executive director).
Escalante, R. (2019, December 26). Vol. 8, No. 3, Rene ESCALANTE - Did Jose Rizal Die a Catholic? Revisiting Rizal’s
Last 24 Hours Using Spy Reports. SEAS Southeast Asian Studies Center for Southeast Asian Studies Kyoto
University, pp. Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. 8, No. 3, December 2019, pp. 369-386 https://englishkyoto-
seas.org/2019/12/vol-8-no-3-rene-escalante/.
Gibb, H., & Beckingham, C. F. (1994). The Travels of Ibn Battuta, A. D. 1325-1354. Vol.4. London: Hakluyt Society.
Guillermo, R. (2009, September). Pantayong Pananaw and the Philippine Political Concept. Kritika Kultura UP Diliman.
Hammond, D. R. (2010). Introduction to Sociology (Online). Dr. Ron J. Hammond and Dr. Paul Cheney on Smashwords.
Hount, E. E. (2011). Social Science An Introduction to the Study of Society. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc. as Allyn
and Bacon 75 Arlington.
Huijgen, T. (2017). Toward Historical Perspective Taking: Students’ Reasoning When Contextualizing the Actions of
People in the Past. Theory and Research in Social Studies, Volume 45, Issue 1.
Joaquin, N. (2017). A Questions of Heroes - 7th Printing. Mandaluyong City: ANVIL Publishing Inc.
Jocano, F. L. (1967). Philippine Studies: The Beginning of Filipino Society and Culture. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila
University.
Kelbley, C. (1965). History and Truth. Ivanton, Illinois: North Western University Press.
Kleinberg, E. (2020). History and Theory - Studies in the Philosophy of History. Washington DC: Wesleyan University.
Novack, G. (2008). A Long View of History. NSW, Australia: Resistance Books.
Ocampo, A. (2019, March 15). The Indolence of the Filipino. Philippine Daily Inquirer - Inquirer.Net, pp.
https://opinion.inquirer.net/120136/the-indolence-of-the-filipino.
Palma, D. R. (1996). The Pride of the Malay Race (2010). . New York: Prentice Hall Publications.
Philan, M. (2019, November 26). The History of “History Is Written by the Victors”. Brow Beat,
https://slate.com/culture/2019/11/history-is-written-by-the-victors-quote-origin.html.
Piedad-Pugay, C. A. (2012, September 5). The Two Faces of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny. NHCP Journal , pp. The Two Faces
of the 1872 Cavite Mutinyhttps://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/.
Pila, C. D. (2012). Rizal: His Legacy to Philippine Society. Mandaluyong City: Anvil Publishing Inc.
Pinto, G. (2011, January 29). Alternative Writing Assignments: The Integrated Paper. Faculty Focus, pp.
https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-and-learning/alternative-writing-assignments-the-
integrated-paper/.
Rapport, N. (2000). Anthropology Key Concepts. New Fetter Lane, London: Taylor and Francis e-Library 2003.
Rousso, H. (2016). The Latest Catastrophe: History, the Present, the Contemporary Translated by Jane Marie Todd.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Viana, A. V. (2018). JOSE RIZAL:Social Reformer and Patriot. Manila, Philippines: Rex Book Store.

W.Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among the Five Design. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publication, Inc.

Wilson, B. (2006). Ethnography, the Internet, and Youth Culture. Canadian Journal of Education , 307-328.

Zaide, S., & Zaide, G. (2006). The Philippines A Unique Nation - 2nd Edition. Quezon City: All Nations Publishing Co.
Inc.

39