College of Arts and Science

TIMELINE OF THE DIFFERENT CONTROVERSIES

IN THE PHILIPPINES

Presented to the Faculty of the

College of Arts and Sciences
Mariano Marcos State University

City of Batac

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements of the Course
SocSc 01- Readings in Philippine History

by

BADUA, KAIZZER AYLE M.

BUMANGLAG, JEREMY MC GRANT M.

JULIAN, JELSEY MAVEN A.

MALTO, MARC ULYSSES B.

QUETURAS, SHEENA MAE

RAI, THEA DANE B.

RAMOS, ANGEL NAREIH C.

SIMOLATA, SANDARA I.

MARCH 2024
 CONTROVERSIES IN THE PHILIPPINES

The history of the Philippines is rich and vibrant, characterized by a different

culture, struggles for independence, and complex socio-political dynamics.
However, within this narrative lie numerous controversies that have shaped
the nation's identity and continue to influence its trajectory. From colonial
oppression to authoritarian rule and ongoing social issues, these controversies
have left indelible marks on Philippine history.

CONTROVERSY TIMELINE BACKGROUND

Site of the first mass 1521-19th century The first ever Easter Mass
in the Philippines – a
landmark in the history
of Philippine Christianity
– was held in 1521 on
the island of Mazaua,
known today as
Limasawa Island, Leyte.
Cavite Mutiny 1872-1896 The Cavite Mutiny was a
short-lived uprising
involving around 200
Filipino troops and
workers at the Cavite
arsenal. It provided the
Spanish authorities with
a pretext to suppress the
emerging Philippine
nationalist movement.
Paradoxically, the
severe response by the
Spanish ultimately
 fueled the growth of the
nationalist cause.
Cry of Pugad Lawin 1896-1898 The Cry of Pugadlawin,
also known as the Cry of
Balintawak, marked the
beginning of the
Philippine Revolution
against Spanish colonial
rule. Led by Andres
Bonifacio, the head of
the Katipunan, Filipinos
tore up their cedulas as
a symbol of defiance
and unity. This event
ignited a series of
uprisings, leading to the
Philippine Revolution
and ultimately,
independence in 1898.
The Cry of Pugadlawin
remains a pivotal
moment in Philippine
history, symbolizing the
nation's struggle for
freedom from colonial
oppression.

Retraction of Rizal 1896 The retraction of Rizal

refers to his choice to
abandon his
membership in the
Masonic order and
reconcile with the
Catholic Church. This
decision was a central
aspect of a legal
dispute in the Philippines
known as the "Noli-Fili"
Law, which mandated
 college students to
study Rizal's novels Noli
me tangere and El
Filibusterismo.
Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. 2016 The burial of Ferdinand
Libingan ng mga Bayani Marcos, who served as
President of the
Philippines for 21 years,
occurred on November
18, 2016, at the Libingan
ng mga Bayani
(Cemetery of Heroes) in
Fort Andres Bonifacio,
Taguig, Metro Manila,
Philippines.
 SITE OF FIRST MASS IN THE PHILIPPINES

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS: SITE OF FIRST MASS IN THE PHILIPPINES

DATE EVENTS/HAPPENINGS
Easter Sunday, this significant event
was conducted by Father Pedro de
Valderrama conducted the first
documented Catholic Mass along
the shores of Mazaua. Antonio
March 31, 1521 Pigafetta, the chronicler of
Magellan's voyage, mentioned this
location in his journals. The location of
this Mass has been a topic of
historical debate, but it is most
commonly associated with the area
referred to as "Mazaua.”
Magellan's expedition sailed
westward from the Islas de los
Ladrones (now known as the Mariana
Islands). They saw land towards the
March 16, 1521 northwest, which they later identified
as “Yunagan”. On the same day,
they anchored at “Suluan”, a small
island that is part of Samar.
While still at sea, the crew spotted a
bonfire, which turned out to be
Mazaua believed to be present-day
March 28, 1521 “Limasawa Island”. They anchored
there.
Historical Debate, filipino historians
 have debated whether “Limasawa”
or “Butuan” was the actual site of this
first Mass. Some argue that “Masao”
19th Century (also known as Mazaua) in Butuan is
the true location based on Pigafetta's
diary. However, the prevailing belief
until at least the 19th century was
that the first Mass occurred in Butuan.
 PERSPECTIVES ON THE CRY OF THE SITE OF FIRST MASS

PERSPECTIVE OF ANTONIO SANCHEZ DE MORA (MAZAUA)

Mora's presentation delved into the historical debate surrounding the

location of the first Christian mass in the Philippines, which occurred during
Ferdinand Magellan's expedition in 1521. He argued that historical
documents from the 16th century confirm that the mass took place on the
island of Mazaua, which is modern-day Limasawa. This assertion contradicts
previous beliefs that the mass occurred near the Agusan River.

