GEC03 Readings in Philippine History

_________________

Module 1 The Meaning and Relevance of History

Overview

Lesson 1 introduces history as a discipline and as a narrative. It

discusses the limitation of historical knowledge, history as the
subjective process of re-construction, and historical method and
historiography. Lesson 2 presents sources of historical date, the
written and non-written sources of history, as well as the
differentiation of primary and secondary sources of information or
data. Lesson 2 discusses historical criticisms, the external and internal criticisms. It
explains how to evaluate primary and secondary sources materials. These are important
aspects in ascertaining the authenticity and credibility of primary sources upon which
narratives are crafted.

Intended Learning Outcomes

At the end of this module, you should be able to:
1. Define the meaning of history as an academic discipline and to be familiar with the
underlying philosophy and methodology of the discipline
2. Identify the criteria in evaluating primary and secondary sources materials;
3. Assess primary and secondary source materials, and
4. Evaluate materials in terms of authenticity, credibility, and provenance

The word History is referred

A. The Meaning of History usually for account of phenomena,
especially human affairs in
chronological order. There are
History is theories constructed by historians
derived from in investigating history: The
the Greek Factual history and the speculative
word Historia history. Factual history presents
which means readers the plain and basic
Learning by information vis-à-vis the events
inquiry. The Greek philosopher, that took place (what), the time
Aristotle, looked upon history as the and date with which the events
systematic accounting of a set of happened (when), the place with
natural phenomena, that is, taking which the events took place, and
into consideration the chronological the people that were involved
arrangement of the account. This (who). Speculative history, on the
explained that knowledge of derived other hand, goes beyond facts
through conducting a process of because it’s concerned about the
scientific investigation of past events. reasons for which events happed
(why), and the way they happened

1
 2
GEC03 Readings in Philippine History

(how) (Ligan, et.al.2018). it tries to systematic account of past

speculate on the cause and effect of an
event (Cantal, et.al., 2014).
On the other hand, history from
the Filipino perspective term as
kasaysayan, Ambeth Ocampo’s
definition has this to include:
Kasaysayan is rooted in two words
salaysay, which means a narrative or
a story and, more important, saysay
or meaning. In my history classes, I
always propose the working
definition of kasaysayan or history as
a narrative (which can be written,
visual, oral or combination of all
three) about past events that has
meaning to a certain group of people
in a given time and place. These two
components are inseparable. Without
both you cannot have true history
(Ocampo, 2013, p.xii).
events. The concept of
saysay or meaning is a major element for
a narrative to qualify as historical
account. A narrative without meaning to
the group of people will never be history.
To Agoncillo, History is the study
of the relevant past. It is the struggle of
the Filipino people for freedom. While
Constantino, define it as the history of the
inarticulate. Salazar, elicited that:
… itinatakda ng mga elit, na siyang “nag-
aarticulate” ng kung ano ang “relevant past,”
batay sa kanilang pagka-akulturado sa wika-
at-kulturang banyaga. Nakatuon sa
nakaraang politikal (i.e., pagbaka o resistance
sa kolonyalismo, imperyalismo) at hindi sa
mga kultural at pagkalinangang katangiang
Pilipino, dulot hindi lamang ng nabanggit na
sa itaas kundi dahil na rin sa paggamit
lamang ng mga nakasulat n abatis (i.e.,
written sources) na sulat ng mga banyaga.
Hindi gumamit ng mga hindi nakasulat na
batis. Gumagamit ng peryodisasyon umiinog
sa mga “historical markers” ng banyaga;
PreColonial, Colonial, post-colonial;
prehistory, Spanish era, American era,
Japanese period, etc.

History as Reconstruction
Ø History is the systematic
reconstruction and interpretation
of the significant events in the
past based on evidences.
Ø Historians rely on surviving
records.
Ø “Only a part of what was
The eminent historian Zeus
observed in the past was
Salazar from the University of the
remembered by those who
Philippines has this definition “ang
kasaysayan ay isang salaysay na may saysay sa observed it;
mga taong nagsasaysay” o “ang kasaysayan Ø only a part of what was
ayisang salaysay hinggil sa nakaraan na may remembered was recorded;
saysay para sa sinsalsayang pangkat ng tao o Ø only a part of what was recorded
salinlahi” (Navarro, 2000, pp.11-12). Salazar’s has survived;
contribution to the definition of history is
Ø only a part of what has survived
couched on his theoretical frame of pantayong
has come to the historian’s
pananaw, which is monumental for adds to
the simple definition of history as a

2

GEC03 Readings in Philippine History
attention; only a part of what has
come to their attention is credible;
Ø only a part of what is credible has
been grasped, and only a part of what
has been grasped can be expounded
or narrated by the historian.”
Louis Gottschalk, Understanding History
Roles of History in the Past
1. States use history to unite a nation. It
can be used as a tool to legitimize
regimes and forge a sense of
collective identity through collective
memory.
2. Lessons from the past can be used to
make sense of the present. Learning
of past mistakes can help people to
not repeat them.
3. As a narrative, any history that has
been taught and written is always
intended for certain group of
audience.
Questions and Issues in History
Historiography
¬ the history of history. ¬ different
from history’s object of study is the past, the
events that happened in the past and the
causes of such events while historiography’s
object of study is history itself (how was a
certain historical text written? Who wrote it?
What was the context of the publication?
What particular historical method was
employed? What are the sources used? ) ¬
letting students have better understanding of
history because they are provided with the
understanding of the facts and the historian’s
contexts, the methods employed by the
historian and the theory and perspective,
which guided him. ¬ significant for someone
studying history because it teaches the
students to be critical in the lessons of history
presented to him.
One of the problems confronted by
history is the accusation that the history is
always written by victors.
For example, the history of the Second
World War in the Philippines always depicts the
United States as the hero and the Imperial
Japanese Army as the oppressors. Filipinos who
collaborated with the Japanese were lumped in
3
Why do we study History?
In 1998, an article
entitled "Why Study History?", Peter
Stearns made the following observations:
“People live in the present. They plan
for and worry about the future.
History, however, is the study of the
past. Given all the demands that press
in from living in the present and
anticipating what is yet to come, why
bother with what has been? Given all
the desirable and available branches
of knowledge, why insist—as most
American [and, in this case, British]
educational programs do—on a good
bit of history? And why urge many
students to study even more history
than they are required to?”
He also added the following
importance of history:
1. History helps us understand
people and societies.
2. History helps us understand
change and how the society we
live in came to be.
3. History contributes to moral
understanding.
4. History provides identity.
5. Studying history is essential for
good citizenship
B. Sources of Historical Data
What are Sources?
In conducting any
historical research, different sources of
information are required to gain extensive
knowledge on a particular topic. Some
researchers rely on written sources while
others choose to make use of oral sources. No
matter what source is being utilized, it is
important to know which among the
gathered sources can provide accurate details
and information about the historical event or
subject being researched on.
The historian, however, has to use many
materials that are not in books. Where these
are archeological, epigraphical, or
numismatical materials, he has to depend
largely on museums. Where there are official
records, he may have to search for them in
archives, courthouses, government libraries,
etc. where there are private papers not
3

