The Two Faces of the 1872

Cavite Mutiny
Posted on September 5, 2012

THE TWO FACES OF THE 1872 CAVITE MUTINY

By Chris Antonette Piedad-Pugay

The 12th of June of every year since 1898 is a very important event for all the Filipinos. In
this particular day, the entire Filipino nation as well as Filipino communities all over the world
gathers to celebrate the Philippines’ Independence Day. 1898 came to be a very significant
year for all of us— it is as equally important as 1896—the year when the Philippine Revolution
broke out owing to the Filipinos’ desire to be free from the abuses of the Spanish colonial
regime. But we should be reminded that another year is as historic as the two—1872.

Two major events happened in 1872, first was the 1872 Cavite Mutiny and the other was the
martyrdom of the three martyr priests in the persons of Fathers Mariano Gomes, Jose Burgos
and Jacinto Zamora (GOMBURZA). However, not all of us knew that there were different
accounts in reference to the said event. All Filipinos must know the different sides of the
story—since this event led to another tragic yet meaningful part of our history—the execution
of GOMBURZA which in effect a major factor in the awakening of nationalism among the
Filipinos.

1872 Cavite Mutiny: Spanish Perspective

Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian documented the event and highlighted it
as an attempt of the Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines.
Meanwhile, Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo’s official report magnified the event and made use of it
to implicate the native clergy, which was then active in the call for secularization. The two
accounts complimented and corroborated with one other, only that the general’s report was
more spiteful. Initially, both Montero and Izquierdo scored out that the abolition of privileges
enjoyed by the workers of Cavite arsenal such as non-payment of tributes and exemption from
force labor were the main reasons of the “revolution” as how they called it, however, other
causes were enumerated by them including the Spanish Revolution which overthrew the
secular throne, dirty propagandas proliferated by unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and
republican books and pamphlets reaching the Philippines, and most importantly, the presence
of the native clergy who out of animosity against the Spanish friars, “conspired and supported”
the rebels and enemies of Spain. In particular, Izquierdo blamed the unruly Spanish Press for
“stockpiling” malicious propagandas grasped by the Filipinos. He reported to the King of Spain
that the “rebels” wanted to overthrow the Spanish government to install a new “hari” in the
likes of Fathers Burgos and Zamora. The general even added that the native clergy enticed
other participants by giving them charismatic assurance that their fight will not fail because
God is with them coupled with handsome promises of rewards such as employment, wealth,
and ranks in the army. Izquierdo, in his report lambasted the Indios as gullible and possessed
an innate propensity for stealing.

The two Spaniards deemed that the event of 1872 was planned earlier and was thought of it
as a big conspiracy among educated leaders, mestizos, abogadillos or native lawyers, residents
of Manila and Cavite and the native clergy. They insinuated that the conspirators of Manila
and Cavite planned to liquidate high-ranking Spanish officers to be followed by the massacre
of the friars. The alleged pre-concerted signal among the conspirators of Manila and Cavite
was the firing of rockets from the walls of Intramuros.

According to the accounts of the two, on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc
celebrated the feast of the Virgin of Loreto, unfortunately participants to the feast celebrated
the occasion with the usual fireworks displays. Allegedly, those in Cavite mistook the fireworks
as the sign for the attack, and just like what was agreed upon, the 200-men contingent headed
by Sergeant Lamadrid launched an attack targeting Spanish officers at sight and seized the
arsenal.

When the news reached the iron-fisted Gov. Izquierdo, he readily ordered the
reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The “revolution” was easily
crushed when the expected reinforcement from Manila did not come ashore. Major instigators
including Sergeant Lamadrid were killed in the skirmish, while the GOMBURZA were tried by a
court-martial and were sentenced to die by strangulation. Patriots like Joaquin Pardo de
Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa and other abogadillos were suspended by the
Audencia (High Court) from the practice of law, arrested and were sentenced with life
imprisonment at the Marianas Island. Furthermore, Gov. Izquierdo dissolved the native
regiments of artillery and ordered the creation of artillery force to be composed exclusively of
the Peninsulares.