The shift in belief towards Limasawa occurred in 1921, following the

publication of a ship pilot's logbook from the Magellan expedition. Despite
initial resistance, subsequent historical panels agreed with this conclusion.

Mora highlighted the confusion with the Butuan tradition, attributing it

to misinterpretations of historical chronicles and missionary efforts in the 16th
and 17th centuries. Fr. Antonio Francisco B. De Castro emphasized that
regardless of the mass's location, effective historical evangelization did not
occur until several decades later.

The researchers analyzed primary sources, particularly the accounts of

Antonio Pigafetta and Francisco Albo, concluding that Pigafetta's detailed
narrative supported the mass's occurrence in Butuan. They recommended
further research to solidify this conclusion.

Historian Sonia Zaide also identified Masao (Mazaua) in Butuan as the

mass's location, based on Pigafetta's diary. This assertion adds weight to the
argument for Butuan as the true site of the first Christian mass in the Philippines.
PERSPECTIVE OF ANTONIO PIGAFETTA AND FRANCISCO ALBO (LIMASAWA)

The first Christian mass in the Philippines is widely believed to have

occurred on March 31, 1521, Easter Sunday, on the island of Limasawa. It was
officiated by Father Pedro Valderrama, marking the beginning of Roman
Catholicism in the country. Despite ongoing debate among historians, many
argue for Limasawa as the location of the first mass, citing accounts from
eyewitnesses like Antonio Pigafetta and Francisco Albo.

Historical narratives emphasize Limasawa's significance in Philippine

Christianity, stating that Magellan landed on nearby Homonhon before
celebrating mass. Pigafetta's journal, "The Voyage of Magellan," provides
detailed descriptions of the events leading to the mass, including the
construction of a cross on a hill overlooking the ocean.

However, some conflicting accounts suggest Butuan as the site of the

first mass. Father Colin and Gian Battista Ramusio mention Magellan
conducting a mass in Butuan, while Father Colin's story places Magellan's
arrival in Cebu in April 1521, casting doubt on the feasibility of returning to
Butuan in time for the mass.

Despite these discrepancies, Republic Act 2733 reinforces the belief in

Limasawa as the original site of the mass. The National Historical Institute (NHI)
cites Pigafetta's account as the most credible evidence supporting this claim,
further solidifying Limasawa's place in Philippine history as the location of the
first Christian mass.
 1872 CAVITE MUTINY

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS: THE CAVITE MUTINY TIMELINE

DATE EVENTS/ HAPPENINGS

January 20, 1872 The Cavite Mutiny began as members of the Filipino
military and workers staged a revolt in Fort San
Felipe, Cavite.

January 22, 1872 Spanish authorities suppressed the mutiny and

arrested numerous Filipino soldiers and workers
involved in the uprising.

February 6, 1872 Gomburza, three Filipino priests, are accused of

inciting the mutiny and arrested.

February 17, 1872 Gomburza is subjected to a sham trial and

subsequently sentenced to death by garrote
February 28, 1872 Gomburza was executed at Bagumbayan (now
Luneta Park) in Manila, sparking public outrage.

The Spanish authorities implemented repressive

March 200-250, 1872 measures, including the exile of prominent Filipino
figures.
The Cavite Mutiny served as a catalyst for the
1872-1896 Philippine nationalist movement, leading to the
eventual outbreak of the Philippine Revolution
against Spanish colonial rule.
 PERSPECTIVES ON THE CAVITE MUTINY

PERSPECTIVE OF DR. TRINIDAD HERMENIGILDO PARDO DE TAVERA

Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar, wrote the

Filipino version of the Cavite Mutiny, claiming it was a mutiny by native Filipino
soldiers and laborers dissatisfied with the abolition of their privileges. Tavera
indirectly blamed Gov. Izquierdo's policies, such as the prohibition of
founding schools of arts and trades for Filipinos, for the mutiny.