GEC03 Readings in Philippine History
available in official collections, he may have
to hunt among the papers of business houses,
the muniment rooms of ancient castles, the
prized possessions of autograph collectors,
the records of parish church, etc. having
some subject in mind, which more or less
definite delimitation of the persons, areas,
times, and functions (i.e., the economic,
political, intellectual, diplomatic, or other
occupational aspects) involved, be looks for
materials that may have some bearing upon
those persons in that are at the time they
function in that fashion. These materials are
his sources. The more precise his delimitation
of persons, area, time, and function, the more
relevant his sources are likely to be
(Gottschalk, 1969).
It is from historical sources that our
history is studied and written. But in
analyzing them, several methodologies and
theories were used by historians to properly
study history and glean from the sources
what is, for them, a proper way of writing
history to enhance and disseminate national
identify.
Primary versus Secondary Sources
1. Primary sources are the raw materials of
historical research - they are the
documents or artifacts closest to the topic
of investigation.
The following are examples of primary
sources:
1. Autobiographies and memoirs
2. Diaries, personal letters, and
correspondence
3. Interviews, surveys, and fieldwork
4. Internet communications on email, blogs,
and newsgroups
5. Speeches and oral histories
6. Original documents (birth certificates,
property deeds, trial transcripts)
7. Research data, such as census statistics
8. Official and unofficial records of
organizations and government agencies
9. Artifacts of all kinds, such as tools, coins,
clothing, furniture, etc.
10. Government documents (reports, bills,
proclamations, hearings, etc.)
11. Patents
4
2. Secondary sources offer
an analysis or a
restatement of primary sources. They
often attempt to describe or explain
primary sources.
The following are examples of
secondary sources:
1. Bibliographies
2. Biographical works
3. Reference books, including
dictionaries, encyclopedias, and
atlases
4. Articles from magazines, journals,
and newspapers after the event
5. Literature reviews and review articles
(e.g., movie reviews, book reviews)
6. History books and other popular or
scholarly books
7. Works of criticism and
interpretation
8. Commentaries and treatises
3. Tertiary sources - consist of
information which is a distillation and
collection of primary and secondary
sources
The following are the examples
a. Almanacs;
b. Bibliographies (also considered
secondary);
c. Chronologies;
d. Dictionaries and Encyclopedias (also
considered secondary);
e. Directories;
f. Fact books;
g. Guidebooks;
h. Indexes, abstracts, bibliographies
used to locate primary and
secondary sources;
i. Manuals;
Most scholars use the following
questions in evaluating the validity and
credibility of sources of historical accounts.
1. How did the author know about the
given details? Was author present at
the event? How soon was the author
able to gather the details of the events?
2. Where did the information come
from? Is it a personal experience, an
eyewitness account, or a report made
by another person’s?
3. Did the author conclude based on a
single source, or o many sources of
evidence?
4

GEC03 Readings in Philippine History
If the evaluation of an available source
shows any indication that it is an interpretative
work rather than a factual firsthand account, it is
considered as a secondary source. Thus, in
conducting historical researcher, it is important to
identify first whether the available sources are
primary or secondary sources. This is to
determine how reliable and helpful these sources
are.
In historiography, when the study of
history is subject to historical scrutiny, a
secondary source becomes a primary source. For
a biography of a historian, that historian's
publications would be primary sources.
Documentary films can be considered a
secondary source or primary source, depending
on how much the filmmaker modifies the original
sources
Hearsay and Secondary Evidence
When historian can find no primary
witness, he uses the best secondary witness
available. Unlike the lawyer, he wishes to
discover a nearly as possible what happened
rather than who was at fault. If he sometimes has
to make judgments, he does not have to pass
sentence and hence he does not have the same
hesitation as a judge to permit evidence that
practice rules out of courtrooms.
In cases where he uses secondary
witnesses, however, it does not rely upon them
fully. On the contrary, he asks:
1 On whose primary testimony does
the secondary witness base his
statements?
2 Did the secondary witness accurately
report the primary testimony as a
whole?
3 if not, in what details did he
accurately report the primary
testimony?
Satisfactory answers to the second and
third questions may prove the historian with the
whole or the substance of the primary testimony
upon which the secondary witness may be his
only means of knowledge. In such cases the
secondary source is the historian’s “original”
source, in the sense of being the “origin” of his
knowledge. In so far as this “original” source is
an accurate report of primary testimony, he tests
its credibility as he would that of the primary
testimony itself.
Thus, hearsay evidence would not be
discarded by the historian as it would be by a
law court, merely because it is hearsay. It is
5
unacceptable only in so far as
it cannot be established as
accurate reporting of primary testimony. A
single example will perhaps suffice to make
that clear. A White House correspondent
stating what the president had said at a
press conference would be a primary source
of information on the president’s words.
The same correspondent telling a
presidential secretary’s version of what the
president had said would be a secondary or
hearsay witness, and probably would be
successfully challenged in a courtroom and
yet if the correspondent were a skilled and
honorable reporter and if the presidential
secretary were competent and honest, the
correspondent s account might by a
thoroughly accurate statement of what the
president in fact had said. Even the most
punctilious historian might retain that kind
of evidence for further corroboration.
Written sources may be divided into three
types.
1. Narrative - or literary sources tell a
story or message. They are not limited to
fictional sources (which can be sources of
information for contemporary attitudes) but
include diaries, films, biographies, leading
philosophical works, and scientific works.
2. Diplomatic sources - Those which
document/record an existing legal situation
or create a new one, and it is these kinds of
sources that professional historians treated as
the “best” source.
o A legal document is usually sealed or
authenticated to provide evidence
that a legal transaction has been
completed and can be used as
evidence in a judicial proceeding in
case of dispute
3. Social Document - are records
created by organizations, such as registers of
births and tax records.
Non – written Sources of History
1. Material evidence
“archeological evidence
o One of the most important
unwritten evidences.
o Artistic creations such as pottery,
jewelry, dwellings, graves,
churches, roads, and other that tell
a story about the past
2. Oral evidence
5