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

fear among the Filipinos so that they may never commit such daring act again, the
GOMBURZA were executed. This event was tragic but served as one of the moving forces that
shaped Filipino nationalism.

A Response to Injustice: The Filipino Version of the Incident

Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher, wrote the
Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite. In his point of view, the incident was a mere
mutiny by the native Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal who turned out to be
dissatisfied with the abolition of their privileges. Indirectly, Tavera blamed Gov. Izquierdo’s
cold-blooded policies such as the abolition of privileges of the workers and native army
members of the arsenal and the prohibition of the founding of school of arts and trades for the
Filipinos, which the general believed as a cover-up for the organization of a political club.
 On 20 January 1872, about 200 men comprised of soldiers, laborers of the arsenal, and
residents of Cavite headed by Sergeant Lamadrid rose in arms and assassinated the
commanding officer and Spanish officers in sight. The insurgents were expecting support from
the bulk of the army unfortunately, that didn’t happen. The news about the mutiny reached
authorities in Manila and Gen. Izquierdo immediately ordered the reinforcement of Spanish
troops in Cavite. After two days, the mutiny was officially declared subdued.

Tavera believed that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a powerful
lever by magnifying it as a full-blown conspiracy involving not only the native army but also
included residents of Cavite and Manila, and more importantly the native clergy to overthrow
the Spanish government in the Philippines. It is noteworthy that during the time, the Central
Government in Madrid announced its intention to deprive the friars of all the powers of
intervention in matters of civil government and the direction and management of educational
institutions. This turnout of events was believed by Tavera, prompted the friars to do
something drastic in their dire sedire to maintain power in the Philippines.

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

welcomed an educational decree authored by Segismundo Moret promoted the fusion of
sectarian schools run by the friars into a school called Philippine Institute. The decree
proposed to improve the standard of education in the Philippines by requiring teaching
positions in such schools to be filled by competitive examinations. This improvement was
warmly received by most Filipinos in spite of the native clergy’s zest for secularization.

The friars, fearing that their influence in the Philippines would be a thing of the past, took
advantage of the incident and presented it to the Spanish Government as a vast conspiracy
organized throughout the archipelago with the object of destroying Spanish sovereignty.
Tavera sadly confirmed that the Madrid government came to believe that the scheme was true
without any attempt to investigate the real facts or extent of the alleged “revolution” reported
by Izquierdo and the friars.

Convicted educated men who participated in the mutiny were sentenced life imprisonment
while members of the native clergy headed by the GOMBURZA were tried and executed by
garrote. This episode leads to the awakening of nationalism and eventually to the outbreak of
Philippine Revolution of 1896. The French writer Edmund Plauchut’s account complimented
Tavera’s account by confirming that the event happened due to discontentment of the arsenal
workers and soldiers in Cavite fort. The Frenchman, however, dwelt more on the execution of
the three martyr priests which he actually witnessed.

Unraveling the Truth

Considering the four accounts of the 1872 Mutiny, there were some basic facts that
remained to be unvarying: First, there was dissatisfaction among the workers of the arsenal as
well as the members of the native army after their privileges were drawn back by Gen.
Izquierdo; Second, Gen. Izquierdo introduced rigid and strict policies that made the Filipinos
move and turn away from Spanish government out of disgust; Third, the Central Government
failed to conduct an investigation on what truly transpired but relied on reports of Izquierdo
and the friars and the opinion of the public; Fourth, the happy days of the friars were already
numbered in 1872 when the Central Government in Spain decided to deprive them of the
power to intervene in government affairs as well as in the direction and management of
schools prompting them to commit frantic moves to extend their stay and power; Fifth, the
Filipino clergy members actively participated in the secularization movement in order to allow
Filipino priests to take hold of the parishes in the country making them prey to the rage of the
friars; Sixth, Filipinos during the time were active participants, and responded to what they
deemed as injustices; and Lastly, the execution of GOMBURZA was a blunder on the part of
the Spanish government, for the action severed the ill-feelings of the Filipinos and the event
inspired Filipino patriots to call for reforms and eventually independence. There may be
different versions of the event, but one thing is certain, the 1872 Cavite Mutiny paved way for a
momentous 1898.