On 20th of January 1872, around 200 men, including soldiers, laborers,

and residents of Cavite, assassinated the commanding officer and Spanish
officers. The news reached authorities in Manila, and General Izquierdo
ordered reinforcements. Tavera believed the Spanish friars and Izquierdo
used the mutiny as a powerful lever to overthrow the Spanish government in
the Philippines.

The Central Government in Madrid announced plans to deprive the

friars of powers in civil government and educational institutions. The mutiny
led to the awakening of nationalism and the outbreak of the Philippine
Revolution of 1896.

PERSPECTIVE OF JOSE MONTERO Y VIDAL

The 1872 Cavite Mutiny and the martyrdom of Fathers Mariano Gomes,
Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora (GOMBURZA) are two significant events in
Philippine history.

Jose Montero y Vidal, a Spanish historian, portrayed the event as an

attempt by the Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines.
Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo's official report further emphasized the native
clergy's involvement in the call for secularization. Both accounts cited the
abolition of privileges for workers at Cavite arsenal as the main reasons for the
revolution.

Izquierdo blamed the unruly Spanish Press for spreading malicious

propaganda and urged the native clergy to support the rebels. Both
Spaniards believed the event was planned earlier and was planned by
educated leaders, mestizos, abogadillos, residents of Manila and Cavite, and
the native clergy. They insinuated that the conspirators planned to liquidate
high-ranking Spanish officers and massacre the friars. The execution of
GOMBURZA was a significant factor in the awakening of nationalism among
Filipinos.
 THE CRY OF PUGADLAWIN

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS: THE CRY OF PUGADLAWIN TIMELINE

DATE EVENTS/HAPPENINGS
The Philippine Revolution
commenced with the tearing of
cedulas (residence certificates) by
August 19,1896 supporters of Philippine
independence at a meeting in
Pugad Lawin, led by Andres
Bonifacio.

The event sparked uprisings across

Luzon.
August 23, 1896

Katipuneros stormed San Juan del

Monte's powder magazine, initiating
August 24, 1896
armed conflict.

The Battle of Pinaglabanan between

Filipino rebels and Spanish forces in
San Juan, although resulting in defeat
September 2, 1896 for the Katipuneros, fueled the
revolution.

Bonifacio's "Cry of Pugadlawin" rallied

September 3, 1896 Filipinos to join the cause.

The execution of Jose Rizal intensified

Filipino resistance to Spanish rule,
December 30, 1896
leading to widespread revolt across
the Philippines in 1897.

The Biak-na-Bato Pact signed on

resulted in a temporary suspension of
December 15, 1897
hostilities and the exile of Filipino
leaders.
 Despite the pact, discontent
persisted, culminating in the outbreak
April 23,1898
of the Spanish-American War in April
1898. The war led to the acquisition of
the Philippines by the United States
under the Treaty of Paris.

Emilio Aguinaldo declared Philippine

independence in Kawit, Cavite,
June 12, 1898
establishing the First Philippine
Republic.

American forces conquered Manila,

effectively ending Spanish colonial
August 13, 1898
rule in the Philippines.
 PERSPECTIVES ON THE CRY OF PUGAD LAWIN

PERSPECTIVE OF GUILLERMO MASANGKAY

In August, a significant meeting convened in Balintawak at the

residence of Apolonio Samson, head of the barrio of Caloocan. Led by
Andres Bonifacio and his secretary Emilio Jacinto, the meeting included
leaders of the Katipunan and delegates from various regions. The primary
agenda was to decide on the timing of the uprising. However, opposition
from Teodoro Plata, Briccio Pantas, and Pio Valenzuela arose, advocating
against starting the revolution too early. Sensing potential defeat in the
discussion, Bonifacio left the session and addressed the waiting crowd outside.
He passionately spoke of the oppressive actions of Spanish authorities against
Filipinos. Inspired by his speech, the attendees destroyed their cedulas,
symbolizing defiance, and collectively shouted "Revolt."

PERSPECTIVE OF PIO VALENZUELA

In 1936, Pio Valenzuela, along with Briccio Pantas and Enrique Pacheco,
claimed that the first cry of the revolution didn't occur in Balintawak, as
commonly believed, but in a place called Pugad Lawin. In 1940, the National
Historical Institute identified Pugad Lawin as part of sitio Gulod, Banlat,
Kalookan City. Later, in 1964, it was identified as the house of Tandang Sora.