GEC03 Readings in Philippine History
o Source of information for historians,
told by the tales or sagas of ancient
people. Folksongs or popular rituals
Lesson 3: Historical Criticisms
Historical Criticism
Examines the origins of the earliest
text to appreciate the underlying
circumstances upon which the text came to be
(Soulen & Soulen, 2001). It has two important
goals: 1) to discover the original meaning of
the text in its primitive or historical context
and its literal sense or sensus literalis historicus.
2) to establish a reconstruction of the
historical situation of the author and
recipients of the text. Historical criticism has
two types: external criticism and internal
criticism.
There are two parts of historical
criticism, the first part is to determine the
authenticity of the material, also called
provenance of a source. The critic should
determine the origin of the material, its
author, and the source of information used.
External criticism is used in determining
these facts. The second part is to weigh the
testimony to the truth. The critic must
examine the trustworthiness of the
testimonies as well as determine the
probability of the statements to be true. This
process is called internal criticism or higher
criticism since it deals with more important
matters than the external form.
Problem of Authenticity or
External Criticism1
The problem of authenticity seldom
concerns the sociologist or psychologist or an
anthropologist, who generally has a living
subject under his eye, can see him as he
prepares his autobiography, and can cross-
examine him about doubtful points. Even in
the law courts the question of authenticity of
documents becomes a difficult problem only
1
Lifted from his book Understanding History: a primer
of historical method, New York: Alfred A. Knopf pp.
6
on rare occasions, when the writer or
witnesses to the writing cannot be produced.
But for historical documents these occasions
are not rare. They are in fact frequent for
manuscript sources; and if doubt as to
authenticity arises less often from printed
sources, it is because usually some skilled
editor has already performed the task of
authenticating them.
Test of Authenticity
To distinguish a hoax or a
misrepresentation from a genuine document,
the historian has to use tests that are common
also in police and legal detection. Making the
best guess he can of the date of the document,
he examines the materials to see whether they
are not anachronistic: paper was rare in
Europe before the Fifteenth century, and
printing was unknown; pencils did not exist
there before the sixteenth century;
typewriting was not invented until
nineteenth century; and India paper came
only at the end of that century. The historian
also examines the ink for signs of age or for
anachronistic chemical composition.
Making his best guess of the possible
author of the document, he sees if he can
identify the handwriting, signature, seal,
letterhead, or watermark.
Even when the handwriting is
unfamiliar, it can be compared with
authenticated specimens. One of the
unfulfilled needs of the historian is more of
what the French call “isographies” –
dictionaries of biography giving examples of
handwriting. For some periods of history,
experts using techniques known as
paleography and diplomatic, first
systematized by Mabillon in the seventeenth
118-138. (Source notes and footnotes were
intentionally deleted from this reading.)
6

GEC03 Readings in Philippine History
century, have long known that in certain
regions at certain times handwriting and the
style and form of official documents were
more or less conventionalized. Seals have
been the subject of special study by
sigillographers, and experts can detect faked
ones. Anachronistic style (idiom, orthography,
or punctuation) can be detected by specialists
who are familiar with contemporary writing.
Often spelling, particularly of proper names
and signatures (because too good or too bad
or anachronistic), reveals a forgery as would
also unhistoric grammar.
Anachronistic references to events
(too early or too late or too remote) or the
dating of a document at a time when the
alleged writer could not possibly have been
at the placed designated (the alibi) uncovers
fraud. Sometimes the skillful forger has all
too carefully followed the best historical
sources and his product becomes too
obviously a copy in certain passages; or where,
by skillful paraphrase and invention, he/she
is given away by the absence of trivia and
otherwise unknown details from his/her
manufactured account. Usually, however, if
the document is where it ought to be – for
example in a family’s archives, or among a
business firm’s or lawyer’s papers, or in a
governmental bureau’s record (but not
merely because it is in a library or in an
amateur’s autograph collection) – its
provenance (or its custody, as the lawyers call
it), creates a presumption of its genuineness
(Gottschalk, 1969).
Identification of Author and of Date
Some guess of the approximate date
of the document and some identification of its
supposed author (or, at least, a surmise as to
his location in time and space as this habit,
attitudes, character, learning, associates, etc.)
obviously form an essential part of external
criticism. Otherwise, it would be impossible
to prove or disprove authenticity by
anachronisms, handwriting, style, alibi, or
other tests that are associated with the
author’s milieu, personality, and actions. But
similar knowledge or guesses are also
necessary for internal criticism. Having
established an authentic text and discovered
what its author really intended to say, the
7
historian has only established
what they wetness’s
testimony is. He has yet to determine
whether that testimony is at all credible, and
if so, to what extent. That is the problem of
internal criticism.
The Problem of Credibility or Internal
Criticism
The historian first aims in the
examination of testimony to obtain a set of
particulars relevant to some topic or
question that he has in mind. Isolated
particulars have little meaning by
themselves, and unless they have a context
or fit into a hypothesis they are of doubtful
value. But that is a problem of synthesis,
which will be discussed later. What we are
now concerned with is the analysis of
documents of credible details to be fitted
into a hypothesis or context.
The historian, however, is prosecutor,
attorney for the defense, judge and jury all in
one. But as judge he rules out not evidence
whatever if it is relevant. To him any single
detail of testimony is credible – even if it is
contained in a document obtained by force or
fraud, or is otherwise impeachable, based on
hearsay evidence, or from an interested
witness – provided it can pass four tests:
1. Was the ultimate source of the detail
(the primary witness) able to tell the
truth?
2. Was the primary witness will to tell
the truth?
3. Is the primary witness accurately
reported with regard to the detail
under examination?
4. Is there any independent
corroboration of the detail under
examination?
7