The road to independence was rough and tough to toddle, many patriots named and
unnamed shed their bloods to attain reforms and achieve independence. 12 June 1898 may be
a glorious event for us, but we should not forget that before we came across to victory, our
forefathers suffered enough. As weenjoy our freeedom, may we be more historically aware of
our past to have a better future ahead of us. And just like what Elias said in Noli me Tangere,
may we “not forget those who fell during the night.”

Cadiz and the Liberal constitution: 1810-1814

By 1810 French forces establish control over most of north and central Spain. The leaders of the
nationalist opposition withdraw to relative safety in the south, in Cadiz, where they set up a
newly elected Cortes. It is a radical body in that it accomodates for the first time delegates
representing the Spanish provinces in Latin America. And it provides the first clash between the
two great rival political allegiances of the 19th century, Liberals and conservatives- though in Spain at
this time they are identified as Liberales and Serviles.

The Liberaleseasily prevail in Cadiz, and in 1812 the Cortes passes a thoroughly liberal
constitution.
The constitution of 1812 combines elements from Britain's constitutional monarchy with a strong
dash of the idealism of the American and French revolutions. Suppressing the remnants
of feudalismin Spain and abolishing the Inquisitionmay be popular measures, but steps beyond this -
particularly any designed to reduce the role of the church in Spanish life - are less likely to please
the people. The Cadiz constitution is considerably more radical than most in Spain would wish.

When the events of 1814 permit the return of the king, Ferdinand VII, the condition imposed by
the Cortes is his acceptance of the constitution of 1812.

Read
more:http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=ixw#
ixzz5PT2ZHICK

June 06, 2003

MILAGROS C. GUERRERO
EMMANUEL N. ENCARNACION
RAMON N. VILLEGAS

Nineteenth-century journalists used the phrase “el grito de rebelion” or “the Cry of
Rebellion” to describe the momentous events sweeping the Spanish colonies; in Mexico
it was the “Cry of Dolores” (16 September 1810), Brazil the “City of Ypiraga” (7
September 1822), and in Cuba the “Cry of Matanza” (24 February 1895). In August
1896, northeast of Manila, Filipinos similarly declared their rebellion against the Spanish
colonial government. It was Manuel Sastron, the Spanish historian, who institutionalized
the phrased for the Philippines in his 1897 book, La Insurreccion en Filipinas. All these
“Cries” were milestones in the several colonial-to-nationalist histories of the world.

Raging controversy

If the expression is taken literally –the Cry as the shouting of nationalistic slogans in
mass assemblies –then there were scores of such Cries. Some writers refer to a Cry of
Montalban on April 1895, in the Pamitinan Caves where a group of Katipunan members
wrote on the cave walls, “Viva la indepencia Filipina!” long before the Katipunan decided
to launch a nationwide revolution.

The historian Teodoro Agoncillo chose to emphasize Bonifacio’s tearing of the cedula
(tax receipt) before a crowd of Katipuneros who then broke out in cheers. However,
Guardia Civil Manuel Sityar never mentioned in his memoirs (1896-1898) the tearing or
inspection of the cedula, but did note the pacto de sangre (blood pact) mark on every
single Filipino he met in August 1896 on his reconnaissance missions around
Balintawak.
Some writers consider the first military engagement with the enemy as the defining
moment of the Cry. To commemorate this martial event upon his return from exile in
Hong Kong, Emilio Aguinaldo commissioned a “Himno de Balintawak” to herald
renewed fighting after the failed peace of the pact of Biyak na Bato.