In 1896, Balintawak served as the initial refuge for Andres Bonifacio,

Emilio Jacinto, Procopio, Teodoro Plata, Agueda del Rosario, and Pio
Valenzuela. A meeting of 500 Katipunan members took place on August 22,
1896, at the house and yard of Apolonio Samson, where various leaders
exchanged views without adopting resolutions.
 On August 23, 1896, over 1,000 Katipunan members gathered at Pugad
Lawin, the house, storehouse, and yard of Juan Ramos, to debate starting the
revolution against the Spanish government on August 29. After the meeting,
attendees tore their cedula certificates and shouted "Long live the
Philippines!"

PERSPECTIVE OF SANTIAGO ALVAREZ

Santiago Alvarez embarked on a journey to Kangkong at night,

enduring rain and traversing muddy fields with his colleagues. They sought
refuge at the house of Apolonio Samson, where they rested and warmed
themselves until morning. Supremo Andres Bonifacio gathered over three
hundred men, armed with various weapons, to guard against enemy attacks.
Feeling restless, Bonifacio decided to relocate to Bahay Toro on August 23,
1896. At Cabesang Melchora's house, their numbers grew to over 500, and
Melchora generously provided food for the Katipuneros. During a meeting
convened by the Supremo, tumultuous shouts of "Long live the Sons of the
People!" echoed after adjournment.
 THE RETRACTION OF RIZAL

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS: THE RETRACTION OF RIZAL TIMELINE

DATE EVENTS/HAPPENINGS
DECEMBER 29, 1896
Rizal was read his verdict by Captain
Rafael Dominguez: To be shot the
next day at 7:00 AM at the Luneta de
6:00 AM
Bagumbayan (Rizal Park).

Rizal was transferred to the chapel

cell adorned by religious images to
convince him to go back to the
7:00 AM Catholic fold. His first visitors were
Jesuit priests Fathers Miguel Saderra
Mata and Luis Viza.
After Fr. Saderra left, Rizal asked Fr.
Viza for the Sacred Heart statuette
7:15 AM which he carved when he was an
Ateneo student.From his pocket the
statuette appears.
Fr. Viza was relieved by Fr. Antonio
8:00 AM Rosell who joined Rizal for breakfast.
Lt. Luis Taviel de Andrade joins them.
Federico Faura, who once said that
Rizal would lose his head for writing
the Noli Me Tangere, arrived, Rizal
9:00 AM
told him, “Father you are indeed a
prophet.”
 Fathers José Vilaclara and Vicente
Balaguer visited Rizal, followed by a
10:00 AM Spanish journalist, Santiago Mataix of
El Heraldo de Madrid, for an interview
Rizal’s time alone in his cell. He had
lunch, wrote Letters and probably
wrote his last poem of 14 stanzas
which he wrote in his flowing
handwriting in a very small piece of
paper. He hid it inside his alcohol
stove. The untitled poem was later
12:00-3:30 PM
known as Mi Ultimo Adios (My Last
Farewell). In its second stanza, he
already praised the revolutionaries in
the battlefield for giving their lives
"without doubt, without gloom.”

Fr. Balaguer visits again and,

according to him, talk to Rizal about
3:30 PM retracting his anti-Catholic writings
and his being a mason.
Rizal was visited by the Dean of the
Manila Cathedral, Don Silvino Lopez
Tuñon. Fathers Balaguer and March
6:00 PM
left Father Vilaclara to be with the
two.

Rizal’s last supper where he informed

8:00 PM Captain Dominguez that he already
forgave those who condemned him.

Rizal was visited by the fiscal of the

9:30 PM Royal Audiencia of Manila, Don
Gaspar Cestaño with whom Rizal
offered the best chair of the cell.
According to accounts, the fiscal left
 with “a good impression of Rizal’s
intelligence and noble character.”

DECEMBER 30, 1896

According to Father Balaguer’s
account, Rizal asked to have
confession, hear mass and be given
Holy Communion. Allegedly he also
3:00 AM signed the document retracting his
anti-Catholic writings and his
membership in masonry.

Rizal Married Josephine Bracken

5:00 AM

Rizal took his last meal. According to

stories told to Narcisa by Lt. Luis Taviel
de Andrade, Rizal threw some eggs in
the corner of a cell for the “poor
5:30 AM rats,” “Let them have their fiesta too.”
Rizal also wrote to his family and to his
brother.