GEC03 Readings in Philippine History
Garraghan (1950) identified six points
of inquiries to evaluate the authenticity of a
primary sources:
1. Date – when was it produced?
2. Localization – where did it
originate?
3. Authorship – who wrote it?
4. Analysis – what pre-existing
material served as the basis for its
production?
5. Integrity – what was its original
form
6. Credibility – what is the evidential
value of its content?
The absence of primary sources
documents that can be attest to the accuracy
of any historical claims, the secondary
sources should not be discredited. As
Gottschalk (1969), emphasized that it is
impossible for historians to avoid using
secondary sources due to difficulty in
accessing primary sources. Most often,
historians depend on secondary sources to
improve their background knowledge of
contemporary documents and detect any
errors they may contain. Specifically,
Gottschalk suggested that secondary sources
must only be used for 1) deriving the setting
wherein the contemporary evidence will fit in the
grand narrative of history; 2) getting leads to other
bibliographic data; 3) acquiring quotations or
citations from contemporary or other sources; 4)
deriving interpretations with a view of testing and
improving them but not accepting them as
outright truth. Historian should be prepared to
verify the information provided by secondary
sources.
8
Martha Howell and Walter
Prevenier (2001) stated that before any source can
be considered as evidence in a historical
argument, it must satisfy three preconditions.
1. It must be comprehensible at the most
basic level of vocabulary, language, and
handwriting. It sets the ground for the
contentions on the acceptability of the
source and all the aspects of the debate.
2. The source must be carefully located in
accordance with place and time. Its
author, composer, or writer, and the
location where it was produced/published
should be noted for the checking of
authenticity and accuracy. One example is
a personal letter which usually indicates
when (date) ad where (Place) it was
written. This information can assist in
corroborating the details of the source
given the whereabouts of its author as
stated in a letter.
3. Through the first two preconditions, the
authenticity of the source must always be
checked and counterchecked before being
accepted as a credible source in any
historical findings. Subtle details such as
the quality of paper used, the ink or the
watermark of the parchment used, the
way it was encoded using a typeface or the
way the tape was electronically coded
should be carefully scrutinized to
check if it was forged or mislabeled by
archivists.
Historians not only evaluate the
sources in terms of external characteristics
that focus on the questions of where, when,
and by whom. They also evaluate in terms of
internal criteria which include seven factors
8

GEC03 Readings in Philippine History
identified by Howell and Prevenier (2001) as
cited by Asuncion and Cruz (2019):
1. The genealogy of the document – refers to
the development of the document. The
document may be original, a copy, or a
copy of the copy;
2. The genesis of the document – includes
the situations and the authorities during
the document’s productions;
3. The originality of the document –
includes the nature of the document
whether it is an eye/earwitness account or
merely passing of
existing information;
4. The interpretation of the document –
pertains to deducing meaning from the
documents;
9
5. The authorship authority
of the document – refers to
the relationship between the document’s
subject matter and its author;
6. The competence of the observer – refers
to the author’s capabilities and
qualifications to critically comprehend
and report
information; and
7. The trustworthiness of the observer –
refers to the author’s integrity – whether
he or she fabricates or reports truthfully.
In general, the reliability of
primary sources is assessed on how
these sources are directly related and
closely connected to the time of the
events they pertain to.
9
 10
GEC03 Readings in Philippine History

Analyzing Primary vs Secondary Sources

The “Acta de Tejeros”

Historical Context of the Documents

Since its founding on July 7, 1892, the Katipunan (Kataas-taasang Kagalang-galangang Katipunan
nang manga Anak nang Bayan) or KKK remained to be an underground organization and had remained
a secret organization until its discovery on August 19, 1896, at a time when Spanish officials and friars
were already hearing rumors and were suspicious about the existence of a rebellious group. The
discovery, which was simply an accident for it happened only because of the petty quarrel between
Apolonio dela Cruz and Teodoro Patiño who worked at the printing press of Diario de Manila and also
members of the Katipunan. The bickering resulted in Patiño confiding to his sister who lived in an
orphanage in Mandaluyong and whose grief made her mother superior to convince Patiño to confide
about the secret organization to Fr. Mariano Gil. The friar-curate was already suspicious about the
existence of the rebel group Patiño’s sister was not actually worried about her brother’s quarrel but
about his participation and membership in an underground rebellious organization. His brother was
then convinced to divulge the secret organization to the suspicious Fr. Gil who brought with him
Spanish guards to raid the printing press and found evidences of the Katipunan in their lockers
(Agoncillo and Guerrero, 1977, p. 195).
The succeeding pages will present the two documents delineating the Katipunan and the
Revolution based on primary and secondary source. Read the two documents, and evaluate the
sources using external and internal criticism.

About the Authors

Santiago Alvarez (a.k.a. Gen. Apoy or Kidlat ng Apoy) was born on July 25,
1872 at Noveleta, Cavite. He was the only child of Gen. Mariano Alvarez
(a.k.a. Gen. Maninam) leader of the Magdiwang faction and Nicolasa
Virata. His parents’ ambition for him was to become a teacher thus he
studied under the tutelage of Antonio Dacon at Imus, later under Ignacio
Villocillo, and then transferred to Tondo under Macario Hernandez. He
was 24 years old when his education was interrupted at the outbreak of
the revolution. He led the revolutionaries in the Battle of Dalahican. He
continued his education after the revolution where he entered UST,
transferred to San Juan de Letran to finish his Bachelor in Arts degree and
eventually earned his law degree at Liceo de Manila (Alvarez, 1977, p. 2).
He was already having his law practice in the 1920s when a new air of
vibrance was blowing in the hope that the Americans would grant the
Philippines its independence come 1921. The hope was drawn from the
promise of the Jones Law of 1916 which stated in the preamble that the US will grant independence upon proof
of the Philippine’s capability to govern itself. The eager anticipation would usher in a new era that would place
the heroic acts of the Revolution of 1896 and the living veterans of the revolution in oblivion. In the preface of
his book, Memoirs of a General, he implied his aim, to make known to the youth the fading struggle of the
revolutionaries and the story of the revolution. Working from his notes, he reconstructed the story of the revo-
lution as a participant-eyewitness. His work was first serialized in Tagalog weekly magazine Sampaguita in 36
parts beginning July 1927. In June 1973, Carolina Malay translated the original Tagalog version into English which
was completed sometime in 1977.