On 3 September 1911, a monument to the Heroes of 1896 was erected in what is now
the intersection of Epifanio de los Santos Avenue and Andres Bonifacio Drive –North
Doversion Road. From that time on until 1962, the Cry of Balintawak was officially
celebrated every 26 August.

It is not clear why the 1911 monument was erected there. It could not have been to
mark the site of Apolonio Samson’s house in barrio Kangkong; Katipuneros marked that
site on Kaingin Road, between Balintawak and San Francisco del Monte Avenue.

Neither could the 1911 monument have been erected to mark the site of the first armed
encounter which, incidentally, the Katipuneros fought and won. A contemporary map of
1896 shows that the August battle between the Katipunan rebels and the Spanish
forces led by Lt. Ros of the Civil Guards took place at sitio Banlat, North of Pasong
Tamo Road far from Balintawak. The site has its own marker.

It is quite clear that first, eyewitnesses cited Balintawak as the better-known reference
point for a larger area. Second, while Katipunan may have been massing in Kangkong,
the revolution was formally launched elsewhere. Moreover, eyewitnesses and therefore
historians, disagreed on the site and date of the Cry.

But the issue did not rest there. In 1970, the historian Pedro A. Gagelonia pointed out:

The controversy among historians continues to the present day. The “Cry of Pugad
Lawin” (August 23, 1896) cannot be accepted as historically accurate. It lacks positive
documentation and supporting evidence from the witness. The testimony of only one
eyewitness (Dr. Pio Valenzuela) is not enough to authenticate and verify a controversial
issue in history. Historians and their living participants, not politicians and their
sycophants, should settle this controversy.

Conflicting accounts

Pio Valenzuela had several versions of the Cry. Only after they are compared and
reconciled with the other accounts will it be possible to determined what really
happened.

Was there a meeting at Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896, after the meeting at Apolonio
Samson’s residence in Hong Kong? Where were the cedulas torn, at Kangkong or
Pugad Lawin?
In September 1896, Valenzuela stated before the Olive Court, which was charged with
investigating persons involved in the rebellion, only that Katipunan meetings took place
from Sunday to Tuesday or 23 to 25 August at Balintawak.

In 1911, Valenzuela averred that the Katipunan began meeting on 22 August while the
Cry took place on 23 August at Apolonio Samson’s house in Balintawak.

From 1928 to 1940, Valenzuela maintained that the Cry happened on 24 August at the
house of Tandang Sora (Melchora Aquino) in Pugad Lawin, which he now situated near
Pasong Tamo Road. A photograph of Bonifacio’s widow Gregoria de Jesus and
Katipunan members Valenzuela, Briccio Brigido Pantas, Alfonso and Cipriano Pacheco,
published in La Opinion in 1928 and 1930, was captioned both times as having been
taken at the site of the Cry on 24 August 1896 at the house of Tandang Sora at Pasong
Tamo Road.

In 1935 Valenzuela, Pantas and Pacheco proclaimed “na hindi sa Balintawak nangyari
ang unang sigaw ng paghihimagsik na kinalalagian ngayon ng bantayog, kung di sa
pook na kilala sa tawag na Pugad Lawin.” (The first Cry of the revolution did not happen
in Balintawak where the monument is, but in a place called Pugad Lawin.)

In 1940, a research team of the Philippines Historical Committee (a forerunner of the

National Historical Institute or NHI), which included Pio Valenzuela, identified the
precise spot of Pugad Lawin as part of sitio Gulod, Banlat, Kalookan City. In 1964, the
NHI’s Minutes of the Katipunan referred to the place of the Cry as Tandang Sora’s and
not as Juan Ramos’ house, and the date as 23 August.

Valenzuela memoirs (1964, 1978) averred that the Cry took place on 23 August at the
house of Juan Ramos at Pugad Lawin. The NHI was obviously influenced by
Valenzuela’s memoirs. In 1963, upon the NHI endorsement, President Diosdado
Macapagal ordered that the Cry be celebrated on 23 August and that Pugad Lawin be
recognized as its site.