Rizal wrote his father, Francisco

Mercado “My beloved Father,
Pardon me for the pain with which I
repay you for sorrows and sacrifices
for my education. I did not want nor
did I prefer it. Goodbye, Father,
goodbye… Jose Rizal. To his mother,
6:00 AM
he had only these words, “To my very
dear Mother, Sra. Doña Teodora
Alonso 6 o’clock in the morning,
December 30, 1896. Jose Rizal.”

Death march from Fort Santiago to

6:30 AM Bagumbayan begins. 4 soldiers with
 bayoneted rifles lead the procession
followed by Rizal, Taviel de Andrade,
Fathers Vilaclara and March and
other soldiers. They passed by the
Intramuros plaza, then turned right to
the Postigo gate then left at
Malecon, the bayside road now
known as Bonifacio Drive.

Rizal, after arriving on the execution

site at the Luneta de Bagumbayan,
was checked with his pulse by Dr.
Felipe Ruiz Castillo. It was perfectly
normal. Rizal once wrote, “I wish to
7:00 AM show those who deny us patriotism
that we know how to die for our duty
and our convictions.”

With the captain shouting “Fuego!

Shouts rang out from the guns of
eight INDIO soldiers. Rizal, being a
convicted criminal was not facing
the firing squad. As he was hit, he
7:03 AM
resists and turns himself to face his
executors. He falls down and dies
facing the sky.
 PERSPECTIVES ON THE RETRACTION OF RIZAL

PERSPECTIVE OF THE FILIPINOS

PERSPECTIVE OF FR. JESÚS MARÍA CAVANNA Y MANSO

In January 1897, Friedrich Stahl wrote to Ferdinand Blumentritt,

expressing that the reported retraction of Rizal was not widely believed
because no one had actually seen the written declaration, despite many
people wanting to verify its existence.

In a letter dated March 6, 1897, Jose Alejandrino, sent to Filipino

expatriates in Hong Kong, echoed similar sentiments. He conveyed that the
Spanish authorities were attempting to continue persecuting Rizal even after
his death by falsely attributing confessions and retractions to him, actions that
he himself would not have undertaken.

Following the complete takeover of the government by the Americans,

members of the Masonic fraternity and certain followers of Rizal began
openly challenging the truthfulness of the assertion regarding Rizal's retraction.
Manuel Artigas y Cuerva, in the December 29, 1908 edition of El
Renacimiento, labeled the retraction document as “apocryphal.”

PERSPECTIVE OF DR. RICARDO R. PASCUAL

Trinidad, the sister of Rizal, confirmed that following her brother's

passing, the Jesuits extended an invitation to their family to participate in a
Mass dedicated to his eternal peace. The Jesuits assured them that after the
service, they would present the original retraction document. However,
despite this pledge, the promise remained unfulfilled as they bid farewell.
Dr. Pascual, who was authorized by the archbishop to examine the
document, expressed his belief that it would have been preferable if the
document had never been discovered. Pascual conducted a thorough
scrutiny of the document and authored a book questioning its authenticity.
He compared the handwriting in the document with Rizal's other writings from
days preceding his execution, such as “Mi Ultimo Adios,” the letter “To My
Countrymen” dated December 15, 1896, the “Defensa” written on
December 12, 1896, and a dedicatory note found in the book “Imitacion de
Cristo,” which Rizal gifted to Josephine Bracken. Pascual identified
differences in handwriting slants, Rizal's signature, ink usage, font variations,
margin alignment, and individual letter formation. Based on these
observations, he concluded that the purported retraction document was a
forgery, but he was not able to identify the forgers.

PERSPECTIVE OF RAFAEL PALMA

Rafael Palma, a notable Mason and former president of the University

of the Philippines, contested the authenticity of the document, arguing that it
did not align with Rizal's genuine character and convictions. He viewed the
revival of the retraction narrative as a “pious fraud.”
PERSPECTIVE OF THE SPANISH COLONIAL AUTHORITIES

Reasons for Retraction:

1. To save his family and town for further persecution, Rizal may have
been told that he faced the dilemma of signing the retraction or of
having his relatives pursued by further persecutions. Since he hoped his
death would stop the persecution of his relatives, the retraction may
have seemed to him to be the only way of achieving that purpose.
2. To give Josephine a legal status as a wife.
3. To secure reforms from the Spanish Government.
4. To help the church to cut away from the disease which harmed him.