Revolt of the Masses by Teodoro Agoncillo

Born in Lemery, Batangas in 1934
He obtained his AB Philosophy and Master’s degree at UP.
He worked as linguistic assistant at the Institute of National Language
He taught at FEU and MLQU.
After the publication of his seminal works, Revolt of the Masses, the
Crisis of the Malolos Republic, he was invited to teach at the
Department of History at UP where he later became chairman.
He died on January 14, 1985.
He became a national scientist, posthumously.

10
 11
GEC03 Readings in Philippine History

Reading 1: Primary Source

The Katipunan and the Revolution: Memoirs of a General

Extract from The Katipunan and the Revolution: Memoirs of a General by Santiago Alvarez, Trans. By
Paula Carolina S. Malay with introductions by Dr. Ruby Paredes, pp. 3-4,82-89, Copyright © 1992 by
Ateneo University Press and the Center for Southeast Asian Studies.

Preface
As the country moves toward change, the youth become more discerning and discriminating
regarding the competence of authors, especially those of historical writings. They begin to question the
credentials of anyone who dares to write a history of the people or even of mere episodes. They look for
motivations for such writings and inquire about their sources.
Before we look into the period of Philippine history concerning the Katipunan and the Revolution
that I discuss in the following pages, I wish to say a few things about my humble self. I shall be fifty-five
years old on 25 July 1927; I was born in the year 1872 in Noveleta, Cavite. In my early years, I studied under
Macario Hernandez at his school located on Camba Street in Manila. Subsequently, I attended San Juan
de Letran College and the University of Santo Tomas. After the tumultuous cry for national freedom (the
Revolution), I resumed my studies in 1902, at the law school of the Liceo de Manila, and later worked at
the law offices of Felipe Buencamino, Sr., and of R. del Rosario. While working in the latter’s law office, I
earned my law degree.
For five full years, from August 1896 to August 1901, I was one of those who guided the Revolution.
But even before the outbreak of the Revolution, I was already active in the Katipunan as a member and
as a delegate; as such, I was often in the company of the Supremo Andres Bonifacio, Dr. Pio Valenzuela,
and Mr. Emilio Jacinto. We organized chapters and propagated the movement in general. In the process,
I was able to keep some notes about our experiences. As these were written in pencil on ordinary paper,
they are now faded with age and have become difficult to read, especially by people other than myself.
The following narrative, therefore, is not only of an eyewitness but also of active participant.
I am greatly indebted to my colleague and friend, Mr. Lope K. Santos, whose nationalist sentiments
encouraged me to undertake this project. He prodded me into writing these memoirs by arguing that
since I could shed more light on the different facets of the Revolution, I would be doing a service to the
youth, whom he saw as the direct beneficiaries of this work. I myself would prefer that I reconstruct
those events from my notes now instead of somebody else doing it after my death. My notes would
appear disjointed and unclear to anyone else aside from myself, and any attempt to utilize them to write
a historical account of the period would prove of little value.
The events I have related in this account of the Katipunan and the Revolution reverberate with
shouts of “Long live our patriots!” and “Death to the enemy!” These were in answer to the enemy’s
assaults with mausers and cannon, the latter fired from both land and sea.
The Magdiwang government honored me with an appointment as captain general, or head of its
army. Gen. Artemio Ricarte was lieutenant general.
I will now attempt to write down what I saw and what I know about the Katipunan and the
Revolution. First I shall narrate the events relating to the revolution beginning from 14 March 1896; then
I shall deal with the organization and activities of the Society of the Sons of the People (full name:
Kamahalmahalan at Kataastaasang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan [The Most Venerable Supreme
Society of the Sons of the People]). The Katipunan account is based on records which were entrusted to
me by the original founders of the Katipunan.
In the interest of honorable truth, I shall now attempt to write a history of the Katipunan and the
Revolution which I hope will be acceptable to all. However, I realize that it is inevitable that, in the
narration of actual happenings, I shall run the risk of hurting the feelings of contemporaries and
comrades-in-arms. I would like to make it clear that I shall try to be as objective as possible and that it is
far from my intention to depreciate anyone’s patriotism and greatness.
I shall be honored if these memoirs become a worthy addition to what Gen. Artemio Ricarte has
already published in this weekly… (Alvarez)
The Revolution was facing a grave crisis. The Katipunan forces in Cavite were suffering defeat after
defeat with great loss of life. Magdalo territories had passed to Spanish hands after the Battles of
Salitran, Zapote, and Dalahikan. Imus, the rebel capital was in a state of imminent collapse. To strengthen
defenses so that they could stop the Spanish advance into the rest of the province that was still held by