John N. Schrumacher, S.J, of the Ateneo de Manila University was to comment on Pio
Valenzuela’s credibility:

I would certainly give much less credence to all accounts coming from Pio Valezuela,
and to the interpretations Agoncillo got from him verbally, since Valenzuela gave so
many versions from the time he surrendered to the Spanish authorities and made
various statements not always compatible with one another up to the time when as an
old man he was interviewed by Agoncillo.
Pio Valenzuela backtracked on yet another point. In 1896, Valenzuela testified that
when the Katipunan consulted Jose Rizal on whether the time had come to revolt, Rizal
was vehemently against the revolution. Later, in Agoncillo’s Revolt of the masses,
Valenzuela retracted and claimed that Rizal was actually for the uprising, if certain
prerequisites were met. Agoncillo reasoned that Valenzuela had lied to save Rizal.
The Pugad Lawin marker

The prevalent account of the Cry is that of Teodoro Agoncillo in Revolt of the masses
(1956):

It was in Pugad Lawin, where they proceeded upon leaving Samson’s place in the
afternoon of the 22nd, that the more than 1,000 members of the Katipunan met in the
yard of Juan A. Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino,…in the morning of August 23rd.
Considerable discussion arose whether the revolt against the Spanish government
should be started on the 29th. Only one man protested… But he was overruled in his
stand… Bonifacio then announced the decision and shouted: “Brothers, it was agreed to
continue with the plan of revolt. My brothers, do you swear to repudiate the government
that oppresses us?” And the rebels, shouting as one man replied: “Yes, sir!” “That being
the case,” Bonifacio added, “bring out your cedulas and tear them to pieces to
symbolize our determination to take arms!” .. . Amidst the ceremony, the rebels, tear-
stained eyes, shouted: “Long live the Philippines! Long live the Katipunan!

Agoncillo used his considerable influenced and campaigned for a change in the
recognized site to Pugad Lawin and the date 23 August 1896. In 1963, the National
Heroes Commission (a forerunner of the NHI), without formal consultations or
recommendations to President Macapagal.

Consequently, Macapagal ordered that the Cry of Balintawak be called the “Cry of
Pugad Lawin,” and that it be celebrated on 23 August instead of 26 August. The 1911
monument in Balintawak was later removed to a highway. Student groups moved to
save the discarded monument, and it was installed in front of Vinzons Hall in the
Diliman campus of the University of the Philippines on 29 November 1968.

In 1962, Teodoro Agoncillo, together with the UP Student Council, placed a marker at
the Pugad Lawin site. According to Agoncillo, the house of Juan Ramos stood there in
1896, while the house of Tandang Sora was located at Pasong Tamo.

On 30 June 1983, Quezon City Mayor Adelina S. Rodriguez created the Pugad Lawin
Historical Committee to determine the location of Juan Ramos’s 1896 residence at
Pugad Lawin.

The NHI files on the committee’s findings show the following:

 In August 1983, Pugad Lawin in barangay Bahay Toro was inhabited by squatter
colonies.• The NHI believed that it was correct in looking for the house of Juan
Ramos and not of Tandang Sora. However, the former residence of Juan Ramos
was clearly defined.• There was an old dap-dap tree at the site when the NHI
conducted its survey I 1983. Teodoro Agoncillo, Gregorio Zaide and Pio
Valenzuela do not mention a dap-dap tree in their books.
 • Pio Valenzuela, the main proponent of the “Pugad Lawin” version, was dead by
the time the committee conducted its research.

• Teodoro Agoncillo tried to locate the marker installed in August 1962 by the UP
Student Council. However, was no longer extant in 1983.

In spite of the above findings and in the absence of any clear evidence, the NHI
disregarded its own 1964 report that the Philippine Historical Committee had
determined in 1940 that the Pugad Lawin residence was Tandang Sora’s and not Juan
Ramos’s and that the specific site of Pugad Lawin was Gulod in Banlat.