Major Arguments for the Retraction

Affirmative:

1. The Retraction Document discovered in 1935 witness to the reality of

the retraction is considered the chief.
2. The testimony of the press at the time of the event, of “eye witness”,
and other “qualified witnesses”, those closely associated with the
events such as the head of the Jesuit order the archbishop etc.
3. “Acts of Faith, Hope and Charity” reportedly recited and signed by Dr.
Rizal as attested by “witness” and the signed “Prayer book” which was
amongst the documents discovered by Father Garcia along with the
Retraction.
4. Acts of Peity performed by Rizal during his last hours as testified to by
“witness”.
5. His “Roman Catholic Marriage” to Josephine Bracken as attested to by
the witnesses, there could be no marriage without retraction.
Negative:

1. The retraction is said to be a forgery.

2. Several critics have noted differences between the text of the
document found in 1935 and other versions of the Retraction including
the one issued by Father Balaguer.
3. Its content is in part strangely worded, e.g. in the Catholic Religion “I
wish to live and Die,” yet there was little time to live, and also Rizal’s
claim that this retraction was “spontaneous”.
4. There was a confession of the forger. Antonio K. Abad tells how on
August 13, 1901 at a party at his ancestral home in San Isidro, Nueva
Ecija a certain Roman Roque told how he was employed by the friars
earlier that same year to make several copies of a retraction
document.

PERSPECTIVE OF WENCESLAO RETANA

Vida y escritos del Dr. Jose Rizal (Life and writings of Dr. Jose Rizal)
Another argument against the authenticity of Rizal's retraction revolves
around differences between the 1935 document and Fr. Balaguer's version.
Firstly, the 1935 document spells "cualidad" with a "u," whereas Fr. Balaguer's
version spells it "calidad" without the "u." Secondly, Fr. Balaguer's version lacks
the word "Catolica" after "Iglesia," which is present in the 1935 document.
Thirdly, the Jesuits' copy includes the word "misma" before the third "Iglesias,"
which is absent in the 1935 document. Fourthly, in terms of paragraphing, Fr.
Balaguer's version delays the start of the second paragraph until the fifth
sentence, while the 1935 version begins the second paragraph immediately
after the second sentence. Lastly, the 1935 retraction contains 4 commas,
whereas Fr. Balaguer's version includes 11.

Even after World War II, the argument about whether Rizal retracted
continued. It came up again during discussions about the Rizal Law in the
1950s. Some important historians, like Jesuits Horacio de la Costa, John
Schumacher, and Jose Arcilla, believed Rizal did retract. But the Masons still
disagreed and didn't accept the evidence supporting the retraction. Since
no new proof was found, the debates after the war mostly focused on
philosophical ideas and interpretations.
 FERDINAND MARCOS SR.’S BURIAL AT THE LIBINGAN NG MGA BAYANI

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS: MARCOS SR.’S BURIAL AT THE LIBINGAN NG MGA BAYANI

DATE EVENTS/HAPPENINGS
Ferdinand Edralin Marcos is born in Sarrat, Ilocos
September 11, 1917 Norte province.

Marcos is inaugurated as the 10th President of the

December 30, 1965 Philippines.

Marcos imposes martial law nationwide through

September 21, 1972 Proclamation No. 1081. This leads to the
detainment of about 100 personalities, media
shutdowns, flight cancellations, and strict curfews.

Marcos lifts martial law ahead of Pope John Paul

January 17, 1981 II's visit with Proclamation No. 2045.

Millions of Filipinos gather at Edsa to overthrow

February 22, 1986 Marcos

Marcos and his family flee Malacañang for Clark in

February 25, 1986 Pampanga before going into exile in Hawaii.

Marcos dies in Hawaii at age 72, after a long battle

September 28, 1989 with heart, lung and kidney ailments.

(President Fidel Ramos directs Interior Secretary

Rafael Alunan III to represent the government in
 discussing the return of the dictator’s remains to
the country. Four conditions are agreed upon: (1)
The body would be flown straight from Hawaii to
Ilocos Norte; (2) Marcos would be given honors
befitting a major, his last rank in the Armed Forces
of the Philippines; (3) Marcos’ body would not be
paraded in Metro Manila; and (4) There would be
no burial at Libingan ng mga Bayani.)

Marcos’ remains arrive in Laoag City, Ilocos Norte.

No military honors are accorded. Later, his remains
September 7, 1993 are preserved in a crypt at the Marcos mansion
and mausoleum in Batac, Ilocos Norte.

