Potenciano R.

Malvar is a local historian who filed a criminal complaint against the

Mojares Panel for violations of Articles 355, 171, and 172 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC) alleging libel and falsifications by public officers and private individuals.

Malvar: “For years, I have made extensive research not only here in the Philippines but
also abroad, including Spain and Portugal, and made researches and studies on the life
and travels of Ferdinand Magellan,”

Malvar: “All the three panels concluded that Limasawa was the site of the first mass,
but the Legarda panel’s report was not conclusive as it encouraged local historians and
scholars in Butuan to continue and expand the historical studies to further strengthen
their claim,”

we all know the in history not all first account statements are reliable and certain, there
were second hand accounts for a reason. The information given were historiographed,
studies and analyzed by historians

The Mojares panel was not aware of the fate of Trinidad, the flagship of Magellan. The
ship and all its instruments, maps, cartas, and logs, especially the navigational log of
Andres de San Martin, were seized. That log of Andres de San Martin listed the 9”
latitude of Mazaua. There was that island of spice nearby to the east of Mazaua, where
Magellan went to, during Easter week of 1521.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the term "Mazaua," as recorded in Pigfetta's

diary, is a reference to the Masao people of Butuan. As a consequence, it is quite likely
that it was celebrated in that particular location. There are also other artefacts on
display in Butuan that demonstrate that Magellan did, in fact, land there, such as a
piece of balanghai that they believe came from Magellan's ship during his trip. That the
First Mass took place at Masao, Butuan is a possibility, as demonstrated by this
evidence Butuan's response to Limasawa's argument is particularly fascinating to me
since, according to the evidence, this will not be the case until more than 300 years.
However, as we all know, during the first three centuries after Easter mass was first
celebrated in the Philippine archipelago, the inhabitants of Butuan were completely
oblivious to the significance of the day.

We all know that not all first account statements are accurate and certain;
there were second hand accounts for a purpose, as we have seen
throughout history. Historians researched, studied, and examined the
material that was provided. We are very positive that Butuan was the
location of the first mass. There are several factors that might be
questioned, such as the map's accuracy and geographical position.
Furthermore, it is mentioned in Pigafetta's tales that its description was
beneficial on the side of Butuan since it was a rich island, but Limasawa
does not because it was in a region prone to typhoons and floods.
Moreover, the name Limasawa was not included in Albo and Pigafetta's
descriptions; instead, we get the word Mazau, which is much closer to the
word Mazzaua and not Limasawa. On the other hand, it is reasonable to assume
that the term "Mazaua," as recorded in Pigfetta's diary, is a reference to the Masao
people of Butuan. How can the passing of a legislation be considered as a

major evidence if it was not authorized by the executives? Butuan is also

home to a number of gold mines. Besides that, the presence of the
Balanghai boats, which only confirms that the first mass happened in
Butuan, was the most plausible proof that could be found.

https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1134168

https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/handle/2066/113910/
mmubn000001_11677519x.pdf
https://upd.edu.ph/limasawa-vs-butuan-the-first-easter-mass/