The presence of the dap-dap tree in the Pugad Lawin site determined by Agoncillo and
the NHI is irrelevant, since none of the principals like Pio Valenzuela, Santiago Alvarez,
and others, nor historians like Zaide- and even Agoncillo himself before that instance-
mentioned such a tree.

On the basis of the 1983 committee’s findings, the NHI placed a marker on 23 August
1984 on Seminary Road in barangay Bahay Toro behind Toro Hills High School, the
Quezon City General Hospital and the San Jose Seminary. It reads:

Ang Sigaw ng Pugad Lawin (1896)

Sa paligid ng pook na ito, si Andres Bonifacio at mga isang libong Katipunero at

nagpulong noong umaga ng ika-23 Agosto 1896, at ipinasyang maghimagsik laban sa
Kastila sa Pilipinas. Bilang patunay ay pinag-pupunit ang kanilang mga sedula na
naging tanda ng pagkaalipin ng mga Pilpino. Ito ang kaunaunahang sigaw ng Bayang
Api laban sa bansang Espanya na pinatibayan sa pamamagitan ng paggamit ng
sandata.

(On this site Andres Bonifacio and one thousand Katipuneros met in the morning of 23
August 1896 and decided to revolt against the Spanish colonial government in the
Philippines. As an affirmation of their resolve, they tore up their tax receipts which were
symbols of oppression of the Filipinos. This was very first Cry of the Oppressed Nation
against Spain which was enforced with use of arms.)

The place name “Pugad Lawin “, however, is problematic. In History of the Katipunan
(1939), Zaide records Valenzuela’s mention of the site in a footnote and not in the body
of text, suggesting that the Historian regarded the matter as unresolved.

Cartographic changes

Was there a Pugad Lawin in maps or literature of the period?

A rough sketch or croquis de las operaciones practicadas in El Español showed the

movements of Lt. Ros against the Katipunan on 25, 26, and 27 August 1896. The map
defined each place name as sitio “Baclac” (sic: Banlat). In 1897, the Spanish historian
Sastron mentioned Kalookan, Balintawak, Banlat and Pasong Tamo. The names
mentioned in some revolutionary sources and interpretations- Daang Malalim,
Kangkong and Pugad Lawin- were not identified as barrios. Even detailed Spanish and
American maps mark only Kalookan and Balintawak.

In 1943 map of Manila marks Balintawak separately from Kalookan and Diliman. The
sites where revolutionary events took place are within the ambit of Balintawak.

Government maps issued in 1956, 1987, and 1990, confirm the existence of barangays
Bahay Toro, but do not define their boundaries. Pugad Lawin is not on any of these
maps.

According to the government, Balintawak is no longer on the of Quezon City but has
been replaced by several barangays. Barrio Banlat is now divided into barangays
Tandang Sora and Pasong Tamo. Only bahay Toro remains intact.

Writer and linguist Sofronio Calderon, conducting research in the late 1920s on the
toponym “Pugad Lawin,” went through the municipal records and the Census of 1903
and 1918, could not find the name, and concluded that “Isang…pagkakamali… ang
sabihing mayroong Pugad Lawin sa Kalookan.” (It would be a mistake to say that there
is such as Pugad Lawin in Kalookan.)

What can we conclude from all this?

First, that “Pugad Lawin” was never officially recognized as a place name on any
Philippine map before Second World War. Second, “Pugad Lawin “ appeared in
historiography only from 1928, or some 32 years after the events took place. And third,
the revolution was always traditionally held to have occurred in the area of Balintawak,
which was distinct from Kalookan and Diliman.

Therefore, while the toponym “Pugad Lawin” is more romantic, it is more accurate to
stick to the original “Cry of Balintawak.”

Determining the date

The official stand of NHI is that the Cry took place on 23 August 1896. That date,
however, is debatable.