11
 12
GEC03 Readings in Philippine History

the Magdiwang and to forestall the loss of more lives, the Supremo Bonifacio, with the approval of other
revolutionary leaders, called a meeting of the Magdalo and Magdiwang leaders. This meeting, scheduled
for 24 March 1897, was postponed for the next day because of the death of Lt. Gen. Crispulo Aguinaldo,
Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo’s brother, on that day in the Battle of Salitran.
The Magdiwang leaders were waiting for their Magdalo counterparts at the Tejeros friar estate
house, the designated place, long after lunch on that day. They had designated place, long after lunch
on that day. They had to start in the afternoon to allow the usual enemy raids, which came in the
morning, to subside before they ventured out to Tejeros, a village in the municipality of San Francisco de
Malabon. When the Magdalo group finally came at about five in the afternoon, they brought with the
sad news of the death of General Magdalo’s own brother. Heading a small group, General Magdalo
recounted the circumstances of the heroic death of his patriot brother. Then he begged to be excused
to attend to arrangements for his beloved brother’s funeral. Thus, the meeting was put off for the next
day at the same place.
But before dispersing, Secretary of the Treasury Diego Mojica proposed a resolution of
condolence and prayers for patriots who had died heroically like Lt. Gen. Crispulo Aguinaldo. The
Supremo Bonifacio thought this was superfluous and objected to such a resolution. “True love of
country,” the Supremo argued, “and service to the cause of freedom for the Motherland are the noblest
attributes that would ensure one’s place in heaven. Lt. Gen. Crispulo Aguinaldo and the comrades who
died before him are all truly blessed and are now in their respective places in the heavenly kingdom.
Moreover, they will always occupy an honored place in the history of our country.”
The assembly at Tejeros was finally convened on 25 March 1897. The invitations to the meeting were
signed by Secretary Jacinto Lumbreras of the Magdiwang Council, and he presided over the assembly.
Seated with Lumbreras at the long presidential table were the Supremo Andres Bonifacio, Messrs.
Mariano Alvarez, Pascual Alvarez, Ariston Villanueva, Mariano C. Trias, Diego Mojica, Emiliano R. de Dios,
Santiago V. Alvarez, Artemio Ricarte, Santos Nocon, Luciano San Miguel, Pablo Mojica, Severino de las
Alas, and Santiago Rillo, all of them of the Magdiwang. Among the Magdalo seated at the head table
were Messrs. Baldomero Aguinaldo, Daniel Tirona, and Cayetano Topacio.
It must be mentioned that, before the assembly was convened, Secretary of War Ariston Villanueva
of the Magdawang Council received the confidential information that Mr. Daniel Tirona of the Magdalo
faction was set to undermine the proceedings of the assembly and that he had already succeeded in
enjoining many among the Magdiwang leaders to ally with him. Secretary Villanueva kept silent, but
nevertheless alerted Captain General Apoy, who had troops in readiness for any sudden eventuality.
The leaders were seated at the presidential table, as previously described, and all the others were
standing in groups on both sides of those seated. After Chairman Jacinto Lumbreras had declared the
assembly open, he announced the main topic of discussion, which was how to bolster the defenses in
the areas still under Magdiwang control. Presently, Mr. Severino de las Alas rose to speak, and when he
was recognized he said, “Before we discuss minor details, let us first tackle the major issue such as what
kind of government we should have and how we should go about establishing it. Once we make a
decision about these questions, the problem of organization and strengthening of defenses will be
resolved.”
“As initiator of the Revolution,” Chairman Lumbreras replied, “the Katipunan now holds authority
over the islands. It has a government of law and a definite program. It is obeyed and respected by all
because it stands for freedom, brotherly love, and a well-organized and well-run government. The
purpose of this meeting is to discuss the best measures to take to strengthen the Magdiwang
government vis-à-vis the enemy. We should avoid surrendering the headquarters of the Katipunan army
should the Magdalo eventually lose out.”
The chair next recognized the Supremo. He concurred with what Chairman Lumbreras had just said
and explained that the “K” in the middle of the sun in the Katipunan flag used in the Revolution stood
for Kalayaan (freedom).
Mr. Severino de las Alas spoke again. He countered that the letter “K” and the sun on the flag did
not indicate whether the revolutionary government was democratic or not.
The Supremo replied that from the rank and file to the highest levels, the Katipunan was united in its
respect for universal brotherhood and equality of men. It was risking bloodshed and life itself in its
struggle against the king, in order to establish a sovereign and free government. In short, it stood for
people’s sovereignty, not a government led by only one or two.
Mr. Antonio Montenegro spoke in defense of Mr. Severino de las Alas’s stand. He argued that if they
would not agree on the kind of revolutionary government they were to have and that if they were to let
the status quo prevail, then they who were in the Revolution would be no better than a pack of bandits
or of wild, mindless animals.

12
 13
GEC03 Readings in Philippine History

General Apoy was hurt by these words of Mr. Montenegro. He quickly stood up and looked angrily
at the previous speaker.
“We of the Katipunan,” he began, “are under the jurisdiction of our respected Highest Council of the
sons of the People. This Council is the defender of, and has authority over, the Magdiwang and Magdalo
governments of Cavite. We are true revolutionaries fighting for freedom of the native land. We are not
bandits who rob others of their property and wealth. Nor should we be likened to beasts, for we know
how to protect and defend others, especially the political refugees who seek asylum with us. We are
rational and we do not expose those who talk big but do not accomplish anything. If you want to
establish a different kind of government that is to your liking, you must do as we have done. Go back to
your localities and snatch them from Spanish control! Then you can do what pleases you; but don’t you
dare seek refuge among cowards who might call you bandits and beasts. And for everybody’s
satisfaction, I am now ordering you arrested!”
Captain General Apoy stopped speaking and looked intently at the person he was alluding to and
ordered a detachment under Maj. Damaso Fojas to keep him under guard. After a short while, Dr. Jose
Rizal’s sister, Trining, and his widow, Josephine, pleaded with General Apoy not to arrest Mr.
Montenegro, but to let him stay at the estate house where they themselves were staying. They
volunteered to be held personally responsible for Mr. Montenegro while in their custody. Captain
General Apoy easily acceded to the request.
The strong and excited denunciation by Captain General Apoy of Mr. Montenegro alerted the
Magdiwang troops. The leaders eyed everyone suspiciously and were only awaiting a signal from General
Apoy for them to begin shooting. Disorder ensued and disrupted the assembly.
When order was restored, some wanted the convention adjourned, but the Supremo Bonifacio
prevailed upon the others to continue. However, the presiding officer, Mr. Lumbreras, refused to resume
his role of chairman. He wanted to yield the chair to the Supremo whom he thought to be the rightful
chairman.
The Katipunan, as you know,” Mr. Lumbreras explained, “was responsible from the beginning for
the spread of the revolutionary movement throughout the Philippines. But because of the disaffection
of some, this assembly was called to establish a new overall revolutionary council. If we are to pursue
this ambitious and important undertaking, only the Supremo has the right to preside at this assembly,
for he is the Father of the Katipunan and the Revolution.”
Mr. Lumbreras’s speech was well received and his proposal was unanimously accepted. The
Supremo Bonifacio assumed the chairmanship accordingly and said, “Your aim is to establish a new
overall government of the Katipunan of the Sons of the People. This would repudiate the decisions made
at the meeting held at the friar estate house in Imus. In my capacity as President-Supremo” of the Most
Venerable Katipunan of the Sons of the People, I agree and we should respect all decisions properly
discussed and approved in all our meetings. We should respect and abide by the wishes of the majority.”
Because of a repeated clamor for the approval of the establishment of a government of the
Philippine Republic, the chair proceeded to prepare for an election to the following positions: president,
minister of finance, minister of welfare, minister of justice, and captain general.
The Supremo spoke again before the election began. He said that the candidate who would get the
most number of votes for each position should be the winner, no matter what his station in life or his
educational attainment. What should matter was that the candidate had never been a traitor to the
cause of the Motherland. Everyone agreed and there were shouts of approval such as, “That is how it
should be – equality for everyone! Nobody should be higher nor lower than the other. May love of
country prevail!”
The Supremo Bonifacio appointed Gen. Artemio Ricarte as secretary. Then, with the help of Mr.
Daniel Tirona, he distributed pieces of paper to serve as ballots. When the ballots had been collected and
the votes were ready to be canvassed, Mr. Diego Mojica, the Magdiwang secretary of the treasury,
warned the Supremo that many ballots distributed were already filled out and that the voters had not
done this themselves. The Supremo ignored this remark. He proceeded with the business at hand as if
nothing unusual had happened.
When the votes for president were counted, Mr. Emilio Aguinaldo won over Mr. Andres Bonifacio,
the Supremo. The winner was acclaimed by applause and shouts of “Mabuhay!” (Long live!).
Mr. Severino de las Alas spoke again to say that since the Supremo Bonifacio had received the second
highest number of votes for the presidency, he should be proclaimed vice-president of the government
of the Philippine Republic. When nobody signified approval or disapproval of the proposal, the presiding
officer, the Supremo Bonifacio ruled that the election be continued. For vice-president, Mr. Mariano Trias
won over Mr. Mariano Alvarez and the Supremo Bonifacio. General Vibora was elected captain over
General Apoy. General Vibora demurred, saying that he had neither the ability nor the right to assume