216 members of the House of Representatives led

by Sorsogon Rep. Salvador Escudero III (now
deceased) sign a resolution urging President
March 2011 Benigno Aquino III to allow Marcos’ burial at
Libingan. Aquino declines to comment and
instead orders Vice President Jejomar Binay to
study the proposal.

After conducting a survey by text and e-mail on

the issue in April, Binay recommends to Aquino that
June 2011 Marcos be given full military honors and buried in
Ilocos Norte.

Fulfilling his campaign promise, President Duterte

says he would allow the burial of Marcos at
May 23, 2016 Libingan not because the latter was a hero, but
because he used to be a soldier, adding that the
 contentious issue “has long created a division
among our people.”

Martial law victims, led by former Bayan Muna

Representatives Satur Ocampo and Neri
August 15, 2016 Colmenares, file a petition with the Supreme Court
to stop Marcos’ burial at Libingan.

Coalition Against Marcos Burial, led by former

Commission on Human Rights chair and martial law
August 19, 2016 victim Loretta Ann Rosales, files a petition to stop
the planned burial.

Ninoy Aquino Movement, led by its chair Heherson

August 22, 2016 Alvarez, and other groups file a petition with the
high court to stop Marcos’ burial at Libingan.

Supreme Court issues a 20-day status quo ante

August 23, 2016 order blocking Marcos’ burial at Libingan.

Supreme Court justices zero in on the question

whether Libingan is a cemetery for heroes or a
August 31, 2016 memorial for soldiers during the first day of oral
arguments.

On the second day of oral arguments, presenters

of Marcos’ case claim that Duterte’s move to have
September 7, 2016 the dictator buried at Libingan is a political
decision and the “emotions and feelings of the
victims have no relevance” to the
October 18, 2016 Supreme Court extends the effectivity of the status
 quo ante order until Nov. 8.

The high tribunal, voting 9-5 with one abstention,

November 8, 2016 dismisses the petition filed by anti-Marcos groups
and personalities to block Mr. Duterte’s order.

The Senate fails to adopt Senate Resolution No. 86

by Sen. Risa Hontiveros seeking to express the
sense of the chamber that Marcos was unfit to be
November 14, 2016 buried at Libingan. Eight senators voted for the
resolution, six voted against it while six others
abstained from voting.

Marcos’ body was interred at the Libingan ng

mga Bayani after being flown from Ilocos Norte.
November 18, 2016 The exact date of the burial was never publicly
confirmed prior to Friday, November 18.

According to reports, media who were at the Heroes’ Cemetery

thought that there would be a rehearsal only until Philippine National Police
chief Director General Ronald dela Rosa arrived. He confirmed the burial and
said that the Marcos family requested “simple and private” funeral rites.

As of early afternoon, protests are being organized by groups against a

hero’s burial for Marcos.
PERSPECTIVES ON THE FERDINAND MARCOS SR.’S BURIAL AT THE LIBINGAN NG
MGA BAYANI

PERSPECTIVE OF RODRIGO DUTERTE

President Rodrigo Duterte says the Aquinos and their supporters should
have passed a law banning a hero's burial for the late strongman when they
were still in power. He reiterated his argument that the late strongman
Ferdinand Marcos deserves to be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani
because he is a soldier and a former president.

Duterte said he is not arguing whether or not the former president is a

hero “in the true sense of the word.” President Rodrigo Duterte has broken
with his predecessors and finally ordered the burial of Ferdinand Marcos, the
infamous former Philippine president who died 27 years ago, in a cemetery
reserved for war heroes and eminent individuals.

Duterte's permission to inter Marcos risks causing friction in a nation still

conflicted over the dictator's legacy. A historical commission objected to the
planned burial of Marcos as a war veteran because he lied about receiving
medals from the U.S., which has never recognized his guerrilla unit and rank.

Duterte said burying Marcos at the Libingan Ng Mga Bayani (Heroes'

Cemetery) would heal political divisions and honor Marcos as a World War II
veteran.
PERSPECTIVE OF HON. VICTOR LEONEN

Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos presided over a regime that

caused untold sufferings for millions of Filipinos. Gross violations of human
rights were suffered by thousands. The public coffers contributed to by
impoverished Filipinos were raided. Ferdinand E. Marcos stood by as his family,
associates, and cronies engaged in systematic plunder. The national debt
ballooned during his regime.