The later accounts of Pio Valenzuela and Guillermo Masangkay on the tearing of
cedulas on 23 August are basically in agreement, but conflict with each other on the
location. Valenzuela points to the house of Juan Ramos in Pugad Lawin, while
Masangkay refers to Apolonio Samson’s in Kangkong. Masangkay’s final statement has
more weight as it is was corroborated by many eyewitnesses who were photographed in
1917, when the earliest 23 August marker was installed. Valenzuela’s date (23 August )
in his memoirs conflict with 1928 and 1930 photographs of the surveys with several
Katipunan officers, published in La Opinion, which claim that the Cry took place on the
24th.

The turning point

What occurred during those last days of August 1896? Eyewitness accounts mention
captures, escapes, recaptures, killings of Katipunan members; the interrogation of
Chinese spies; the arrival of arms in Meycauyan, Bulacan; the debate with Teodoro
Plata and others; the decision to go war; the shouting of slogan; tearing of cedulas; the
sending of letters presidents of Sanggunian and balangay councils; the arrival of civil
guard; the loss of Katipunan funds during the skirmish. All these events, and many
others, constitute the beginning of nationwide revolution.

The Cry, however, must be defined as that turning point when the Filipinos finally
rejected Spanish colonial dominion over the Philippine Islands, by formally constituting
their own national government, and by investing a set of leaders with authority to initiate
and guide the revolution towards the establishment of sovereign nation.

Where did this take place?

The introduction to the original Tagalog text of the Biyak na Bato Constitution states:

Ang paghiwalay ng Filipinas sa kahariang España sa patatag ng isang bayang may

sariling pamamahala’t kapangyarihan na pangangalang “Republika ng Filipinas” ay
siyang layong inadhika niyaring Paghihimagsik na kasalukuyan, simula pa ng ika- 24 ng
Agosto ng taong 1896…

The Spanish text also states:

La separacion de Filipinas de la Monarquia Española, constituyendose en Estado

Independiente y soberano con Gobierno propuio, con el nombre de Repulica de
Filipinas, es en su Guerra actual, iniciada en 24 de Agosto de 1896…

(The separation of the Philippines from the Spanish Monarchu, constituting an

independent state and with a proper sovereign government, named the Republic of the
Philippines, was the end pursued by the revolution through the present hostilities,
initiated on 24 August 1896…)

These lines- in a legal document at that – are persuasive proof that in so far as the
leaders of the revolution are concerned, revolution began on 24 August 1896. The
document was written only one and a half years after the event and signed by over 50
Katipunan members, among them Emilio Aguinaldo , Artemio Ricarte and Valentin Diaz.

Emilio Aguinaldo’s memoirs, Mga Gunita ng Himagsikan (1964), refer to two letters from
Andres Bonifacio dated 22 and 24 August. They pinpoint the date and place of the
crucial Cry meeting when the decision to attack Manila was made:
Noong ika-22 ng Agosto, 1896, ang Sangguniang Magdalo ay tumanggap ng isang
lihim na sulat mula sa Supremo Andres Bonifacio, sa Balintawak , na nagsasaad na
isamng mahalagang pulong ang kanilang idinaos sa ika-24 ng nasabing buwan, at
lubhang kailangan na kame ay mapadala roon ng dalawang kinatawan o delegado sa
ngalan ng Sanggunian. Ang pulong aniya’y itataon sa kaarawan ng kapistahan ng San
Bartolome sa Malabon, Tambobong. kapagkarakang matanggap ang nasabing
paanyaya, an gaming Pangulo na si G. Baldomero Aguinaldo, ay tumawag ng pulong
sa tribunal ng Cavite el Viejo… Nagkaroon kami ng pag-aalinlangan sa pagpapadala
roon ng aming kinatawan dahil sa kaselanang pagdararanang mga pook at totoong
mahigpit at abot-abot ang panghuli ng mag Guardia Civil at Veterana sa mga
naglalakad lalung-lalo na sa mag pinaghihinalaang mga mason at Katipunan. Gayon pa
man ay aming hinirang at pinagkaisahang ipadalang tanging Sugo ang matapang na
kapatid naming si G. Domingo Orcullo… Ang aming Sugo ay nakarating ng maluwalhati
sa kanyang paroonan at nagbalik din na wala naming sakuna, na taglay ang sulat ng
Supremo na may petsang 24 ng Agosto. Doon ay wala naming sinasabing kautusan,
maliban sa patalastas na kagugulat-gulat na kanilang lulusubin ang Maynila, sa Sabado
ng gabi, ika-29 ng Agosto, at ang hudyat ay ang pagpatay ng ilaw sa Luneta. Saka
idinugtong pa na marami diumano ang nahuli at napatay ng Guardia Civil at Veterana
sa kanyang mga kasamahan sa lugar ng Gulod …