13
 14
GEC03 Readings in Philippine History

the new position. But General Apoy cut short his objections by saying that he personally vouched for
General Vibora’s competence and right to occupy the position to which he was elected. General Apoy’s
endorsement was greeted with shouts of “Long live the newly elected captain general!”
Mr. Baldomero Aguinaldo wanted the elections to be finished before it got too dark. To facilitate the
counting of votes, he suggested that for all other positions to be voted upon, voters should stand on
one side of the hall if in favor and on the other side if against. The suggestion was adopted for the rest
of the election. For the position of secretary of war, Mr. Emiliano R. de Dios was elected overwhelmingly
over Messrs. Santiago V. Alvarez, Ariston Villanueva, and Daniel Tirona. After the voters had given the
proper honors to the new secretary of war, they proceeded to elect the secretary of the interior. Mr.
Andres Bonifacio, the Supremo, won over Mr. Mariano Alvarez. The crowd broke into shouts of
“Mabuhay!” Mr. Daniel Tirona requested for a restoration of order and then spoke aloud.
“My brethren, the office of secretary of the interior is of so great a scope and of such sensitivity that
we should not entrust it to one who is not a lawyer. One among us is a lawyer. He is Mr. Jose del Rosario.
Let us reconsider the choice for the last position, for, he has no credentials to show attesting to any
educational attainment.
Then in as loud a voice as he could muster, Tirona shouted, “Let us elect Mr. Jose del Rosario, the
lawyer!”
Greatly embarrassed, the Supremo Bonifacio quickly stood up and said, “We agreed to abide by the
majority vote and accept its choice no matter what the station in life of the person elected. And because
of this, I demand from you, Mr. Daniel Tirona, an apology. You must restore to the voters and the one
they elected the honor you have only now besmirched.”
Then he pulled out his revolver and took aim.
Instead of replying, Mr. Tirona ignored the Supremo’s remarks and, perhaps because of fear, he slid
away and got lost in the crowd. Disorder ensued as the convention secretary tried to disarm the
Supremo, who was intent on shooting Mr. Tirona. The people began to disperse and the Supremo
adjourned the meeting with these words:
“In my capacity as chairman of this convention and as President-Supremo of the Most Venerable
Katipunan of the Sons of the People which association is known and acknowledged by all, I hereby
declare null and void all matters approved in this meeting.”
Then he left quickly and was followed by his aides and some others present.
Mr. Baldomero Aguinaldo, the Magdalo president, did not leave San Francisco de Malabon that
night, in order to convince the Magdiwang leaders to reconvene the disrupted meeting the following
day. They agreed to his proposal. That same night rumor had it that Messrs. Mariano Trias, Daniel Tirona,
Emiliano R. de Dios, Santiago Rillo, and others were in the parish house of the Catholic church at Tanza
(Santa Cruz de Malabon), and that they were conferring with the priest, Fr. Cenon Villafranca. Many
attested to seeing them, but no one knew what they talked about.
On the request of Magdalo Pres. Baldomero Aguinaldo, a meeting was called at the same friar estate
house in Tejeros. Called on the day after the tumultuous convention, its purpose was to continue and
revalidate the proceedings of the election meeting, to revive their former alliances, and to restore
cordiality and fraternal love in their relations. Aside from the Supremo Andres Bonifacio, among the
Magdiwang who attended were Messrs. Mariano Alvarez, Diego Mojica, Ariston Villanueva, Pascual
Alvarez, Jacinto Lumbreras, Santiago Alvarez, Artemio Ricarte, Nicolas Portilla, Santos Nocon, and Fr.
Manuel Trias, the parish priest of San Francisco de Malabon. They waited until five that afternoon, but
none of the Magdalo members came, not even their president who had initiated what would have been
a reconciliation meeting.
That same night it was rumored that the Magdalo leaders were currently holding their own
meeting at the parish house in Tanza. Though it had reason to be apprehensive because the Magdalo
were meeting in territory under its jurisdiction, the Magdiwang leadership looked the other way because
the Magdalo were hard-pressed for meeting places since its territories had all been taken by the Spanish
enemy.
The next morning, 27 March 1897, eyewitnesses who had spied on the proceedings revealed that,
indeed, a meeting had taken place at the Tanza parish house and that the Supremo’s decisions regarding
the election at the friar estate house were not respected. These revelations surfaced despite denials
from many sectors.
At the gathering in the “Tanza parish house, those elected at the Tejeros convention knelt before a
crucifix and in the name of the Holy Father, the highest pontiff of the Roman Catholic church, invoked
the martyred saints and solemnly took their office. F. Cenon Villafranca officiated. With Messrs. Severino
de las Alas and Daniel Tiona as witnesses, the following took their oaths of office: Messrs. Emilio
Aguinaldo, Mariano C. Trias, and Artemio Ricarte. Conspicuously absent was the Supremo Andres