Ferdinand E. Marcos is no hero. He was not even an exemplary public

officer. He is not worthy of emulation and inspiration by those who suffer
poverty as a result of the opportunity lost during his administration, by those
who continue to suffer the trauma of the violations to the human dignity of
their persons and of their families. He is certainly not worthy of emulation and
inspiration by those in public service, including the lawyers,
judges, and justices who simply want to do what is right, protect others,
and conscientiously and diligently protect public funds entrusted to them.

Ferdinand E. Marcos was the perpetrator. He is not the "bayani." The

perpetrator cannot be a hero at the same time that his victims are heroes.
This is cruel and illogical. This is impunity. This is an assurance that our People
will suffer the same gross violations of human rights and plunder.
REFERENCES

http//primacyofreason.blogspot.com/2013/06/jose-roza;s-retraction-
controversy.html, accessed January 11, 2017.

1872, January 20. Cavite Mutiny. The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Cavite-Mutiny

2017. Marcos timeline from birth to burial. INQUIRER.NET.

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/845767/marcos-timeline-from-birth-to-
burial/amp?fbclid=IwAR1zIYlLWct_DcliKXIVQYgzjoQaJXfaVZS4h8TgXbW7GeST
KTv6Tvagx8U

2024, March 21. Burial of Ferdinand Marcos. WIKIPEDIA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_of_Ferdinand_Marcos

Cry of Pugad Lawin. WIKIPEDIA.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cry_of_Pugad_Lawin?fbclid=IwAR1ry-
1fnOlq_UGGbuAD6hTZsVMTlaUFvwdo_Kml4vfuYNXrjYMv9Ko7NkE

First Mass in the Philippines - Limasawa: Site of the First Mass Was it really
Limasawa or Butuan? - Studocu. (n.d.). Studocu.
https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/adamson-university/readings-in-
philippine-history/first-mass-in-the-philippines/9598018

"Rizal's Life, Works, and Writings: Their Impact on Our National Identity" by
Gregorio F. Zaide

"Rizal's Retraction: An Expose" by John N. Schumacher, S.J.

"The Trial of Rizal: A Documentary History" edited by Artemio R. Guillermo

What is Retraction of Rizal? SCISPACE. https://typeset.io/questions/what-is-

retraction-of-rizal-2b2nhw4h3f?fbclid=IwAR0m-
nJQkosjGB86j0QDWKdgbe35rRvpKSXADXzFfip2UBNTF_fF1VDQVs4

Cavanna, Jose Ma. 1956. Rizal’s Unfading Glory: A Documentary History of

the Conversion of Dr. Jose Rizal. Manila.

Danao, E. L. (2015, January 23). Where was the first Mass in the Philippines
held? The Manila Times. https://www.manilatimes.net/2015/01/23/featured-
columns/columnists/first-mass-philippines-held/157730

Danao, E. (2015, January 23). Evidences of Limasawa - Where was the first
Mass in the Philippines held? BY EFREN L. DANAO JANUARY. StuDocu.
https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/university-of-cagayan-valley/asian-
cuisine/evidences-of-limasawa/11010007

Flores, M. (2016, August 8). Duterte finally orders burial of Ferdinand Marcos.
NIKKEI Asia. https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Duterte-finally-orders-burial-of-
Ferdinand-Marcos?fbclid=IwAR00vonFuS3dtg6mLr7RAuXtkS
JuLWgw5B00G88cW4oiwpaG61JBS-6ap_w

Gabieta, A. V. M., Joey. (2020, August 21). Limasawa, not Butuan, affirmed as
site of first Mass in PH. INQUIRER.net.
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1325039/limasawa-not-butuan-affirmed-as-site-
of-first-mass-in-ph

Nidoy, Raul. 2013. Reason: Jose Rizal’s Retraction: The Controversy (blog).
June 18.

Office, D. I. (2021, April 19). Limasawa vs. Butuan: the first Easter Mass.
University of the Philippines Diliman. https://upd.edu.ph/limasawa-vs-butuan-
the-first-easter-mass/

Pascual, Ricardo R. 1959. Rizal beyond the Grave. Manila: Luzon Publishing
Corporation.

Regidor, A. (2021, April 16). Limasawa vs. Butuan: the first Easter Mass.
University of the Philippines Diliman. https://upd.edu.ph/limasawa-vs-butuan-
the-first-easter-mass/

Retana, W. E. 1907. Vida y escritos del Dr. Jose Rizal [Life and writings of Dr.
Jose Rizal]. Madrid: Libreria General de Victoriano Suarez.