(On 22 August 1896, the Magdalo Council received a secret letter from Supremo
Andres Bonifacio, in Balintawak, which stated that the Katipunan will hold an important
meeting on the 24th of the said month, and that it was extremely necessary to send two
representatives or delegates in the name of the said Council. The meeting would be
timed to coincide with the feast day of Saint Bartolomew in Malabon, Tambobong. Upon
receiving the said invitation, our President, Mr. Baldomero Aguinaldo, called a meeting
at Tribunal of Cavite el Viejo…We were apprehensive about sending representatives
because the areas they would have pass through were dangerous and was a fact that
the Civil Guard and Veterans were arresting travelers, especially those suspected of
being freemasons and members of Katipunan. Nevertheless, we agreed and nominated
to send a single representative in the person of our brave brother, Mr. Domingo
Orcullo… Our representative arrived safely at his destination and also returned
unharmed, bearing a letter from the Supremo dated 24 August. It contained no
orders but the shocking announcement that the Katipunan would attack Manila at night
on Saturday, 29 August, the signal for which would be the putting out of the lamps in
Luneta. He added that many of his comrade had been captured and killed by the Civil
Guard and Veterans in Gulod…)

The first monument to mark the Cry was erected in 1903 on Ylaya Street in Tondo, in
front of the house were Liga Filipina was founded. The tablet cites Andre Bonifacio as a
founding member, and as “ Supreme Head of the Katipunan, which gave the first battle
Cry against tyranny on August 24, 1896.”

The above facts render unacceptable the official stand that the turning point of the
revolution was the tearing of cedulas in the “Cry of Pugad Lawin” on 23 August 1896, in
the Juan Ramos’s house in “Pugad Lawin” Bahay Toro, Kalookan.
The events of 17-26 August 1896 occurred closer to Balintawak than to Kalookan.
Traditionally, people referred to the “Cry of Balintawak” since that barrio was a better
known reference point than Banlat.

In any case, “Pugad Lawin” is not historiographically verifiable outside of the statements
of Pio Valenzuela in the 1930s and after. In Philippine Historical Association round-table
discussion in February this year, a great granddaughter of Tandang Sora protested the
use of toponym “Pugad Lawin” which, she said, referred to a hawks nest on top of a tall
sampaloc tree at Gulod, the highest elevated area near Balintawak. This certainly
negates the NHI’s premise that “Pugad Lawin” is on Seminary Road in Project 8.

What we should celebrate is the establishment of a revolutionary or the facto

government that was republican in aspiration, the designation of Bonifacio as the
Kataastaasang Pangulo (Supreme Presiddent), the election of the members of his
cabinet ministers and Sanggunian and Balangay heads which authorized these moves
met in Tandang Sora’s barn near Pasong Tamo Road, in sitio Gulod, barrio Banlat then
under the jurisdiction of the municipality of Kalookan. This took place at around noon of
Monday, 24 August 1896.

It is clear that the so-called Cry of Pugad Lawin of 23 August is an imposition and
erroneous interpretation, contrary to indisputable and numerous historical facts.

The centennial of the Cry of Balintawak should be celebrated on 24 August 1996 at the
site of the barn and house of Tandang Sora in Gulod, now barangay Banlat, Quezon
City.

That was when and where the Filipino nation state was born.