14
 15
GEC03 Readings in Philippine History

Bonifacio, who was not invited although he was one of those elected to office. It will be recalled that as
chairman of the Tejeros convention, he declared null and void all matters approved by the assembly
because of a grave violation of a principle agreed upon before the election.
It should be noted here that, unknown to the Magdiwang Council, the Magdalo posted troops to
guard the Tanza parish house for their oath-taking ceremonies. The troops were under strict orders not
to admit any of unwanted Magdiwang partisans. If the news about the secret ceremony had leaked out
earlier, and the underdogs in the power struggle had attempted to break into it, they would have been
annihilated then and there.
The Spaniards captured and occupied the town of Imus in the afternoon of 25 March 1897. They left
three days afterwards and marched into the San Francisco de Malabon territory up to the village of
Bakaw. When they reached Bakaw, they were intercepted by Mardiwang troops led by Supremo
Bonifacio and General Apoy. A pitched battle ensued. But the Magdiwang initiative was foiled by the
arrival of a great number of enemy reinforcements at the height of the encounter. In the face of such an
unfavorable situation, the Supremo decided on a tactical retreat to their fortifications. General Apoy for
his part, ordered Major Baluyot to rally all other armed units of the Magdiwang army and assign them to
the Tarike fortifications in San Francisco de Malabon.
After the battle, the Spaniards encamped and rested in Bakaw, but throughout the night they were
harassed with potshots from small Katipunan bands.
Anticipating that the enemy encamped at Bakaw would try to penetrate the strong Dalahikan
fortifications in Noveleta from the rear, General Apoy ordered General San Miguel to pull out all troops
from Dalahikan and transfer them to some other fort.
On 3 April, the Supremo made a bid to recapture Noveleta. General Vibora and Gen. Santos Nocon
accompanied him in the offensive, which lasted the whole day. But despite a fierce determination on
their part and heavy enemy losses, they were unable to dislodge the Spaniards.
A few days after the Supremo’s unsuccessful attempt to retake Noveleta, fresh Spanish
reinforcements began arriving in great numbers in the open fields to the west of Bakaw and along the
seashores of Noveleta and Salinas. At nine that morn ing, artillery fire from mountain cannons began
battering the San Francisco de Malabon fortifications, extending from Tejeros to Tarike. A two-hour
shelling was followed by ground attack by cavalry and infantry troops.
After preliminary skirmishes, man-to-man combat broke out at the Tarike fort. It became a fierce
battleground as the rebels made a valiant defense. Every head that emerged from either side was quickly
bashed in or severed at the neck. All that could be heard was the rattle of gleaming blades, the burst of
gunfire, and the thud of bodies as they fell against the earth. Wielding a variety of arms such as spears,
machetes, daggers, revolvers, and rifles, the combatants locked in struggle and fell together. In one
instance, the tip of a bayonet piercing somebody’s middle came out straight through the back of another
who himself had a pointed machete sticking in his chest. In another instance, one who was mortally
wounded by a sharp dagger inflicted killed by the other’s gun. Another pair who fell together each had
bayonet thrusts, one through the navel and the other above the chest. Some had severed heads, others,
severed hands or feet.
General Apoy and the Supremo Bonifacio lost many gallant troops in this bloody and miserable
battle. Among those who died were the valiant Maj. Pio Baluyot and head soldiers Francisco Arnaldo,
Juan Brosas, Lucio Poblete, and Nicomedes Esguerra. The enemy rode roughshod over their bodies as
they rushed into town to raise their flag of victory and to burn houses.
Very early that morning before the battle, Captain General Apoy had visited the Tarike fort to boost
the morale of the Magdiwang and Balara troops. Then at past seven o’clock, they saw the Spaniards
massing a great number of their troops. The commanders of the Magdiwang and the Balara contingents
thought it was the better part of discretion if the captain general was not with them inside the fort when
the expected attack took place. Thus, Major Baluyot and Captain Olaes escorted him across the river to
the west of the town of San Francisco de Malabon.
Gen. Pio Del Pilar and his troops, along with a small detachment from Imus, came to help the defense
of San Francisco de Malabon, but for some unknown reason he withdrew even before the enemy could
attack. He made his withdrawal without notifying those inside the fort.
Coming from Imus and Kawit, the enemy took Noveleta without resistance. They captured the
fortifications and collected Katipunan arms and ammunition. Coming in and spreading out into the open
fields around Imus, Kawit, Noveleta, and San Francisco de Malabon, they overwhelmed the People’s
troops with their sheer number.

15
 16
GEC03 Readings in Philippine History

Reading 2: Secondary Source

16
 17
GEC03 Readings in Philippine History

17
 18
GEC03 Readings in Philippine History

18
 19
GEC03 Readings in Philippine History

19
 20
GEC03 Readings in Philippine History

20
 21
GEC03 Readings in Philippine History

21
 22
GEC03 Readings in Philippine History

22
 23
GEC03 Readings in Philippine History

23
 24
GEC03 Readings in Philippine History

Assessment 4
Comparative Analysis: Primary vs Secondary Sources

Name: ___________________________________ Ratings: _______________

Categories Primary Sources Secondary Source

Memoirs of a General by Santiago Revolt of the Masses by
Alvarez a.k.a Gen. Apoy Teodoro Agoncillo

Author’s
Background

Objective of the
Author

Date written or
published
Mention of
dates

Key
Personalities

24
 25
GEC03 Readings in Philippine History

Thematic
motivation of
authors (why
the Tejeros
meeting
failed?)

Sequencing of
events

25